U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 09-02-2010, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,449,707 times
Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxpwas View Post
I fail to see how knowing about photosynthesis helps to prove either there is or there is not a Supreme Being. Whatever.
The point of it was not to show that belief in any of them proves or disproves the existence of supreme beings. It was to show how you and most other theists are very happy to accept the listed scientific theories as proven and reliable...until it comes to the two theories that conflict with your belief in supreme beings. Then....science becomes unreliable, not to be trusted.

So tell us why you accept all those other scientific theories on the list but reject just the two.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2010, 02:24 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,552,581 times
Reputation: 3624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
Just observed speciation both in the lab and in the field.
And universal phylogeny.
And transitional forms.
And the globally-consistent chronological sorting of fossils in the strata.
And vestigial organs.
And biogeography, both past and present.
And molecular vestiges.
And atavism.
And redundant pseudogenes.
And ontogeny.
And suboptimally-performing organs which favor evolutionary history over function.

And that's just a sampling.

Feel free to articulate your problems with any one of these examples in particular.
Very nicely stated, Voyager. I have now, officially, asked at least 8 or 10 theists to answer a simple question: To Wit:

"Which key element or component of Evolution do you know to be technically wrong or inoperative and, in point form, why?"

To date, (in well over 8 months, BTW...) not a single one of these scientifically illiterate, blustering rote-chanting fear-mongers (IMHO of course....) has ever answered this simple challenge, but they will run on and on with their own obviously ill-advised "facts" and error-filled dogmatic denials.

In other words, they either don't understand even the basics of how it all works, or they surely do know, but realize they'll box themselves into a logically inescapable corner in front of their Christian peers. Then they'll have to turn tail and run, or concede it's a proven fact.

BTW, Christian debaters here: your blurting out that "It's all a stupid myth!" doesn't quite cover it in mature, intelligent debate. Give us the whys and wherefores. Please.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 07:39 AM
 
22,709 posts, read 10,408,008 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Very nicely stated, Voyager. I have now, officially, asked at least 8 or 10 theists to answer a simple question: To Wit:

"Which key element or component of Evolution do you know to be technically wrong or inoperative and, in point form, why?"

To date, (in well over 8 months, BTW...) not a single one of these scientifically illiterate, blustering rote-chanting fear-mongers (IMHO of course....) has ever answered this simple challenge, but they will run on and on with their own obviously ill-advised "facts" and error-filled dogmatic denials.

In other words, they either don't understand even the basics of how it all works, or they surely do know, but realize they'll box themselves into a logically inescapable corner in front of their Christian peers. Then they'll have to turn tail and run, or concede it's a proven fact.

BTW, Christian debaters here: your blurting out that "It's all a stupid myth!" doesn't quite cover it in mature, intelligent debate. Give us the whys and wherefores. Please.
You are dealing with a subset of theists called Young Earth Creationists or evolution deniers, rifle . . . NOT generic theists. I assume you mistyped that last paragragph . . . didn't you mean

"BTW, Atheist debaters here: your blurting out that "It's all a stupid myth!" doesn't quite cover it in mature, intelligent debate. Give us the whys and wherefores. Please."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 08:25 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
7,766 posts, read 3,605,627 times
Reputation: 2492
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad View Post
I would love to know the absolute no evidence for any of this being true part....

also the scientific discoveries which have disproved any of this...

how the time frame it was written in makes it a non-valid source....

please educate me...I am open minded...really...


Then you need to use that "open mind" of yours and do some actual study, not just believe what you wish were true.

Just saying.....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 08:41 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,498 posts, read 7,249,566 times
Reputation: 2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad View Post
You realize that all of that can be attributed to the writer. The intent of the message is the same, regardless of those small semantic differences.

If you want to argue words, then lets look at any 4 books telling the same story about WWII, lets say the batlle of guadalcanal...I am sure we could find 4 such books. Lets find the details of which planes landed on which carrier and how many planes were shot down by the Japanese fleet. I bet we would find descrepancies...does that mean the battle of guadalcanal never took place??

We are talking about 4 stories from different people, written at different times at different places.

Show me where the message of the Bible is different between the Gospels. Show me where the intent of the Gospels is different. I am not tying to glaze over your argument, but my argument is that these minor differences don't amount to anything more than semantics.
This thread is about archaeological proof rather than Higher criticism, so if you want to see the real reasons why the gospels cannot be trusted, I suggest that we have a specific thread on it.

As you say, it's possible to argue that minor discrepancies can all be put down to 'witnesses don't always agree' and, as you argue, that can even be claimed as evidence that they are genuine, as faked accounts would be sure to agree much better.

However, I'll say that these are the main problems.

The nativities are totally contradictory; Matthew's is set in Herod's reign and Luke's after Herod had died and his son was deposed. The massacre of the innocents never happened and Matthew's account is absurd anyway.

The genealogies disagree, one being reckoned through Nathan and the other through Solomon and don't give me 'Line of Mary' stuff. BOTH are stated as Joseph's line.

In John, Jesus attracts his first disciples when he is baptised. This contradicts the synoptic accounts which make it seem that Jesus first recruits those same disciples in galilee. That's quite apart from Luke's whacky addition of the miraculous haul of fish which John uses at the very end of his account after the resurrection. You can see where this is going, of course.

That account is further contradicted by John sending messengers to ask whether Jesus is 'The one' which is absurd as John grovels in recognition of Jesus back at the Jordan. Further Matthew 16.17 has Jesus saying that heaven had revealed Jesus' messiahship to Simon. It wasn't of course. John says that the Baptist had revealed it. Understandable eyewitness discrepancies or slips through commentators with varying ideas and agendas?

Because the synoptics are not three eyewitnesses recounting their memories. They are all working from a common original text, the wording and sequence of which wording is seen continually through the overlay of evangelical commentary.

John too has a written account which he messes around. The Temple bust up is ripped wholesale from John 12 - 20 and shifted to before the baptism. The Sermon on the mount (Luke places it on a 'level place') does not appear in John and Luke removes the 'Lords prayer' from here and has it taught to the disciples much later in his much expanded trip to Jerusalem.

He also moves the Bethany famly and the 'anointing' from where they should be. He makes up parables which are memorable enough to be recalled by Matthew and Mark but are not even hinted at and John doesn't remember any parables but does recall long sermons.

Isn't it obvious that this is all their own work?

Jesus' wrangles with the Pharisees are not convincing either. His anti sabbath arguments do not stand up, especially the David's shewbread nonsense. Luke's atempted stoning in the Nazareth synagogue is not mentioned by Mark, Matthew or John and Nazareth didn't exist anyway - not so as to have a decent - sized synagogue. So it isn't true, like so much gospel material.

Matthew's sinking Simon, memorable event though it is. is not found anywhere else, nor the the shekel - eating fish and for that matter Simon being appointed the first Pope. This is all Matthew's own work as the parables are Luke's own work and the sermons John's own work.

Skipping over the double feeding of the thousands and the trip to Phoenecia, we just note that the synoptics cannot decide whether the swine are from Gerash or Gadara and Mark has got all the trips across Lake galilee back to front. These people were no eyewitness followers of Jesus.

Luke remarkably doesn't know about the walking on the water but he does know about the transfigurarion which John has never heard of. All John knows is that Jesus 'escaped' into the hills because the people wanted to make him a king by force.

There are a lot of problems with the passion week - too many to go into, except that John has Joseph Caiaphas of all people empowered with the gift of prophecy. Antipas of course is not involved in Jesus' trial. It is impossible that Jesus could have been dragged from the Praetorium (in the Antonia fortress) to the Herodian palace against the West wall without everyone coming to know of it. I won't go into the crucifixion problems or Matthew's unlikely guard and absurd decending angel, but the resurrection accounts have Jesus running slap bang into the marys before they report to the disciples, whereas Luke says specifically that the women did not see Jesus, and they only way that Cleophas could know that is if he heard the women report. Further Luke says that Jesus had appeared to Simon and none of the other evangelists comment on this and even Luke doesn't give details. The reason is that he's using Paul's list of appearances first to Simon then the others and finally to himself. These are appearances in the head, not in the flesh.

Luke tweaks the angel's message from Jesus going to Galilee to what Jesus said in Galilee. Blatant and symptomatic emendation of text and the reason is that in Luke the disciples stay put; they don't go anywhere.

You see what's going on. I'm not just pointing up discrepancies and contradictions to discredit the gospels but to understand how and why they came about. This is quite enough but there's much more.

As I say, this is not the place for redaction criticism much less an evolution debate but I'd be glad to go into it in a relevant thread.

Of course you can just shrug it all off. You wouldn't be the first.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 09:51 PM
 
688 posts, read 767,679 times
Reputation: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
BS?? I don't think so. In fact, I don't know you at all but I would bet a lot of money that it describes you exactly. You live your everyday life believing that all but two of those things listed are true, proven and reliable. You rely on them and trust them implicitly when you drive your car, watch TV, use your computer, fly in aeroplanes, drive over bridges, heat your meals in a microwave and receive medical attention etc but, when it come to the ToE or BB, you dismiss it out of hand as nonsense.
Evolution may be one thing, but to believe everything in the Universe came literally from nothing (no offense, Mr. Hawking, but I don't agree with you on this one) takes more faith to believe in than a Supreme Being created, or at least had a hand in creating, the Universe. I could believe in Superman (or Superfly) flying overhead or in Batman or Wonder Woman or Aquaman or Space Ghost or Wendy, Marvin, and Wonderdog easier than the "Big Bang" Theory. Forget the b.s. mathematical statistics (you can use math, often exact same statistics to either prove or dispove something) and the philosophy, how something came from nothing makes no sense to me whatsoever, and that has nothing to do whether the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, or Indian Medicine Man tenents or whatever is true or not.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,362 posts, read 17,381,451 times
Reputation: 9783
Good Gawd...How many times must it be said that science or Steven Hawking do NOT say that the universe came from nothing...It is the theist that says God created it from nothing...The mystery to me is who, or what created God, and was god created out of nothing?

What makes me think you are a religious person?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:37 PM
 
688 posts, read 767,679 times
Reputation: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Good Gawd...How many times must it be said that science or Steven Hawking do NOT say that the universe came from nothing...It is the theist that says God created it from nothing...The mystery to me is who, or what created God, and was god created out of nothing?

What makes me think you are a religious person?
Well, if you read Yahoo from earlier today, he said exactly that. "Because their is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:52 PM
 
688 posts, read 767,679 times
Reputation: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Good Gawd...How many times must it be said that science or Steven Hawking do NOT say that the universe came from nothing...It is the theist that says God created it from nothing...The mystery to me is who, or what created God, and was god created out of nothing?

What makes me think you are a religious person?
The point I have been trying to make is it seems like a lot of people on here that are supposedly athiest or agnostic seem to be condescending and arrogant toward anyone that has any type of religious belief or faith of any kind, that isn't hard core "provable science" in a test tube or computer data. No, I'm no theologian, nor am an archeologist, but I have my beliefs, irrational or illogical however you might think of them, and they have served me well throughout my life. I'm no Buddhist, but I'm not gonna diss them because their idea of spirituality is different from mine, nor am I going to diss the Jews, Muslims, voodoo practitioners, animists, Hindus, Native American faiths, whatever, they have their beliefs. I am a Protestant Christian, though by no means the best example of a Christian around, and I am not going to put down my Catholic or Orthodox or Mormon or other fellow Christians 'cause their version of Christianity is different from mine. If you don't believe in God, that is also your business, I just don't understand the vehemence some of you guys have toward those that have a belief in God or some kind of Supreme Being, and their if more to life than mathematical and computer statistics and test tubes. Anyway, I know I'm arrogant, and admit it, and am in some good arrogant company on this thread.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Detroit/South Korea
465 posts, read 261,930 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxpwas View Post
The point I have been trying to make is it seems like a lot of people on here that are supposedly athiest or agnostic seem to be condescending and arrogant toward anyone that has any type of religious belief or faith of any kind, that isn't hard core "provable science" in a test tube or computer data. No, I'm no theologian, nor am an archeologist, but I have my beliefs, irrational or illogical however you might think of them, and they have served me well throughout my life. I'm no Buddhist, but I'm not gonna diss them because their idea of spirituality is different from mine, nor am I going to diss the Jews, Muslims, voodoo practitioners, animists, Hindus, Native American faiths, whatever, they have their beliefs. I am a Protestant Christian, though by no means the best example of a Christian around, and I am not going to put down my Catholic or Orthodox or Mormon or other fellow Christians 'cause their version of Christianity is different from mine. If you don't believe in God, that is also your business, I just don't understand the vehemence some of you guys have toward those that have a belief in God or some kind of Supreme Being, and their if more to life than mathematical and computer statistics and test tubes. Anyway, I know I'm arrogant, and admit it, and am in some good arrogant company on this thread.
So you're condemning arrogance of others, then come out and state that you are arrogant yourself.

What's the point you're making here?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top