Common Sense Deactivated?

Deeje · Jan 16, 2018

siti said:
Oh are they? So they're not prophesies about people who have learned to build houses and grow food etc. in a socially and ecologically sustainable manner? They're not prophesies about "God's creation" being treated with respect by individual humans?

They absolutely are....but not in this system of things. This world's ruler must be dealt with first. (1 John 5:19) Whilst his influence dominates, God's will cannot be accomplished earth wide. With him in a state of inactivity for the 1,000 years of Kingdom rulership, humankind will learn to do Jehovah's will and be given the opportunity to learn how to take care of creation with the respect it deserves. Till then, humans cannot achieve anything close to sustainable living, except in small ways.

So much has to be cleared away first. How do your Eco-friendly folk live sustainably and in harmony with nature when the threat of nuclear war or terrorism or earthquakes or tsunamis or hurricanes might destroy everything they have sought to achieve? What about forest fires and flash floods? Unless you can guarantee that those things will not take away everything you have worked hard to achieve, what is the point of worrying about the way the world is now? The prophesies in Isaiah cannot come true until this system is gone and its ruler along with it.

A very experienced cleanup crew is standing by, just waiting for the time when they can again fulfill the original mandate. (Genesis 1:28)
I hope to be among them....what about you?

Deeje · Jan 16, 2018

shunyadragon said:
Of course this is possible. It is the belief of Theists, not science.

People who are devoted to science have their beliefs too. Science can't prove anything about how life began or even how it evolved with any certainty.....all it has is beliefs about how it "might have" happened. It just pretends that it has evidence....but the evidence is skewed in their direction by very biased interpretation.

shunyadragon said:
What the Bible provides you is based on your faith and what you believe the Bible means to you. And technically outside your believe this is a pie in the sky argument, without outside confirmation with objective evidence.

The question is does science in anyway 'know' the universe or our physical existence has a beginning, which you are avoiding? The reality is based on the present objective evidence science cannot 'know either way.

What science provides to the ones devoted to it is exactly the same as what the Bible provides for believers. You don't seem to realize how much of your science is based on suggestion rather than facts. Science "believes" it knows how life evolved from simple, one celled organisms right up to dinosaurs.....but they have nothing but conjecture to base it on. Without proof, that is faith.....which is just what I have.

shunyadragon said:
Scientist do defend the science of evolution very adequately with the objective verifiable evidence.

shunyadragon said:
There is no objective verifiable evidence of any other cause. Can you provide any objective verifiable evidence for any other cause?

You don't seem to realize that there is NO objectivity in evolutionary science. If scientists who already believe in evolution read the works of other evolutionists and believe everything they read....then they are doing exactly what Bible believers do...they are placing their faith in what is written and who wrote it.

You can't be devoted wholly to God AND to evolutionary science because these are at odds with each other. There is a way to correlate the two but you have to leave all the macro-evolution stuff at the door. The Bible allows for adaptation because this is what scientists can observe....but as for the amoeba to dinosaur scenario...that is pie in the sky because there is no real evidence to back it up. You can believe it if you like...but I cannot. My logic tells me that all this design is no accident.

lewisnotmiller · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
Maybe you're not dumbing it down enough?

I don't think it's that you're not understanding me, else I guess you'd ask clarifying questions. You just sometimes deal with things more literally than I do. A difference in our styles, I guess.

Deeje said:
I almost hate to use the term Christian because of what it has come to mean in today's world. Nothing close to what Jesus started. I just naturally think of atheists as God deniers...but I guess you have different beliefs too. Does that mean you have denominations with no names?

Apart from the last sentence, I was nodding along. Most atheists (but not all!) are not religious. I know, some theists will say atheists act religious, but that always strikes me as weird. Like they're belittling religion. Personally, I have no issue with religion. But I'm not religious.
However, replace 'denominations' with worldviews, or philosophies, or plan old 'beliefs' and absolutely yes. Atheists have all sorts of varied beliefs.

Deeje said:
Lucky I'm poor then. No major works of art on my wish list.

This would be one of the more abstract points that you just sidestep. Paintings by the Masters are collaborative. Books are written by many authors. So he's arguing (poorly, but still) for polytheism, right?

Deeje said:
YEC is a little pathetic IMV. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the universe and everything in it was poofed into existence in 7 literal days. I don't subscribe to the "Big Magician in the sky" thing.

As for the trinity....? If we are made in God's image, then we should all have multiple personality disorder....and it would be normal. Imagine.....

No YE beliefs, and no trinity makes sense to me. But Ray would lose his crap. That whole 'friendly Kiwi' thing he's got going on is more snake-oil salesman than actual friendliness, imho.

Deeje said:
I love the way that article finishes up....
"However, beyond the intrinsic scientific questions, beyond the practical applications of crystal growth, and beyond the meteorological significance of atmospheric ice, we who ponder snowflakes are motivated by a simple and essential desire to comprehend the natural world around us. These marvellous ice sculptures, so elaborate and beautiful, simply fall from the sky in great abundance. We ought to understand how they are created."

Must be frustrating....such a simple thing but incredibly hard to understand or to explain how it all happens.

I love that part too, and it was part of the reason I chose that example. I wouldn't use the word 'ought', but the author is passionate, and (as you say) clearly wishes he had all the answers. I really love intellectual honesty.

Deeje said:
Ebola wasn't first described till 1976, so I wonder how many mutations and adaptations it underwent before being named Ebola? Perhaps it started out quite innocuously?
Everything has its place in the scheme of things, so I guess we will all find out about it one day.

Yep. My question is more why you use 'fluffy' examples of God's work. Snowflakes rather than ebola, cute bunnies rather than emerald cockroach wasps, an amazing sunset rather than a tsunami.

Deeje said:
If our immune systems worked as they should, we wouldn't contract these viruses in the first place. Hang on....was that CD?

I have no reason to believe that.

Deeje said:
When I explain the shape and size of a rainbow to kids I tell them to look at how big it is and then imagine, since the sun creates it...that is how big the sun is even though its so far away. They seem to get it.

Yep, I get it. Lies to children. I'm not calling you a liar, so feel free to disregard the term itself. It's just a way to describe that teaching technique. Lots of teachers find it mildly offensive. I never did, I found it pretty challenging and accurate.

Deeje said:
I'll pretend that a teacher didn't just say "whole" instead of "hole".....

Heh. Thanks. My language skills are good, generally, but I have to say my proofreading and spelling have taken a hit over the years. Although 'whole' vs 'hole' is just my fingers getting carried away.

Deeje said:
But if you create a simple platform first, then others can add to the construction over time until you build a solid concept. The details will all come later.

That's the very basis of lies to children. You can't accurately describe a rainbow in 2 sentences. It's not really possible. KISS has limits, and Ray's editing can show whatever and whomever he likes out of those he interviews. He's a salesman, and not a great one at that.

lewisnotmiller · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
It was more interesting as a video than a dry bunch of questions. I just liked the way he framed them and showed the students that believing something just because someone told you it was correct, should always be investigated and questioned. There are more avenues for research these days than ever before in history. No excuse for ignorance.

*shrugs*
Ok.

Deeje said:
I have no problem with science, its methodology or its knowledge...what I have trouble with is the attitude of those who are not spiritual, assuming that spiritual people who believe in the Bible are naturally uneducated or stupid.

I'm not spiritual, but make no such assumption. Just like you don't believe in the trinity.

Deeje said:
It is just as possible that life was created by a higher intelligence, as life just magically appeared out of nowhere by some random fluke and turned into dinosaurs. To the best of my understanding, from conversations with evolutionists here, the dinosaurs then morphed into chickens....and we are the uneducated and stupid ones?

Hmm...watch out you're not arguing against parody atheists rather than actual ones. Suffice to say I don't have any desire to argue against deism, pantheism, panentheism or various other God beliefs. I get a little more twitchy about the ones that want to control people. This isn't aimed at you, but I find the whole concept of proving an intelligent creator pretty ridiculous in terms of thinking it would impact on anything. If we found our there was an intelligent creator...or even that Ray Comfort is right and there was a whole ARMY of intelligent creators (sorry, couldn't help myself!) it wouldn't much effect me, to be honest.
Of course, if we found there was an intelligent creator who actually cared whether a 13 year old boy masturbated...well...let's say I'd be surprised, and probably angry at some point once I was over the shock.

Deeje said:
The church no longer dictates to rulers or even to many of their own flock these days. Having Copernicus vindicated by Galileo was the final blow apparently, so science eventually won out as it should have.....the dissenters were vindicated, but now we see evolution winning out over creation....not because it has any real evidence....its basically because it has better marketing, and people feel the need to get out from under God's thumb. They want to live without his rules. I don't like where it is leading us personally, but they will have to find out for themselves I guess.

Again here, you're skipping the more abstract point. Copernicus was right about heliocentricity. Completely correct. And he came to this correct conclusion based on theorectical mathematics which he couldn't dumb down for the masses. No KISS.
I'm not suggesting all theoretical proofs are accurate. But to think they're all wrong is easily proven incorrect. Just because we have gaps in knowledge, or some areas are limited to complex theory does NOT mean they lack veracity or accuracy.

shunyadragon · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
People who are devoted to science have their beliefs too.

Yes, there are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrian, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, ans other beliefs too numerous to mention.

Science can't prove anything about how life began or even how it evolved with any certainty.....all it has is beliefs about how it "might have" happened. It just pretends that it has evidence....but the evidence is skewed in their direction by very biased interpretation.

Again, again and again you misuse 'proof' and 'know,' The rest is jibberish.

What science provides to the ones devoted to it is exactly the same as what the Bible provides for believers. You don't seem to realize how much of your science is based on suggestion rather than facts. Science "believes" it knows how life evolved from simple, one celled organisms right up to dinosaurs.....but they have nothing but conjecture to base it on. Without proof, that is faith.....which is just what I have.

Terrible misrepresentation of science, and again the misuse of the word proof.

Still you have not responded to the 'false' statement that science 'knows that our universe has a beginning,

The rest is more trash based on a religious agenda, and not worth responding to.

The other problem that underlies the fact that your posts ramble incoherently is you lack the background in science to present a coherent argument grounded in science.

SkepticThinker · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
This is what they tell you. The truth has come to light in recent years exposing the whole orthodox medical system for what it is. Corrupt to its core.

No. That is exactly what they do. I can cite studies showing exactly that. Heck, I can cite drugs that are exactly what I described (and I actually believe I did that already). You really need to do some real research on this from some academic resources.

P.S. To date, cannabis/marijuana has not been demonstrated to be an effective cure for cancer.

SkepticThinker · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
We have many horror stories in Australia of parents being arrested and their children removed from their custody because they found a medicine that actually works with no side effects for their child's epilepsy. Some of these kids are seizure free for the first time in their lives but authorities accuse them of being criminals for giving them this medicine. They are taken away and immediately put back on poison pharma drugs and their seizures return as before....what is wrong with this picture?

!

Oh, you mean like this couple who treated their child's meningitis with garlic, onion and horseradish, instead of seeking medical attention, and the poor child died? That kind of thing? Indeed, it is a horror story.

Natural remedies used: Appeal Court upholds parents' conviction in son's death

SkepticThinker · Jan 17, 2018

Deeje said:
Tested by whom.....you can't be serious. Natural medicines have been tested on hundreds of thousands of patients who found them to be very helpful in managing their illnesses. Auto-immune disorders are now presenting in epidemic proportions, misdiagnosed and mistreated with dangerous artificial chemicals that just make their conditions worse. Doctors don't know what to do anymore.

Yep "treat" is the operative word. A "treatment" is something they hope you might have to take for the rest of your life. It will never cure you but it might make the symptoms go away temporarily so that you think it is doing something good.....it usually isn't, as the endless list of side effects in the notes in the box have to tell you to watch out that the stuff doesn't kill you. If you have side effects that can be "treated" by other drugs then they will load you up with as much as you can take.....that is pharmacology. Cher-ching!

This is what they tell you. The truth has come to light in recent years exposing the whole orthodox medical system for what it is. Corrupt to its core.

No doubt there are some medicines that have been put to good use, but for the most part, isolation of a component in a plant means that it can be patented....ensuring that drug companies who own those patents can charge whatever they want for them. One of the biggest money spinners for them is chemotherapy. How many patients actually survive the treatment and then find it comes back in a few years? Cannabis has cured many cancers but continues to be blocked as a treatment for many who suffer terminal illnesses. If it works, why is this the case?

In many cases of intractable epilepsy, the medical professionals make sure that every pharmaceutical drug is tried first, when cannabis should be the first port of call. Nothing works for neurological conditions better than medicinal cannabis, but you'd never know it.

We have many horror stories in Australia of parents being arrested and their children removed from their custody because they found a medicine that actually works with no side effects for their child's epilepsy. Some of these kids are seizure free for the first time in their lives but authorities accuse them of being criminals for giving them this medicine. They are taken away and immediately put back on poison pharma drugs and their seizures return as before....what is wrong with this picture?

Never said all drugs were bad. Just questioning the motives that big pharma has for peddling expensive drugs that have dangerous side effects whilst ignoring harmless drugs like cannabis which have been proven countless times to be effective and safe.

Again...who teaches pharmacology? I would hardly call it an unbiased source of information...more like indoctrination IMO.
The fox teaching other foxes how to guard the hen house.

Follow the money trail I always say. If something is exorbitantly expensive I don't trust it. I try to eat as healthily as I can...I grow my own vegetables when possible, and I take vitamin supplements because I believe that my body doesn't get enough nutrients from food alone these days. I don't drink tap water and I fast twice a week. I can only do so much in such a polluted world.

The Hippocratic oath that medicos take is first of all to "do not harm"....I don't see how modern doctors can possibly carry out that oath.
The drugs prescribed for so many common conditions do more harm than good most of the time.

I sat at the chemist the other day and watched as old and obese people carried baskefuls of drugs to the cash register. It is horrifying.

So imagine if it was regulated and the truth was told and medicine actually worked with the body instead of against it. We need an honest incorruptible system, but in this world...that is not possible.

Don't get me started. We are way off topic already, but please start a thread on this and I will be happy to contribute.

How often do we hear about all those "breakthroughs" that medical science brags about......they will be so wonderful!....but it will take at least 10 years to get them to the market.....now ask yourself how many of those "breakthroughs" have we ever seen materialize?
Its a carrot that no one ever gets to eat. Its a marketing ploy to make people think that they are actually doing something when they are doing very little. They can map the human genome but they can't cure cancer....? They don't want to cure cancer...it is their biggest money spinner.

How about medicinal cannabis' effect on many neurological conditions? Parkinsons, epilespy, Huntington's Disease, dementia, and a whole lot of others? It works way better than any pharmaceutical drug and it can be grown in your own garden for nothing! Imagine!

I'll take more time to answer this when I get a chance. But you and I have had this exact same conversation at least twice before. You just keep bringing up exact the same inaccuracies as you did the last two times. Do you just have a bad memory or something?

james bond · Jan 17, 2018

SkepticThinker said:
So it's not logical to say that a universe can come from nothing and/or has just always existed, but it's perfectly logical to say that some God(s) can come from nothing and/or has just always existed?

How does that work?

Cosmology. Already explained as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing. People believe quantum mechanics or quantum physics is true based on it being part of the BBT. The BBT is quickly falling out of favor and being replaced by something else. The BBT is cosmology, too.

shunyadragon · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
Cosmology. Already explained as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing. People believe quantum mechanics or quantum physics is true based on it being part of the BBT. The BBT is quickly falling out of favor and being replaced by something else. The BBT is cosmology, too.

Science does not propose that our universe came from absolute nothing.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is an ancient apologist argument, and not an explanation of the Cosmology of our universe and beyond.

james bond · Jan 17, 2018

Polymath257 said:
When we say that the ancient Egyptians created the pyramids, we do not claim that they created the rocks from which the pyramids were made.

Humans have created atoms. They do so by combining, say, protons with electrons to produce hydrogen atoms. They have created gold by colliding two other types of atom and allowing the nuclear processes to produce gold atoms. In both cases, the element was not there initially and was there at the end and the production was determined by humans.

We have also created atoms of anti-matter, by making anti-protons and combining them with positrons (anti-electrons). In that case, both the anti-proton and the positron were also created by humans: before the process, neither was there.

That sounds like creation of an atom to me.

I guess you missed this thread -- Great pyramids of egypt . Seriously, you didn't know that they lacked stone back then? They used baked bricks (clay and mud) mortared with pitch.

>>P: Humans have created atoms.<<

Ha ha. This must be a major breakthrough I missed. Please explain.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you started with some element or matter in the first place. At CERN, they have these things lying around and have the energy to do it. Even with anti-matter. It's like atheist scientists claim they can make a blade of grass and you find out they started with some type of seed.

Polymath257 · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
I guess you missed this thread -- Great pyramids of egypt . Seriously, you didn't know that they lacked stone back then? They used baked bricks (clay and mud) mortared with pitch.

They most certainly did NOT lack stone. We even know which quarries they got their stone from. The brick technology is different than the stone technology.

>>P: Humans have created atoms.<<

Ha ha. This must be a major breakthrough I missed. Please explain.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you started with some element or matter in the first place. At CERN, they have these things lying around and have the energy to do it. Even with anti-matter. It's like atheist scientists claim they can make a blade of grass and you find out they started with some type of seed.

When i say that i created a painting, I mean that I used previously available materials to make that painting.

Yes, CERN (and many other places) used protons initially, collided them together to produce more protons as well as anti-protons, then combined those protons with positrons to make an atom of anti-hydrogen. The fact that they started with protons in no way negates that they created an atom of anti-hydrogen (which does not have protons in it). None of the components of the anti-hydrogen existed before the manufacture.

And no, it isn't like having a seed. The seed has the genetic information for that blade of grass. The initial protons do NOT have the information for anti-hydrogen encoded in them in any way.

No anti-matter existed when the experiment started. It was all made via collisions of matter with other matter. yes, there was energy, and it produced both new protons and new anti-protons (as well as many other particles). Again, that doesn't negate the statement that they created the atom.

Yes, in the case of gold atoms, they started with other types of atoms. No atoms of gold were present. But other atoms were there, made out of protons, neutrons, and electrons. After the experiment, there *were* atoms of gold. To be gold *means* that there were 79 protons in the nucleus. So yes, atoms of gold were made from atoms with different numbers of protons in their nuclei. Again, the fact that there were other atoms around before does NOT negate that gold atoms were created.

james bond · Jan 17, 2018

Polymath257 said:
They most certainly did NOT lack stone. We even know which quarries they got their stone from. The brick technology is different than the stone technology.

When i say that i created a painting, I mean that I used previously available materials to make that painting.

Yes, CERN (and many other places) used protons initially, collided them together to produce more protons as well as anti-protons, then combined those protons with positrons to make an atom of anti-hydrogen. The fact that they started with protons in no way negates that they created an atom of anti-hydrogen (which does not have protons in it). None of the components of the anti-hydrogen existed before the manufacture.

And no, it isn't like having a seed. The seed has the genetic information for that blade of grass. The initial protons do NOT have the information for anti-hydrogen encoded in them in any way.

No anti-matter existed when the experiment started. It was all made via collisions of matter with other matter. yes, there was energy, and it produced both new protons and new anti-protons (as well as many other particles). Again, that doesn't negate the statement that they created the atom.

Yes, in the case of gold atoms, they started with other types of atoms. No atoms of gold were present. But other atoms were there, made out of protons, neutrons, and electrons. After the experiment, there *were* atoms of gold. To be gold *means* that there were 79 protons in the nucleus. So yes, atoms of gold were made from atoms with different numbers of protons in their nuclei. Again, the fact that there were other atoms around before does NOT negate that gold atoms were created.

Nope. They did not create an atom of any element or gold. Heaven forbid. Let's use some common sense. Something is greater than nothing. They always have something. They do not start with nothing. And who else can do this besides CERN because they get the bucks. They just want you to believe they did.

>>P: They most certainly did NOT lack stone. We even know which quarries they got their stone from. The brick technology is different than the stone technology.<<

This contradicts what I've been told by creationists. It's important to us because of the Tower of Babel (ziggurat or larger form of a pyramid).

Subduction Zone · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
Nope. They did not create an atom of any element or gold. Heaven forbid. Let's use some common sense. Something is greater than nothing. They always have something. They do not start with nothing. And who else can do this besides CERN because they get the bucks. They just want you to believe they did.

>>P: They most certainly did NOT lack stone. We even know which quarries they got their stone from. The brick technology is different than the stone technology.<<

This contradicts what I've been told by creationists. It's important to us because of the Tower of Babel (ziggurat or larger form of a pyramid).

Since the gold atoms did not exist before then yes, they did create them. It does not matter that they made them from other atoms. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "create". Here is a question, did the particular atoms of gold exists as gold before they did their work? If the answer is no then they were by definition "created". Creation does not require that something was made from nothing.

And creationists are wrong of course. There was no Tower of Babel. The origin of languages is well understood today. No magic sky daddy needed.

Polymath257 · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
Nope. They did not create an atom of any element or gold. Heaven forbid. Let's use some common sense. Something is greater than nothing. They always have something. They do not start with nothing. And who else can do this besides CERN because they get the bucks. They just want you to believe they did.

Yes, once again, they started with ordinary protons. I did not deny that. it doesn't mean they didn't create an atom of anti-hydrogen.

Once again, anti-hydrogen consists of an anti-proton and a positron in orbit around that anti-proton.

When the experiment started, there were no anti-protons. There were no positrons. There *were* ordinary protons (positively charged--anti-protons are negatively charged--they have the same mass). These ordinary protons were collided. That reaction produced both new protons and some anti-protons. It is not at all unusual for a collision of two protons to have several protons and several anti-protons as well as many other particles as the result. In essence, the kinetic energy is used to form the matter/anti-matter pairs.

The positrons are also formed in these collisions (along with electrons).

The positrons and anti-hydrogen are then combined to produce an atom.

In what way is this *not* the creation of an atom of anti-hydrogen? NONE of the components existed prior to the start of the experiment, even in terms of components.

>>P: They most certainly did NOT lack stone. We even know which quarries they got their stone from. The brick technology is different than the stone technology.<<

This contradicts what I've been told by creationists. It's important to us because of the Tower of Babel (ziggurat or larger form of a pyramid).

Then the creationists were simply wrong.

Polymath257 · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
Cosmology. Already explained as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing. People believe quantum mechanics or quantum physics is true based on it being part of the BBT.

That is certainly NOT the reason to think QM is correct. The development of QM had very little to do with the BBT and was mostly driven by issues related to thermodynamics (heat capacities of gases), solid state physics, and the spectra of atoms and molecules. Later, understanding the 'particle zoo' was a driving force.

If anything, QM clarified issues in the BBT, not the other way around.

The BBT is quickly falling out of favor and being replaced by something else. The BBT is cosmology, too.

Um, no. The basic BBT is more solid than ever. The details of the CBR have verified it to a degree not even imagined 30 years ago.

lewisnotmiller · Jan 17, 2018

james bond said:
This contradicts what I've been told by creationists. It's important to us because of the Tower of Babel (ziggurat or larger form of a pyramid).

Then what you've been told is wrong. We know they had stone, where the quarries were, how they cut it (harder stone, basically)...

Sure you (or your creationist friends) arent getting confused with Sumerians?

james bond · Jan 17, 2018

Polymath257 said:
Yes, once again, they started with ordinary protons. I did not deny that. it doesn't mean they didn't create an atom of anti-hydrogen.

Once again, anti-hydrogen consists of an anti-proton and a positron in orbit around that anti-proton.

When the experiment started, there were no anti-protons. There were no positrons. There *were* ordinary protons (positively charged--anti-protons are negatively charged--they have the same mass). These ordinary protons were collided. That reaction produced both new protons and some anti-protons. It is not at all unusual for a collision of two protons to have several protons and several anti-protons as well as many other particles as the result. In essence, the kinetic energy is used to form the matter/anti-matter pairs.

The positrons are also formed in these collisions (along with electrons).

The positrons and anti-hydrogen are then combined to produce an atom.

In what way is this *not* the creation of an atom of anti-hydrogen? NONE of the components existed prior to the start of the experiment, even in terms of components.

Then the creationists were simply wrong.

Nope. You didn't create an atom just like you didn't create hydrogen. Otherwise, it would solve the colonization problem of the moon. Instead of arguing about atheist scientists' semantics and your FAITH, then let's talk about what atheist scientists have done with this. Can we colonize the moon? Can I just create oxygen when I'm diving? The insurmountable something greater than nothing problem keeps getting in the way.

>>P: Then the creationists were simply wrong.<<

I doubt it since it is written in the Bible.
"The Tower of Babel

11 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in zthe land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, aand bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower bwith its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” 5 And cthe Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, dlet us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So ethe Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called fBabel, because there the Lord confused1 the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

I'll stick by what they say. They lacked stone at the time, so the Egyptians had to make the pyramids from baked clay and mud with pitch. Later pyramids were made of stone. Does this contradict atheist scientists' hypotheses? Let me guess. It's based on uniformitarianism?

Deeje · Jan 17, 2018

lewisnotmiller said:
You just sometimes deal with things more literally than I do. A difference in our styles, I guess.

Viva la difference!

What a boring world it would be if we didn't have the ability to think for ourselves and make our own appraisals.

lewisnotmiller said:
Apart from the last sentence, I was nodding along. Most atheists (but not all!) are not religious. I know, some theists will say atheists act religious, but that always strikes me as weird. Like they're belittling religion. Personally, I have no issue with religion. But I'm not religious.
However, replace 'denominations' with worldviews, or philosophies, or plan old 'beliefs' and absolutely yes. Atheists have all sorts of varied beliefs.

"Denominations" to me is merely the means of calling different ideas about the same thing by a name that identifies that difference.
Its like the God of the Bible, we believe he is the only real God in existence, but there are a bunch of invented ones who have names....so the true God gives himself a name to differentiate himself from them, even though they are not real. What makes one denomination different to another?....beliefs. Works both ways as far as I can see.

lewisnotmiller said:
So he's arguing (poorly, but still) for polytheism, right?

Trinitarianism is polytheism, no doubt about it. There are three gods, all squeezed into one head, but I cannot find him in the Bible anywhere. I cannot find him in any other "Abrahamic" religion either. The trinity is an invention of Christendom, not Christianity. Like YEC.....there is no factual basis for it. The word "day" in Hebrew is "yohm" which can mean different periods of time, not just a 24 hour day.

lewisnotmiller said:
No YE beliefs, and no trinity makes sense to me. But Ray would lose his crap. That whole 'friendly Kiwi' thing he's got going on is more snake-oil salesman than actual friendliness, imho.

I used his questions for this thread....I never said I endorsed his methods. He entertains beliefs I do not subscribe to, but his questions about evolution hold water IMO.

lewisnotmiller said:
I really love intellectual honesty.

Me too, but its very rare in a field where egos are as big as Texas.

The halls of academia are awash with overinflated egos and overestimated personal opinions....a bit like these forums.

(with no reference to your good self of course.)

lewisnotmiller said:
My question is more why you use 'fluffy' examples of God's work. Snowflakes rather than ebola, cute bunnies rather than emerald cockroach wasps, an amazing sunset rather than a tsunami.

I find people dwell too much on negatives and forget about the positives. In no way do negative things cancel out the positive aspects of creation IMV. I acknowledge that life in this world is far from optimal in many ways...but I understand why and accept that the one who created all things has the ability to rectify anything that has gone awry. He has indicated his intention to do so....I believe him.

lewisnotmiller said:
I have no reason to believe that.

"How does the immune system work?

The immune system (from the Latin word immunis, meaning: “free” or “untouched”) protects the body like a guardian from harmful influences from the environment and is essential for survival. It is made up of different organs, cells and proteins and aside from the nervous system, it is the most complex system that the human body has.

As long as our body’s system of defense is running smoothly, we do not notice the immune system. And yet, different groups of cells work together and form alliances against just about any pathogen (germ). But illness can occur if the performance of the immune system is compromised, if the pathogen is especially aggressive, or sometimes also if the body is confronted with a pathogen it has not come into contact before. . . . .Without an immune system, a human being would be just as exposed to the harmful influences of pathogens or other substances from the outside environment as to changes harmful to health happening inside of the body.

The body’s own cells have surface proteins, too. But the immune system does not work against them, because it has already learned at an earlier stage to identify specifically these cell proteins as “self.” If the immune system identifies the cells of its own body as “non-self,” it is also called an autoimmune reaction.
There are two main parts of the immune system: the innate and the adaptive immune system.
The evolutionary older innate immune system provides a general defense against pathogens, so it is also called the nonspecific immune system. It works mostly at the level of immune cells like “scavenger cells” or “killer cells.” These cells mostly fight against bacterial infections. . . .
In the adaptive immune system, particular agents like the so-called antibodies target very specific pathogens that the body has already had contact with. That is why this is also called a learned defense or a specific immune response. By constantly adapting and learning the body can also fight against bacteria or viruses that change over time.

Yet these two immune systems do not work independently of each other. They complement each other in any reaction to a pathogen or harmful substance, and are closely connected with each other."

How does the immune system work? - PubMed Health - National Library of Medicine - PubMed Health

There is no reason for any foreign body to get past this incredibly well designed line of defense.....and yet they do. Why? Because something has compromised our immune system. That "something" I believe is what resulted when humans withdrew from their Creator in order to do their own thing. That separation wasn't supposed to happen.

Deeje · Jan 17, 2018

lewisnotmiller said:
Lies to children. I'm not calling you a liar, so feel free to disregard the term itself. It's just a way to describe that teaching technique. Lots of teachers find it mildly offensive. I never did, I found it pretty challenging and accurate.

I don't think its lying to children to point out that a rainbow is from the sun and has the same shape and apparent size. I believe it helps them to 'put things into perspective'. But that's a whole other thread.

lewisnotmiller said:
*shrugs*
Ok.

Do you disagree that people should have their beliefs challenged so that they can validate what they believe by defending it with facts, or else do some more research to make sure that they have all the facts? Some people are surprised when they investigate the other side of an argument to find it was not as unreasonable as they had been led to believe.

lewisnotmiller said:
I get a little more twitchy about the ones that want to control people.

Conformity is not control. If God has one set of standards, then conformity to those standards makes for peaceful co-existence when everyone follows the same rules. "Control" is a "do as I say or else" meaning you have no right to question. I have all the rights in the world to question anything and I have a freely available avenue to ask those questions without causing division or dissension within my brotherhood. Peaceful relations are maintained when things are approached in a peaceful manner. But if you enter with fists clenched and aggressive finger pointing, you will be shown the door. I agree with that because to me that is reasonable. I would rather talk things through than go off 'half-cocked' with only half the story.

This isn't aimed at you, but I find the whole concept of proving an intelligent creator pretty ridiculous in terms of thinking it would impact on anything. If we found our there was an intelligent creator...or even that Ray Comfort is right and there was a whole ARMY of intelligent creators (sorry, couldn't help myself!) it wouldn't much effect me, to be honest.

And that is the privilege we all have. Belief in God (or an army of gods) or even in the concept of a deity affects people in different ways. Some welcome the fact that there is order in the chaos after all, giving them a hope for the future that is not dependent upon man....whilst others see no order possible and life continuing as it always has in a haphazard fashion. For them the future has no direction or certainty.I know which one offers me comfort...(no pun intended)

lewisnotmiller said:
Of course, if we found there was an intelligent creator who actually cared whether a 13 year old boy masturbated...well...let's say I'd be surprised, and probably angry at some point once I was over the shock.

I guess it all boils down to understanding that the transmission of life is sacred to the Creator and that we, as sexual beings, need to learn to control those urges. Sex was designed to produce children in a family situation, where it is a wonderful blessing....but sex is not just for personal pleasure. The pleasure part is a bonus, enjoyed in the legal arrangement of marriage.
Self control is not a bad quality to nurture IMO. If it starts in adolescence its a good thing. Those predisposed to pleasuring themselves tend to become very selfish about it. Cyber sex is now presenting people with the inability to be aroused by normal human sexual contact. Is this the direction we want to go? Its a sick world, getting sicker by the minute.

I feel like an alien in it, personally.

Common Sense Deactivated?

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Grand Hat

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Think & Care

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Think & Care

Think & Care

Grand Hat

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student