Page 3 of 39 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 967

Thread: Jesus vs. Scientists: Who's Better at Miracles?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by DougKMN View Post
    Indeed. Funny how Xians are so quick to dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory", yet accept gravity and electromagnetism with open arms.....
    You guys love straw men don't you?



  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    yuba city ca
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    My point is most Americans believe in God and an inconsequential number believe that Spider Man is real. Making a comparison between the two is at best pointless.
    and my point is that the number of people who belive it is pointless because it's a fallacy to say otherwise, thus the principle of his analogy can still hold.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Robinhooder3 View Post
    and my point is that the number of people who belive it is pointless because it's a fallacy to say otherwise, thus the principle of his analogy can still hold.
    Of course the number of people that believe something has no bearing on whether that thing is true or not. That is a point you are making not a counter to my point.

    Making a list of entities that we all agree don't exist does not in anyway add credence to your denial of the existence of God. You get that right?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Across The Pond
    Posts
    1,622
    Not possible to have a "Rational" discussion with "Religious People"?
    Because if you could have a "Rational" discussion with "Religious People"
    There would be nothing to discuss??
    i.e. Religious People are not rational...................... ..Period!
    Ne Te Confundant Illegitimi

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by DougKMN View Post
    Indeed. Funny how Xians are so quick to dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory", yet accept gravity and electromagnetism with open arms.....
    Heck no... we dismiss evolution pretty much because after looking at it, studying it, questioning it... unlike others, you pretty much have to come to the conclusion that in my case anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt... that it all happened IN THE MANNER YOU SPEAK... and giving your time line... ok... zillions of years... I've no problem with that, explain how it started. How did LIFE AS WE KNOW IT evolve... You don't know, they don't know so just take a risk here dougie.... and say our Creator set it in motion. And giving you, for the sake of YOUR ARGUMENT, we went from protoplasm or whatever.. its irrelevant to my point... to trilobytes and fish.

    Things happen because they can. This CAN, is because the design permits it to be so.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Sitka View Post
    Not possible to have a "Rational" discussion with "Religious People"?
    Because if you could have a "Rational" discussion with "Religious People"
    There would be nothing to discuss??
    i.e. Religious People are not rational...................... ..Period!
    Hahahaha... you should listen to yourself Religious people at least question.. and base their beliefs on a process of elimination... Rational... Now evolution... you know something for nothing... Irrational wouldn't you say?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    south east mo,Doe Run Mo.
    Posts
    10,398
    Quote Originally Posted by DougKMN View Post


    hehe

  8. #58

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    That's my point. You are making claims that you know the nature of what you don't know.
    But I'm not assuming it's a god/creator. The option is left open, but so are the myriad of other natural options. That's nothing more than intellectual honesty.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    But I'm not assuming it's a god/creator. The option is left open, but so are the myriad of other natural options. That's nothing more than intellectual honesty.
    Well finally....

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by rattus58 View Post
    Well finally....
    Of course, but I don't disregard the mounds of evidence to the contrary either, unlike a certain Hawaiian Rat we all know.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    Of course, but I don't disregard the mounds of evidence to the contrary either, unlike a certain Hawaiian Rat we all know.
    I don't disregard it either Buster... I'm a creationist without the boundaries self imposed by some. I'm not a literalist like maybe I should be. I had a minister who led us to question the Bible.... and it has served me well. So since I question the Bible, it doesn't keep me from questioning evolution either. And I have some pretty basic questions, as do many, about evolution. As a creationist I don't exactly follow the mantra of Intelligent Design that was promoted at the Dover Trial... and in fact, till you brought it up, it was the first time I have heard that depiction of Intelligent design... and if you follow the Dover trial them Flagellum thingys... there is a huge question on the testimony of those trying to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom and I for one, have no sympathy for the matter. The Dover School essentially presented a fraud going in.. and its unfortunate because that set this question back till someone who is schooled in Intelligent design steps forward again... and legally it could be... and the very testimony of your side could be used itself as evidence... amongst the rest.

    Trust me, if had benefitted by some of that intelligence I'd argue the dang thing myself... cuz them Dover People lost it on premise. You have to be honest in what you do to succeed. They weren't.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    http://talkorigins.org/

    I believe that the Dover trial turned out the only way it should have. The facts were on their side and following the Constitution is always a good thing. Our founding fathers were bright men who just fought for their liberty. They seperated the church and state for good reason.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by rattus58 View Post
    As a creationist I don't exactly follow the mantra of Intelligent Design that was promoted at the Dover Trial... and in fact, till you brought it up, it was the first time I have heard that depiction of Intelligent design... and if you follow the Dover trial them Flagellum thingys... there is a huge question on the testimony of those trying to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom and I for one, have no sympathy for the matter. The Dover School essentially presented a fraud going in.. and its unfortunate because that set this question back till someone who is schooled in Intelligent design steps forward again... and legally it could be... and the very testimony of your side could be used itself as evidence... amongst the rest.
    But the IDers stated their case best as they could. They were operating on no evidence. They didn't HAVE any more or a better way to present it. The already shot down Creationism books were even proven to be reskinned ID textbooks that were nearly word for word. These things led to the decisiom that was made.

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...oo_in_dov.html
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Here, Rat. Read some of these. There are good links there to tons of data and observation.

    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...logical_change

    At least do this so we're talking about the same thing here. Disputing things not being claimed makes no sense.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Funky Town USA
    Posts
    30,136
    Quote Originally Posted by IChim2 View Post
    Yes I know....it's the ole...here in the beginning till the end of time.Like Buster said.....convenient
    who says the truth has to be complicated?
    if a woman starts hitting me and won't stop , she's gonna get her lips tapped.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    But the IDers stated their case best as they could. They were operating on no evidence. They didn't HAVE any more or a better way to present it. The already shot down Creationism books were even proven to be reskinned ID textbooks that were nearly word for word. These things led to the decisiom that was made.

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...oo_in_dov.html
    No they didn't... and in fact, they presented a case of Intelligent Design I'd not heard of... so I can't speak to that, but I can tell you, as I went through the Dover trial, I was astounded by the presentation... and half assed, might have been a good description.. but worse, Buster, they perjured themselves, took a direct creationist... ala Religious, publication and changed Creationist to Intelligent Design, essentially, and went to court. Honestly, I'd almost would have thought that it was one of you guys who brought the issue to the school board... in a stroke of genius... You didn't did you?????

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    Here, Rat. Read some of these. There are good links there to tons of data and observation.

    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...logical_change

    At least do this so we're talking about the same thing here. Disputing things not being claimed makes no sense.
    I'm reading this Buster... but hey mon.... you gotta give me words I can pronounce you know..... sheeeeeeesh

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by sticshooter View Post
    who says the truth has to be complicated?
    I would have to think trying to know the nature of an unknowable god/being is much harder to try to learn about than learning about what's is demonstrably real, like the vast universe universe around us. Wouldn't that being be even far more complex than the universe itself if it actually is the creator? Would answering a question, like the origin of the universe, truly be answered by just asserting the existence of something even more complex? It makes the answer to the question harder to find, and probably for no reason. At least try to find out if there even actually WAS a beginning to time and space, because that's still in question. Looking beyond that one thing is pointless now. And I'm cool with not knowing what's beyond that point. I truly believe, at least hope, that humans will know those things at some time in the future, though. But stopping to look for the truth based on some old books or faith wouldn't even get to the facts.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    south east mo,Doe Run Mo.
    Posts
    10,398
    Quote Originally Posted by sticshooter View Post
    who says the truth has to be complicated?
    Idk about the truth part..thats up for grabs.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by rattus58 View Post
    I'm reading this Buster... but hey mon.... you gotta give me words I can pronounce you know..... sheeeeeeesh
    Take your time. Truth is there are a few theistic scientists out there, but most of them believe we evolved. The evidence is there. If you can somehow get your beliefs to fit the facts presented to reconcile the differences, like guys like Ken Miller have, then so be it. Myself, I couldn't look past that for what should be obvious reasons, and therefore I reject all sacred text creation accounts. They just don't fit with the facts that surround us. For me it will take too many mental gymnastics to reconcile these things.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    Quote Originally Posted by rattus58 View Post
    I'm reading this Buster... but hey mon.... you gotta give me words I can pronounce you know..... sheeeeeeesh
    That section just outlines predictions made by evolutionary theory and all are confirmed. Most of those predictions, especially the ones from the 1800s, were made before being confirmed by DNA testing in the last few decades, since they obviously didn't have access to genetic studies.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE US
    Posts
    34,582
    BTW, if I've seemed a bit harsh today....sorry. Been real busy doing stuff (fixing my car and tilling the garden, all while hopped up on too much coffee). Don't mean to be so short all the time.
    Sent via my 1918 Bell hand crank phone

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    south east mo,Doe Run Mo.
    Posts
    10,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    BTW, if I've seemed a bit harsh today....sorry. Been real busy doing stuff (fixing my car and tilling the garden, all while hopped up on too much coffee). Don't mean to be so short all the time.
    What time did you say the BBQ-beer party is.

  25. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster of Xs View Post
    Take your time. Truth is there are a few theistic scientists out there, but most of them believe we evolved. The evidence is there. If you can somehow get your beliefs to fit the facts presented to reconcile the differences, like guys like Ken Miller have, then so be it. Myself, I couldn't look past that for what should be obvious reasons, and therefore I reject all sacred text creation accounts. They just don't fit with the facts that surround us. For me it will take too many mental gymnastics to reconcile these things.
    You know what I'm arguing right? I'm not arguing against change, I'm arguing that change has a design enhancement.. which in that article is sorta alluded to as the genome being somewhat "plastic" I think he sayed... I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but I don't believe that the changes made were made without a pathway that provided for such change. One thing not mentioned, or if it was, I didn't or mis-understood, is change that is beyond subtlties.... like wings. I understand and agree with his/their discussion about rapidity of change.. though I'm not sure about some stuff... 6000 darwins... one of him was enough...

Page 3 of 39 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •