TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"My guy"? You presume too much. And your 'conclusive' evidence is frankly ... not.

---

A preponderance of the evidence, frankly is conclusive.

What do you think a jury would find if presented with the observations of reality against the superstitious claims of religion?

---

Dude, you claim to be a Scientist, right? You would know, then, that consensus and popular opinion have never defined proof of anything.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.

---

The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.

---

Evolution, defined as an unguided, natural process without God, doesn't challenge anything, as it is merely an unproven assertion and inference from the data.

This data, however, does challenge Evolution, as we've demonstrated. And it hurts you. That's why you're here lashing out, instead of refuting any point being made against it.

---

Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.

---

Of course you didn't see any. That's because when given evidence like in the video, you close your eyes and dismiss it via ad hominem.

---

Oh, it's worse than that. It's not up to people who don't believe Evolution as TS describes it to prove it's false, or else accept Evolution as the default truth, the scientific method itself requires the proponents of a theory to produce the evidence demonstrating the theory is true. The default, of course, is doubt, to which all of us are allowed to express if we're being honest.

The spectrum is broad, with a few on either end claiming the truth is obvious and everyone must accept it, with a large majority of people between those ends who may not have a conclusive opinion but carry some notion in their heart and mind.

For myself, I believe the evidence for God is compelling but leave it for each of us to choose, indeed that God Himself has planned it so we each may choose according to faith. The various theories of Evolution to not alter my beliefs, certainly I feel no need to force people who think Evolution is true to be mocked or attacked the way some think people of faith should be harassed and demeaned,

---

It's been proven. It's just some don't want to accept proof. Kind of like some don't accept that Trump lost Arizona.

---

Nope, Evolution is not proven.

Keep believing though.

---

You'd say gravity isn't proven either.

---

Nope.

Jump in the air.

You came down, right?

Evolution, well that takes a lot of faith and vague definitions of the key terms.

---

Vagaries like genetics, scientific observation, fossil record? Pretty straightforward.

Here is Francis Collins (your guy) on evolution:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/04/17/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins/#evolution

"I think there are at least three problems that have led to the pickle we're in. One is that, by its very nature, evolution is counterintuitive. The idea that a process over hundreds of millions of years could give rise to something as complicated as the vertebrate eye, for example, is not something that seems natural, normal or believable to one who has not worked through the details. That is because our minds are very poor at contemplating something that happened so slowly over such a long period of time. And so, the alternative arguments for supernatural design appeal to a lot of people. That's one problem that has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with the nature of evolution as having occurred in a timeframe that is just not familiar to the human mind and therefore is difficult to accept.

Secondly, we have made, I'm afraid, fairly lousy efforts over the last 150 years in our educational system to convey these concepts in school settings effectively to a large number of people in this country. And so, many people have never really seen the evidence to support evolution. So when you put that together with the natural incredulity one has upon hearing this kind of explanation of the diversity of living things, it's no wonder that those folks don't immediately rush to embrace Darwin.

And the third problem, of course, is that in some faith traditions, evolution seems to be a threat to the idea that God did it. I don't actually see it as a threat at all; I see this as answering the question of how God did it. But certainly, some conservative Christian churches have had trouble embracing that conclusion, as it does seem to contradict a number of their views about how humanity came to be. Thus, people who have natural skepticism about the overall process, who have not had a decent science education to teach them why evolution actually makes sense and who have heard in Sunday school or from the pulpit that this theory is actually a threat to their faith, have a very hard time accepting, even after 150 years, that evolution is true."

---

Nothing he says here offers proof of anything, just his inference and his belief. You failed to support your point. You also failed to refute anything that's been offered in this thread that debunks Darwinian evolution as being "proven".

In fact, everything you've said in this thread is just your recycled arguments that have all been defeated already, many, many times. You're just a broken record, repeating these failed arguments over and over, desperate to convince yourself of atheism so you don't have to reckon with the obvious truth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

.

---

You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

---

There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.

---

You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.

---

Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.

---

To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."

---

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

---

Yes!

---

Very magnanimous of you to concede.

---

Agreeing is not conceding.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

.

---

You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

---

There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.

---

You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.

---

Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.

---

To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."

---

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

---

Yes!

---

Very magnanimous of you to concede.

---

Agreeing is not conceding.

---

I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"My guy"? You presume too much. And your 'conclusive' evidence is frankly ... not.

---

A preponderance of the evidence, frankly is conclusive.

What do you think a jury would find if presented with the observations of reality against the superstitious claims of religion?

---

Dude, you claim to be a Scientist, right? You would know, then, that consensus and popular opinion have never defined proof of anything.

---

My point is people make judgements about fact based upon evidence. Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion, of religious leaders, past and present, and lore from ignorant primitive people acting in furtherance of their religious objectives.

Even though you can't bring yourself to accept what is plainly in front of you, scientific observations, theistic criticism, and Biblical textual criticism provide more than enough rationale to debunk any religious belief. Where is your objective evidence of any supernatural event? Where is your plausible explanation for the existence a supernatural being? You don't have any. Your belief in the supernatural is solely based upon consensus, popular opinion, and lore, and psychological phenomena. Emotional escape from the sunk costs of religious belief is not easy to overcome.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

.

---

You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

---

There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.

---

You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.

---

Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.

---

To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."

---

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

---

Yes!

---

Very magnanimous of you to concede.

---

Agreeing is not conceding.

---

I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.

---

Nice try, but concession would not make me right. I was trying to let us both agree on something. LOL

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.

---

Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:

---

Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.

I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.

Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).

Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.

---

There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.

Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.

What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.

Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.

---

For the moment they are still giving Christianity lip service, but they have changed the definition of "christianity"
so I'm not sure it still counts.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

.

---

You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

---

There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.

---

You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.

---

Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.

---

To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."

---

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

---

Yes!

---

Very magnanimous of you to concede.

---

Agreeing is not conceding.

---

I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.

---

Nice try, but concession would not make me right. I was trying to let us both agree on something. LOL

---

Concession is the only way you'd be right for once. All your arguments fail. Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking. You've been defeated over and over again, but you keep coming back with failed, recycled arguments. "Made in God's image" can ONLY mean we are comprised of the same molecules as God? This stupidity is intentional. What kind of dialogue can anyone really have with you? You are just a troll who doesn't care about embarrassing himself. And that's just sad. I am convinced you are not truly an atheist. You are just bitter towards God.

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

I fail to see why tradition or popular belief would in any way invalidate Christianity. It seems there is very little science that actually disagrees with the Bible. And even then, we know so little of the world, and what came before.

Modern understanding of evolution or "big bang theory" has changed much since its inception and will continue to change. It is crude observation from a very limited vantage point. To believe in either, as fact, in their current form, requires just as much faith as Christianity.

The formation of the universe, how it all came to be, we will never understand. Even if we achieve backwards time travel we won't be there as it happened.

Porteroso said:

---

I fail to see why tradition or popular belief would in any way invalidate Christianity. It seems there is very little science that actually disagrees with the Bible. Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

And even then, we know so little of the world, and what came before.

Modern understanding of evolution or "big bang theory" has changed much since its inception and will continue to change. It is crude observation from a very limited vantage point. To believe in either, as fact, in their current form, requires just as much faith as Christianity.

The formation of the universe, how it all came to be, we will never understand. Even if we achieve backwards time travel we won't be there as it happened.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

TexasScientist said:

---

Even though you can't bring yourself to accept what is plainly in front of you, scientific observations, theistic criticism, and Biblical textual criticism provide more than enough rationale to debunk any religious belief. Where is your objective evidence of any supernatural event? Where is your plausible explanation for the existence a supernatural being? You don't have any. Your belief in the supernatural is solely based upon consensus, popular opinion, and lore, and psychological phenomena. Emotional escape from the sunk costs of religious belief is not easy to overcome.

---

People have posted ad nauseam the different proofs for God (Cosmological, moral, fine-tuning, and a multitude of philosophical proofs). These are all objective evidence. You refuse to accept any one of them.

Many atheist scientists accept that the universe IS fine-tuned. They will not go as far as to state that God did it.

Objective evidence: Oct. 13, 1917, Fatima, Portugal - Miracle of the Sun. Witnessed by 70,000 people, including skeptics and agnostics. Reported in newspapers around the world.

Waco1947 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I fail to see why tradition or popular belief would in any way invalidate Christianity. It seems there is very little science that actually disagrees with the Bible. Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

And even then, we know so little of the world, and what came before.

Modern understanding of evolution or "big bang theory" has changed much since its inception and will continue to change. It is crude observation from a very limited vantage point. To believe in either, as fact, in their current form, requires just as much faith as Christianity.

The formation of the universe, how it all came to be, we will never understand. Even if we achieve backwards time travel we won't be there as it happened.

---

---

You have some more reading to do if you think science has anything against creation. Many scientists think our entire universe is a simulation on a computer. Tell me how you couldn't program a Biblical creation into that.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Even though you can't bring yourself to accept what is plainly in front of you, scientific observations, theistic criticism, and Biblical textual criticism provide more than enough rationale to debunk any religious belief. Where is your objective evidence of any supernatural event? Where is your plausible explanation for the existence a supernatural being? You don't have any. Your belief in the supernatural is solely based upon consensus, popular opinion, and lore, and psychological phenomena. Emotional escape from the sunk costs of religious belief is not easy to overcome.

---

People have posted ad nauseam the different proofs for God (Cosmological, moral, fine-tuning, and a multitude of philosophical proofs). These are all objective evidence. You refuse to accept any one of them.

Many atheist scientists accept that the universe IS fine-tuned. They will not go as far as to state that God did it.

Objective evidence: Oct. 13, 1917, Fatima, Portugal - Miracle of the Sun. Witnessed by 70,000 people, including skeptics and agnostics. Reported in newspapers around the world.

---

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

Well documented miracles are occurring at Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn crusades all the time. Just ask them.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are you really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Even though you can't bring yourself to accept what is plainly in front of you, scientific observations, theistic criticism, and Biblical textual criticism provide more than enough rationale to debunk any religious belief. Where is your objective evidence of any supernatural event? Where is your plausible explanation for the existence a supernatural being? You don't have any. Your belief in the supernatural is solely based upon consensus, popular opinion, and lore, and psychological phenomena. Emotional escape from the sunk costs of religious belief is not easy to overcome.

---

People have posted ad nauseam the different proofs for God (Cosmological, moral, fine-tuning, and a multitude of philosophical proofs). These are all objective evidence. You refuse to accept any one of them.

Many atheist scientists accept that the universe IS fine-tuned. They will not go as far as to state that God did it.

Objective evidence: Oct. 13, 1917, Fatima, Portugal - Miracle of the Sun. Witnessed by 70,000 people, including skeptics and agnostics. Reported in newspapers around the world.

---

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.

---

I find it humorous when people use the miracle of the Sun as "objective" proof of miracles. You had a few thousand people stare at the sun for a long time and report to see funny colors and the sun to dance in the sky…. well no **** lol.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

TexasScientist said:

---

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

TexasScientist said:

---

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.

---

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

---

Serious questions:

Where is God?
How long has He existed?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

once again, none are so blind…

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

TexasScientist said:

---

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.

---

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.

---

Quote:

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

---

I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.

Quote:

---

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.

---

There were many who were present that did not see anything unusual. Nobody has shown that anything witnessed that day was a miracle.

Assertions of miracles by the Catholic Church are not much different than Peter Popoff's and Benny Hinn's assertions. A miracle by definition is a supernatural event, inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. It has to be a product of supernatural agency. None of those meet that criteria. Why didn't Saint Padre Pio restore an amputated arm, or decapitated head?

There is no such thing a science of the gaps is a creationist poorly considered rebuttal attempt. Rather, your idea of accepting what is unknown about the universe as a miracle is a god of the gaps concept. That gap has been shrinking by scientific discovery since religion began. Consider that your definition of nothing, may not exist in a quantum vacuum.

It's not lack of humility or arrogance. Rather, it's facing and accepting the evidence of reality that changed my views, and will not allow me to entertain the possibility of any god, especially any god that was contrived by any human devised religion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.

---

Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.

---

Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.

---

You're still ducking the point, you know ...

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

once again, none are so blind…

---

Agreed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.

---

Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.

---

You're still ducking the point, you know ...

---

No, just giving an answer you don't agree with.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?

---

Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?

---

No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.

---

Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.

---

You're still ducking the point, you know ...

---

No, just giving an answer you don't agree with.

---

I guess in your world, telling the math teacher "Artichoke" counts as an "Answer" .