From an email I sent to a friend on religion. Any opinions?

kh65 · May 2008

eyedclaar wrote:

Is that all it takes to be considered a fascist these days. Awesome! I thought I might have to actually initiate a dictatorial philosophy that placed nation and race above the individual... or something. I didn't know it was so easy. Woo-hoo! I'm a fascist! This whole time I thought I was heavily armed environmental nut job. Who knew?

I so love getting under people's skin. It's like my hobby. Some time, for fun, get a couple of friends to get in their cars, get on the highway so each of you are in a lane of your own and line up next to each other. Then ride at the speed limit with the cruise control set so no one can pass and watch the fun.

Cosmo · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

I don't have time for a long technical discussion, but I'll explain a bit of where I'm comming from. I use the law of probability for an understanding of why the earth is in this one optimum position in the milky way with the corresponding laws of the universe supporting it. I can't consider this obvious, pinpoint accurate design for sustenance of life as a mere coincidence. When asked about this subject, most Darwinists sidestep the issue with 'there must be millions of planets like this out there somewhere'. The DVD, ThePrivileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe by
Jay W. Richards, is a good place to start on this topic, IMO. It can be found at http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=204&SubID=&List=all .

I have no real problem with the idea of an old earth, as many Christians hold to a day/age, old-earth belief. It's spontaneous generation and macro-evolution that I see no shred of evidence anywhere for. It's a shame those two doctrines were forced upon students for a number of years. The DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life (can be found at http://www.equip.org is excellent. The DVD does a great job in showing how evolution gives no account for the origin of genetic info for either protein or the flagellar motor assembly. It seems clear to me that a law of probability points to creation being the cause of such sophisticated life. I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind.

...
The Earth at the right distance... orbiting around the right sized star... at this time. This was not always the case... and it will not be in the future.
At some point in time... our Sun is going to die. When it does... Earth will cease to exist. Life on Earth will disapper long before that when the internal engine (the Earth's core) cools.
There is no design here... it is a random occurance of objects moving about in space. We don't know about life on other planets in the whole expanse of time... but, there is a good probability that somewgere else in the Universe, there is a right sized planet orbiting around a right sized star at some time in the future or the past that has the right ingredients for life to occur.

ADD: "The DVD does a great job in showing how evolution gives no account for the origin of genetic info for either protein or the flagellar motor assembly. It seems clear to me that a law of probability points to creation being the cause of such sophisticated life. I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind."
...
That entire Intelligent Design theory about the flagellar motor was dispelled in the case where I.D. went on trial in Dover, PA. Remember? That's the place that Pat Robertson said the people should suffer the wrath of God for their decision.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_220.html
...
"I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind."
I suggest that you take your own advice here.

eyedclaar · May 2008

kh65 wrote:

I so love getting under people's skin. It's like my hobby. Some time, for fun, get a couple of friends to get in their cars, get on the highway so each of you are in a lane of your own and line up next to each other. Then ride at the speed limit with the cruise control set so no one can pass and watch the fun.

You are so not under my skin. I find you laughable.

kh65 · May 2008

eyedclaar wrote:

You are so not under my skin. I find you laughable.

My work here is done.

Kilgore_Trout · May 2008

this thread wouldnt bug me if mikesguitar had posted here on other occassions rather than to simply peddle his religion (and thats not pulling the elite post count BS)... no different than a solicitor in the middle of dinner... my problem is not as much with religion itself as it is obviously a source of hope for many people... but why the fuck do they always feel the need to share it with and persuade everyone??

Matt. 6:5-6
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

i had a friend and bandmate who believed jesus wanted him to quit playing guitar... which he was INCREDIBLE at... so he left the band and literally started talking like he had been brainwashed... he would say how worried he was about my soul and get all self righteous about religious and how glad he was he found jesus... :rolleyes:

mikesguitar... you started this thread asking for OPINIONS... dont turn it into a debate... use it as an opportunity to see something beyond your narrow little POV

if not then take your show over to Africa where you and your missionary friends can continue the christian cultural crusades

Cosmo · May 2008

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Whats the point of arguing about something we know nothing about?.. its cool to discuss and bring up theories, but people who argue about faith are idiots. It even says it in the name, FAITH. Not fact, faith.. that goes for athiests too. If you argue, you are guilty.

...
It becomes an issue when someone wants to legislate faith onto me... on to any other American.
When Christian (or any other religion) wants to force a voodoo science, such as 'Intelligent Design' (a.k.a. 'Creationism'), as a legitimate science in our schools... then, it becomes an issue with me.
The same goes when one religion tries to legislate a law based upon their religious affiliation that we all must obey. It becomes an issue with me. And if you are an American, it should become and issue with you. Any theocracy is not welcomed here... we have several examples of theocracies in this world. You need not look any further than the Middle East.

Collin · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:

Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.

It has design written all over it?

That's a highly subjective view, you start from the assumption that complexity equals divine creation. Why?
I sincerely hope you're not actually comparing physical cosmology to putting a watch in a bag and banging on it with a hammer. Because if you do you might as well admit that you aren't knowledgable about the creation of planets from a scientific view. So again, why can complexity only be a attribute of god?

Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.

Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era.

No one claims Darwin proved something, that his work is a finished one. Of course, scientists will discover new things about human cells, or basically about mankind. That doesn't dismiss the theory of evolution at all. Furthermore, what exactly would replace the theory of evolution? Creationism? Intelligent Design? Hate to burst your bubble but those are not even considered science. Not because of what their theories are but how they came to their theories, how they research their theories... They go against the scientific method. They start from an idea (the bible, creation) and then find evidence (or simply make up evidence) to support their theory. They dismiss what doesn't fit in.

Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.

So? Evidence of what exactly? The only thing that is evidence of; is exactly that. Some cities, buildings etc. really existed. There are millions of works of fiction which have actual places or buildings in them. Doesn't prove anything.

Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.

Fulfilled messianic prophecy: More than a hundred were listed
in the O.T. and Jesus fulfilled them all, including
many he couldn't have possibly controlled: his leg was
not broken by Roman soldiers despite that being the
customary norm for anyone on a cross, a crown of
thorns was placed on his head, his clothes were
gambled for, etc. etc.

You're actually using this as an example? Explain to me how that proves anything or can even be considered evidence.

Bible harmony: There were close to a hundred authors involved
in writing the Bible who were from different races, linguistic barriers,
time periods, regions, and cultures, but a common
gospel theme and total harmony is found from cover to cover. Each book
totally harmonizes with the whole in each aspect. No
claimed Bible contradictions have ever been proven.

No contradictions have been proven, but the point of proving them anyway? Has the bible been proven?

I could go on and will if you want me too.

Anyway, glad you're still posting. I was afraid that all of us atheists might have scared you away

Cosmo · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

...
For starters, can you mention ... a legitimate transitional missing link? What exactly then are you putting your faith in?
...

...
I can.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html
"In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha
Add:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html

Kilgore_Trout · May 2008

no doubt the same people that created this monkey-fish mermaid!

http://static.flickr.com/26/104902902_f620c5ebd2_o.jpg

Cosmo · May 2008

Here is the 'Creationists' (Intelligent Design) explanation of the existance of Dinosaurs:
"DINOSAURS - Every natural history museum in the world today displays large dinosaur models. Their defensive teeth, spikes and claws are often shown extended. As evidence of the prior existence of these kinds of creatures we have a myriad of bones found on multiple continents, footprints buried in sedimentary layers and ... legends. All over the world people remember the dangerous dragons of old. But they slowly went extinct. Men feared and hated them. Stories of ancient encounters with dinosaurs/dragons are found in China, Thailand, including other parts of Asia, and in Roman, Russian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, North, South, and Central America, and across Africa too. Are we so much smarter and more academically inclined than all of our ancestors that we should reject all of their historical records - just to prop up temporary evolutionary theory?

Carbon-14 dating of carbon buried in the same layer with dragon bones helps to confirm that they are really only thousands of years old. The myth-ions and myth-ions of years never happened; only in the past 200 years has it become fashionable to forget our true ancient history (of thousands of years) in favor of God-hating (or: "bumbling-inherently-weak-god") evolution. Evolution requires the belief in long epochs of supposed time and chance improvements.

Dragons and sea monsters have become mostly extinct prior to our modern era. By the way, there is evidence that they grew much larger prior to the Great Flood. Just as humans lived much longer (Genesis records ages of some people to have reached over 900 years!) so a reptile ... living much longer then could have grown much larger before the Flood - which is indeed what we see in the fossil record of the pre-Flood world.

Humans and lions live on Earth at the same time today. But we live in different places. Porpoises will ram sharks that come into their waters. So naturally then they also live in different places - while living at the same time. Why couldn't humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time? They'd probably keep mostly separate and then get buried separately if there was a catastrophe, but this could be theoretically possible, correct? There are at least two places known today with human and dinosaur tracks in the same sedimentary layer: one is in Paluxy, Texas, the other in Eastern Turkmenistan. Plus we have the legends, from all inhabited continents mind you, which should not be automatically discounted. (text by P.A.) "

Ref. http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm

inmytree · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

There's one simple question that
atheists probably hear on a regular basis in one form
or another. If a god didn't 'initially' create matter
and motion, who or what did? In other words, how did
the initial motion and matter begin to exist? That's
the question the arguments all seem to come down to in
the end. Technical arguments about the earth could be made all day by either
side, but unless an atheist at least has an explanation
about the very beginning of matter and motion, then what's the
point in even trying to make a case against creationism?

It seems clear to me that God didn't create a
truth so technically sophisticated that it would take
half a lifetime of text book research to catch a
glimpse of it, even if that was possible. If that was
the case then only the
most scientifically-oriented, intelligent few would be
saved by His gospel (the gospel is the story of
Christ's death and the explanation of it's saving purpose)
and the gospel itself (the thread of the entire
Bible) would be of little importance. Instead, as the
Bible states it, God simply exists and His creation
makes it obvious to all. I believe the Bible teaches
that knowing the truth is only possible by having the
desire to know God (the truth). Being of the Calvinist
persuasion, I believe having this desire is only
possible when God gives it, and gives it only to some.
I can't advocate the Calvinism aspect of the Bible
with total confidence and I could even be wrong about
it. People having this desire to know God and humility
toward God seem to be an intertwining process.
According to the Bible, pride is one of the seven
abominations which God hates, the sin that ushered in
the initial fall (the angelic fall) as well as the
initial fall of man, and is the sin that most often
snared men throughout the Bible. It's no wonder then,
God choosing to unfold a creation story in Genesis
filled with so much wild, almost fantasy-like symbolic
imagery for the proud to scoff at and stumble upon.
I'm not trying to accuse you of being proud. I'm
trying to explain to you a mental pic of God's ways in
relation to mankind and creation.

Opinion...?

At first I'd be pissed a friend would send this to me...then I'd hit the delete button....

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

inmytree wrote:

Opinion...?

At first I'd be pissed a friend would send this to me...then I'd hit the delete button....

It would be interesting to find out what the friend had done to deserve a lecture like that.

Danimal · May 2008

eyedclaar wrote:

I have no problem with that. I'll place my faith in the science and research of a highly educated individual over the Easter Bunny any day. Oh, and science isn't supposed to be open minded per se, so much as it focuses on facts and figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qOS4Q39sg

ClimberInOz · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.

Why is it always argument by analogy on this topic? Why not address the specifics of what we are talking about?

The origin of the universe, not the tendancy of a watch to remain in a non-functional state over time. The two things are not even closely comparable.

The origin of the universe:
Tough to figure out? Yes.
Likely to be completely solved by physics? Probably not, unless we can exist for a very long time, and even then... who knows?
Resolved by introducing a divine creator? Absolutely not. A creator is inherently more complex than the created. The question just becomes bigger. And if you assign an 'infinity clause' to the creator, why not apply Occam's Razor and apply the same clause to the universe (or some cyclic form of it). Cuts an entire concept out of the equation creating a far more parsimonious explanation.

Believe what you want, just don't assume that your explanation is somehow simpler or more elegant than others.

mikesguitar wrote:

Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.

You are propagating one of the most common misconceptions about 'missing link' fossils. That they are not normal fossils. They are. Every one of those billions of normal fossils that you mention are missing links.

Natural selection rarely favours major changes. Instead the theory of evolution describes a very long and gradual series of small changes. Nautilus shells are thought to be currently undergoing a period of rapid evolutionary diversification. And trust me... It aint that exciting! Come back in a few thousand years and you won't be able to see any difference.

It is simplistic and naive to expect fossils to be found that are half way between all of the major groups of organisms. It is also naive to imagine that, given what we know about the low probability of fossil formation, a complete fossil record actually exists, let alone can be found. But enough exists for an accurate, albeit improving understanding of life's history, especially when coupled with genetic evidence. And more specimens will be found, and our understanding of previous evolutionary pathways will continue to improve.

By all means, be happy in your own beliefs about evolution. But I hope that you find the time to do some reading so that you are no longer sprouting misconceptions. After all, evolution is entirely falsifiable. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane once argued, all it would take to disprove evolution is a 'fossilised rabit in the Precambriun'.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Cosmo wrote:

...
So?
My point is that there are many paths towards God... not just yours. You happen to choose the path as outlined in the Bible as interpreted by the doctrine of the Church. It works for you... which I happy for.
It does not mean your way is the only way and it does not mean anyone else has to follow you.

I do my own interpreting of the Bible. I don't rely on the Church. Anyway, if you take the time to throroughly study the other religions you'll find they have irreconcilable contradictions. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not trying to have an attitude. I'm just putting some info out there in case someone wants to check it out, which I believe would benefit them.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Cosmo wrote:

...
The Earth at the right distance... orbiting around the right sized star... at this time. This was not always the case... and it will not be in the future.
At some point in time... our Sun is going to die. When it does... Earth will cease to exist. Life on Earth will disapper long before that when the internal engine (the Earth's core) cools.
There is no design here...

The Bible tells of an end of the world.
That entire Intelligent Design theory about the flagellar motor was dispelled in the case where I.D. went on trial in Dover, PA. Remember? That's the place that Pat Robertson said the people should suffer the wrath of God for their decision.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_220.html
...
"I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind."
I suggest that you take your own advice here.

I don't really see how the info in the DVD could be disproved but I'll check that link out when I get some time.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Hate to burst your bubble but those are not even considered science. Not because of what their theories are but how they came to their theories, how they research their theories...

They go against the scientific method. They start from an idea (the bible, creation) and then find evidence (or simply make up evidence) to support their theory. They dismiss what doesn't fit in.

The info in the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, doesn't start with that presupposition at all. Rather, those scientists came to the point of being open minded to a creator after research which lead them to believe the earth and life were created.

Kilgore_Trout · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

I'm just putting some info out there in case someone wants to check it out, which I believe would benefit them.

awfully bold to assume whats best for a group of people you have never met... its people like you that turn people off of religion in the first place... so if your purpose is to recruit id say youre having the opposite effect

mikesguitar · May 2008

Collin wrote:

It has design written all over it?

That's a highly subjective view, you start from the assumption that complexity equals divine creation. Why?
I sincerely hope you're not actually comparing physical cosmology to putting a watch in a bag and banging on it with a hammer. Because if you do you might as well admit that you aren't knowledgable about the creation of planets from a scientific view. So again, why can complexity only be a attribute of god?

Let's simplify things. Even if matter and motions somehow 'always existed', how did the particles from the big bang form, and more importantly, form such sophistication?

mikesguitar · May 2008

Cosmo wrote:

Here is the 'Creationists' (Intelligent Design) explanation of the existance of Dinosaurs:
"DINOSAURS - Every natural history museum in the world today displays large dinosaur models. Their defensive teeth, spikes and claws are often shown extended. As evidence of the prior existence of these kinds of creatures we have a myriad of bones found on multiple continents, footprints buried in sedimentary layers and ... legends. All over the world people remember the dangerous dragons of old. But they slowly went extinct. Men feared and hated them. Stories of ancient encounters with dinosaurs/dragons are found in China, Thailand, including other parts of Asia, and in Roman, Russian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, North, South, and Central America, and across Africa too. Are we so much smarter and more academically inclined than all of our ancestors that we should reject all of their historical records - just to prop up temporary evolutionary theory?

Carbon-14 dating of carbon buried in the same layer with dragon bones helps to confirm that they are really only thousands of years old. The myth-ions and myth-ions of years never happened; only in the past 200 years has it become fashionable to forget our true ancient history (of thousands of years) in favor of God-hating (or: "bumbling-inherently-weak-god") evolution. Evolution requires the belief in long epochs of supposed time and chance improvements.

Dragons and sea monsters have become mostly extinct prior to our modern era. By the way, there is evidence that they grew much larger prior to the Great Flood. Just as humans lived much longer (Genesis records ages of some people to have reached over 900 years!) so a reptile ... living much longer then could have grown much larger before the Flood - which is indeed what we see in the fossil record of the pre-Flood world.

Humans and lions live on Earth at the same time today. But we live in different places. Porpoises will ram sharks that come into their waters. So naturally then they also live in different places - while living at the same time. Why couldn't humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time? They'd probably keep mostly separate and then get buried separately if there was a catastrophe, but this could be theoretically possible, correct? There are at least two places known today with human and dinosaur tracks in the same sedimentary layer: one is in Paluxy, Texas, the other in Eastern Turkmenistan. Plus we have the legends, from all inhabited continents mind you, which should not be automatically discounted. (text by P.A.) "

Ref. http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm

I'm just curious what your refutation of this is.

From an email I sent to a friend on religion. Any opinions?

Comments

Categories