Science tells us how they purr, that it is a form of expression, for various objectives.BearN said:Waco1947 said:Prove Genesis 2:7 it using science.LIB,MR BEARS said:Very nice. Here is your supporting documentationTexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:Quote:Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.Quote:Quote:Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.Quote:Quote:Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?Quote:My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.Quote:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.
For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.
I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.
Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?
Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.
I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.
So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Gen. 2:7
This is a faith statement not scientific proof. What is your science? TS told you his science.
Science can't even explain why cats purr. Do you really think science can comprehend the Almighty? You really are a fool.
Deconstructing from Fundamental Christianity
86,029 Views |
1255 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by TexasScientist
By the same reasoning, you can't prove any god loves you either. In fact there is an abundance of overwhelming evidence, that if there were a god he doesn't really love you, and such a god is more like the other folkloric gods of mythology.LIB,MR BEARS said:You can't prove your wife loves you. You may be able to provide evidence to support that position but, you can't prove it.Waco1947 said:
BearN: Science can't even explain why cats purr. Do you really think science can comprehend the Almighty? You really are a fool.
1. "Science can't even explain why cats purr." Science does not know a lot of things but your job is to prove scientifically that God is All Powerful.
Scikence' job is not prove the Almighty Power. They do not make that claim.
You make the claim about the Almighty show no proof.
Prove your premise because the secular is not buying your doctrines of all powerful.
The secular world is who we are trying to save by faith through the love of Christ.
There are three opposing views
1) there is at least one other parallel universe. If there is/are, that answers nothing but just provides more universes for the same questions. There is ZERO evidence of this.
2) EVERYTHING came from nothing-inanimate, animate, logic, mathematics, reason, love/hate, free will. Everything!
3) an intelligent creator outside of time and space
Where does your logic point you? Where does the god you profess to believe in point you.
I know where my God points me.
He's making a list, he's checking it twice … . Written folklore doesn't make it true. There is no evidence of anything spiritual. What does that really mean? Who made your spiritual god, other than the mind of men? What is he made of? How and where does he reside? Why do you chose to believe primitive lore, and reject the more modern lore of Santa Claus?LIB,MR BEARS said:You really lack understanding.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
The belief in and worship of a supernatural power in order to give meaning, purpose, and comfort to cope psychologically when confronted with the harsh realities of life.LIB,MR BEARS said:And what do you think those components are?TexasScientist said:The components are essentially the same. Do you know that each Christian sect has it's own idea/version of how to follow Christ?LIB,MR BEARS said:Do you know the difference in following a religion versus following Christ?TexasScientist said:Each sect has their own unique theology.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Isn't every sect considered a skewed version by the others?Mothra said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.TexasScientist said:I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.Coke Bear said:Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?TexasScientist said:
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.
Astute observation. Those who judge Christianity on reflections of the light instead of the light itself always develop a skewed version of Christianity.
You're talking about sects. I'm talking about theology.
Christian apologetic historians and anthropologists, maybe.LIB,MR BEARS said:That is where you are wrong. Historians and anthropologist alike use the Bible quite often in their work.TexasScientist said:Application of objective, rational, and critical thought to observable evidence requires you to view the gospels for what they are. They are religious texts written to impart an author's specific theological message. Obviously they were written in a historical setting, but they can no more be relied upon as factual historical records than Homer's Odyssey.LIB,MR BEARS said:Then why do you rule out the historical records of the gospels? Why do you rule out the supernatural without investigating the supernatural?TexasScientist said:No, just a portion. Application of objective, rational and critical thought to observable evidence is what I find to be conclusive.LIB,MR BEARS said:and yet, these failings make up the largest portion of your arguments…. always.TexasScientist said:Those are all the failings of human beings. Rather, it is the summation of the historocity of Christianity, and religion, human nature, and scientific evidence that draws the conclusion for you. The evidence of reality.LIB,MR BEARS said:Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ.TexasScientist said:I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.Coke Bear said:Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?TexasScientist said:
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.
You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.
The Bible's historicity has not been demonstrated to be wrong no matter how much you would like that to be true.
In the same sense that Homer's Odyssey historicity has not been demonstrated to be wrong now matter how much you may like that to be true. Occurrence in a known historic setting with a few references to those historical settings does not make them a reliable historic textbook. In fact, there are historic errors in the gospels that apologists go to extraordinary lengths attempting to reconcile and harmonize.
Nice apologetic attempt, but where does it ever say any of that in any of the OT or NT or other 'inspired' writings that didn't get approved for canon? Where is your objective evidence for your claim? It's all a mental exercise attempting to rationalize what's irrational.Golem said:TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Gods image is a creator. He creates. He isn't bound by flesh and only a fool claims He is flesh. We are in his image in exactly the same way we desire to create.
You only have on video his attempt to reconcile evidence to support his religious desires.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
How is any religion not based in lore? It's only buffoonish to you because you want to believe in irrational lore. Who is really off base here?LIB,MR BEARS said:we'll no wonder you are so far off base. Do you care to narrow it down regarding "lore" or are you content with your buffoonish answer?TexasScientist said:Belief in the lore of men - with intolerance for question.LIB,MR BEARS said:And what do you think those components are?TexasScientist said:The components are essentially the same. Do you know that each Christian sect has it's own idea/version of how to follow Christ?LIB,MR BEARS said:Do you know the difference in following a religion versus following Christ?TexasScientist said:Each sect has their own unique theology.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Isn't every sect considered a skewed version by the others?Mothra said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.TexasScientist said:I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.Coke Bear said:Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?TexasScientist said:
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.
Astute observation. Those who judge Christianity on reflections of the light instead of the light itself always develop a skewed version of Christianity.
You're talking about sects. I'm talking about theology.
I would turn your question around to you. You and I obviously agree that portions of Genesis are not literally true. They are fictional and some may consider poetic. The reason some apologist view those portions that way, is because they cannot hold up to objective scrutiny. Even though you recognize this, there are other Christians (maybe most) who don't agree with you. Our difference lies in my disbelief in the remainder of what is also objectively unbelievable.LIB,MR BEARS said:The question wasn't addressed to me but, you and I have already discussed portions of Genesis that are clearly poetry.TexasScientist said:Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?Coke Bear said:Are you claiming that Christians are required to hold a literal understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis?TexasScientist said:
Accepting man was formed from star dust is a good beginning point. How did he breath life into his nostrils? Why did he need to form man of dust? Isn't he formed in God's own image? Where did the DNA that traces back to lower life forms come from? Evolution is the scientific observation of how life developed over time from simple to complex forms of life. There is enough of a scientific record to draw the conclusion. There is no scientific record to draw a credible conclusion for any religious lore as an explanation.
Why do you continue to go back and claim things that have been shown to you to be false assumptions.
You aren't ignorant because you've previously been given the information. So that leaves either stupid or agenda driven. Which is it?
It' only snarky to you because it challenges what you've devised, attempting justify belief in what is irrational. Of course the Catholic Church allows 'good' Catholics to believe in a literal account. And for those who can't deceive themselves with what is so obviously wrong, they allow for another non-literal version in an attempt to keep them in the fold/cult. I'm just trying to point out, that if you step back and look objectively at any religion from 'thirty nine thousand feet' the fallacy of it all. Some may have a little more sophisticated attempts at apologetics, but none of it holds up against the evidence of reality.Coke Bear said:NO.TexasScientist said:
Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?
Lib did a good job explaining this.
I will add a couple things from a Catholic view. The Church allows for good Catholics to believe in the literal 6-day account of creation or evolution (provided that they agree that God started it.)
Once again, you've made snarky comments about the people about that time. Do you really feel that is necessary or are you doing this just to troll the board?
No, just a figment of imagination.Oldbear83 said:
So for TS, God=Wikipedia?
TexasScientist said:The gospels are nothing more than religious texts written to convey a religious message. They may reference something from a geographic or contemporaneous occurrence, but that doesn't make them reliable textbooks of history. There are historic errors found in the gospels, those that made it through political haggling into canon and those that didn't. Show me the evidence of anything supernatural to investigate. Primitive people want to believe something that is unexplained, or not yet fully explained must be supernatural and have developed supernatural lore to support their beliefs. In the same vein, they want to believe in supernatural events that set them apart and make them racially or culturally unique. It gives them psychological comfort and resolution when facing their mortality and the struggles of life. Religion is a mental or psychological trick in order to cope.LIB,MR BEARS said:Then why do you rule out the historical records of the gospels? Why do you rule out the supernatural without investigating the supernatural?TexasScientist said:No, just a portion. Application of objective, rational and critical thought to observable evidence is what I find to be conclusive.LIB,MR BEARS said:and yet, these failings make up the largest portion of your arguments…. always.TexasScientist said:Those are all the failings of human beings. Rather, it is the summation of the historocity of Christianity, and religion, human nature, and scientific evidence that draws the conclusion for you. The evidence of reality.LIB,MR BEARS said:Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ.TexasScientist said:I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.Coke Bear said:Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?TexasScientist said:
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.
You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.
No doubt the Gospels are the writings of people who got together and said "hey I know! Let's create a new religion, so that we can get ourselves ostracized from the society in which we grew up, and tortured and executed by the Romans! Sounds great!"
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.Oldbear83 said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
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,
Ok, but that's not what is written. Rather, that is what the church and apologists have devised to reconcile and advance their religious beliefs. The written concept of the Trinity found in 1John 5:7-8 was added in later versions. The concept of the Trinity wasn't recognized until the first council of Nicaea in 381. It's not found in the OT, and it's not explicitly found in any of the early NT writings. Jesus' Christology and the nature of god has evolved in Christian beliefs with time. There is no evidence for man being made of a spirit, and evidence shows the mind is part of the body. But going along with your idea, is the Father the mind and the Son the body? If so, where do you believe he physically resides in the body and mind and spirit? Assuming you don't really believe that, is he just really one spiritual being? If so, how are you in his image, because you are not one spiritual being? There is only evidence that you are made up of baryonic matter, and nothing more.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Man being made "in the image of God" means that man, like God, is a triune being - we consist of body, mind, and spirit (with the three being one - you or me) and God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, once again with the three being one. It doesn't mean that man and God are made of the same components.
Sigh.TexasScientist said:Application of objective, rational, and critical thought to observable evidence requires you to view the gospels for what they are. They are religious texts written to impart an author's specific theological message. Obviously they were written in a historical setting, but they can no more be relied upon as factual historical records than Homer's Odyssey.LIB,MR BEARS said:Then why do you rule out the historical records of the gospels? Why do you rule out the supernatural without investigating the supernatural?TexasScientist said:No, just a portion. Application of objective, rational and critical thought to observable evidence is what I find to be conclusive.LIB,MR BEARS said:and yet, these failings make up the largest portion of your arguments…. always.TexasScientist said:Those are all the failings of human beings. Rather, it is the summation of the historocity of Christianity, and religion, human nature, and scientific evidence that draws the conclusion for you. The evidence of reality.LIB,MR BEARS said:Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ.TexasScientist said:I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.Coke Bear said:Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?TexasScientist said:
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.
You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.
Nope, Evolution is not proven.TexasScientist said: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.Oldbear83 said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
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,
Keep believing though.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:Ok, but that's not what is written. Rather, that is what the church and apologists have devised to reconcile and advance their religious beliefs. The written concept of the Trinity found in 1John 5:7-8 was added in later versions. The concept of the Trinity wasn't recognized until the first council of Nicaea in 381. It's not found in the OT, and it's not explicitly found in any of the early NT writings. Jesus' Christology and the nature of god has evolved in Christian beliefs with time. There is no evidence for man being made of a spirit, and evidence shows the mind is part of the body. But going along with your idea, is the Father the mind and the Son the body? If so, where do you believe he physically resides in the body and mind and spirit? Assuming you don't really believe that, is he just really one spiritual being? If so, how are you in his image, because you are not one spiritual being? There is only evidence that you are made up of baryonic matter, and nothing more.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Man being made "in the image of God" means that man, like God, is a triune being - we consist of body, mind, and spirit (with the three being one - you or me) and God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, once again with the three being one. It doesn't mean that man and God are made of the same components.
The concept of the Trinity is clear in the Bible even without 1 John 5:7, if you look at Jesus' references to the Father and the Comforter (John 15:26) and the commandment to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" Matt. 28:18, and Paul's closing in II Cor. 13:14 ("the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen")
Dividing man into body, mind and spirit is hardly new, nor is it an exclusively Christian idea. The Holy Trinity is not divided into body, mind, and spirit but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - man is made "in the image" of God, not "just like God," and the image is as a trinity.
There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Just adding a bit more JXL's great post about the Trinity.TexasScientist said:
Ok, but that's not what is written. Rather, that is what the church and apologists have devised to reconcile and advance their religious beliefs. The written concept of the Trinity found in 1John 5:7-8 was added in later versions. The concept of the Trinity wasn't recognized until the first council of Nicaea in 381. It's not found in the OT, and it's not explicitly found in any of the early NT writings. Jesus' Christology and the nature of god has evolved in Christian beliefs with time. There is no evidence for man being made of a spirit, and evidence shows the mind is part of the body. But going along with your idea, is the Father the mind and the Son the body? If so, where do you believe he physically resides in the body and mind and spirit? Assuming you don't really believe that, is he just really one spiritual being? If so, how are you in his image, because you are not one spiritual being? There is only evidence that you are made up of baryonic matter, and nothing more.
Trinity and the OT: First God was not going to fully reveal Himself to a people He was trying to bring out of polytheistic cultures until they were ready.
Secondarily, the Trinity is somewhat alluded to in the OT in Genesis when it reads 1:26-27 God says, "Let us make man in our image," and then we read "in the image of God he created him." Also when the angels cry out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" in Isiah 6:3.
Splitting hairs here, but the First Council of Nicaea was in 325, not 381(which was in Constantinople - it affirmed the Canon of Scripture and the Nicaean Creed).
At Nicaea, the Council affirmed the belief in the Trinity because the Arians were denying the divinity of Christ.
I would strongly suggest that when you pull information from your atheist's websites and blogs to present here, that you fact check them for accuracy.
I have looked at the evidence from the "thirty-nine thousand" foot view. I have deeply investigated the moral arguments, Cosmological arguments, the philosophical arguments, and the fine-tuning arguments. I've studied St Thomas Aquinas' 5-Ways. It takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to refute ALL these arguments.TexasScientist said:
It' only snarky to you because it challenges what you've devised, attempting justify belief in what is irrational. Of course the Catholic Church allows 'good' Catholics to believe in a literal account. And for those who can't deceive themselves with what is so obviously wrong, they allow for another non-literal version in an attempt to keep them in the fold/cult. I'm just trying to point out, that if you step back and look objectively at any religion from 'thirty nine thousand feet' the fallacy of it all. Some may have a little more sophisticated attempts at apologetics, but none of it holds up against the evidence of reality.
I watched/listed to many debates on these topics to better understand their point of view and to challenge my view. The atheist never seems to grasp the weight of the theist's claim or they can't quite refute the claim to where I wouldn't use that method to defend the existence of God.
For instance, every time someone where mentions the creation ex nihilo, you have stated that particles have been known to randomly pop in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. The problem is that a quantum vacuum is NOT nothing.
I am truly sorry that your evangelical background did not properly provide you a strong foundation to weather the modern onslaught of false atheist's claims.
I hope that one day, you will allow yourself to truly investigate solid theistic arguments and come to believe in God again. Forget the Bible for a bit. I ask you to humble yourself and research the authentic proof's of God's existence.
You'd say gravity isn't proven either.Oldbear83 said:Nope, Evolution is not proven.TexasScientist said: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.Oldbear83 said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
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,
Keep believing though.
That's a stretch.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Ok, but that's not what is written. Rather, that is what the church and apologists have devised to reconcile and advance their religious beliefs. The written concept of the Trinity found in 1John 5:7-8 was added in later versions. The concept of the Trinity wasn't recognized until the first council of Nicaea in 381. It's not found in the OT, and it's not explicitly found in any of the early NT writings. Jesus' Christology and the nature of god has evolved in Christian beliefs with time. There is no evidence for man being made of a spirit, and evidence shows the mind is part of the body. But going along with your idea, is the Father the mind and the Son the body? If so, where do you believe he physically resides in the body and mind and spirit? Assuming you don't really believe that, is he just really one spiritual being? If so, how are you in his image, because you are not one spiritual being? There is only evidence that you are made up of baryonic matter, and nothing more.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Man being made "in the image of God" means that man, like God, is a triune being - we consist of body, mind, and spirit (with the three being one - you or me) and God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, once again with the three being one. It doesn't mean that man and God are made of the same components.
The concept of the Trinity is clear in the Bible even without 1 John 5:7, if you look at Jesus' references to the Father and the Comforter (John 15:26) and the commandment to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" Matt. 28:18, and Paul's closing in II Cor. 13:14 ("the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen")
Dividing man into body, mind and spirit is hardly new, nor is it an exclusively Christian idea. The Holy Trinity is not divided into body, mind, and spirit but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - man is made "in the image" of God, not "just like God," and the image is as a trinity.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
You have to stretch even further for the OT.
You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.Mothra said:TexasScientist said:You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.BaylorJacket said:Quote:Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.Quote:We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.Quote:Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.Quote:
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.
You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
Coke Bear said:Just adding a bit more JXL's great post about the Trinity.TexasScientist said:
Ok, but that's not what is written. Rather, that is what the church and apologists have devised to reconcile and advance their religious beliefs. The written concept of the Trinity found in 1John 5:7-8 was added in later versions. The concept of the Trinity wasn't recognized until the first council of Nicaea in 381. It's not found in the OT, and it's not explicitly found in any of the early NT writings. Jesus' Christology and the nature of god has evolved in Christian beliefs with time. There is no evidence for man being made of a spirit, and evidence shows the mind is part of the body. But going along with your idea, is the Father the mind and the Son the body? If so, where do you believe he physically resides in the body and mind and spirit? Assuming you don't really believe that, is he just really one spiritual being? If so, how are you in his image, because you are not one spiritual being? There is only evidence that you are made up of baryonic matter, and nothing more.
Trinity and the OT: First God was not going to fully reveal Himself to a people He was trying to bring out of polytheistic cultures until they were ready.
Secondarily, the Trinity is somewhat alluded to in the OT in Genesis when it reads 1:26-27 God says, "Let us make man in our image," and then we read "in the image of God he created him." Also when the angels cry out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" in Isiah 6:3.
Splitting hairs here, but the First Council of Nicaea was in 325, not 381(which was in Constantinople - it affirmed the Canon of Scripture and the Nicaean Creed).
At Nicaea, the Council affirmed the belief in the Trinity because the Arians were denying the divinity of Christ.
I would strongly suggest that when you pull information from your atheist's websites and blogs to present here, that you fact check them for accuracy.
Quote:Quote:
Just adding a bit more JXL's great post about the Trinity.
Trinity and the OT: First God was not going to fully reveal Himself to a people He was trying to bring out of polytheistic cultures until they were ready.
Why wouldn't he fully reveal himself, if he wants them to believe and follow him, and give up other fake gods? That's not logical.
Secondarily, the Trinity is somewhat alluded to in the OT in Genesis when it reads 1:26-27 God says, "Let us make man in our image," and then we read "in the image of God he created him." Also when the angels cry out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" in Isiah 6:3.
That's a stretch. More believable that the religious authors are talking about the image of God and other (lesser) gods.
Splitting hairs here, but the First Council of Nicaea was in 325, not 381(which was in Constantinople - it affirmed the Canon of Scripture and the Nicaean Creed).
At Nicaea, the Council affirmed the belief in the Trinity because the Arians were denying the divinity of Christ.
More evidence that Christianity was evolving from many differing versions in the early church. Instead of 'God' spelling it out, I find it interesting that it took years of theological evolution by men to develop a pseudo consensus of who they want God to be, which is still not uniform in belief. Clearly this is a construct of human endeavor to create a uniform doctrine of faith.
I would strongly suggest that when you pull information from your atheist's websites and blogs to present here, that you fact check them for accuracy.
Nope.TexasScientist said:You'd say gravity isn't proven either.Oldbear83 said:Nope, Evolution is not proven.TexasScientist said: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.Oldbear83 said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
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,
Keep believing though.
Jump in the air.
You came down, right?
Evolution, well that takes a lot of faith and vague definitions of the key terms.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.TexasScientist said:You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:
.
Vagaries like genetics, scientific observation, fossil record? Pretty straightforward.Oldbear83 said:Nope.TexasScientist said:You'd say gravity isn't proven either.Oldbear83 said:Nope, Evolution is not proven.TexasScientist said: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.Oldbear83 said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.
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.
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,
Keep believing though.
Jump in the air.
You came down, right?
Evolution, well that takes a lot of faith and vague definitions of the key terms.
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."
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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.TexasScientist said:You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:
.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."TexasScientist said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.TexasScientist said:You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:
.
Great question, just like we don't teach 1st graders Algebra and Calculus, God wasn't going to confuse a polytheistic, child-sacrificing people with the concept of the Trinity. They did follow him and reject the false gods. Of course, the Hebrews keep screwing that up as well, but that's the point of the OT.TexasScientist said:
Why wouldn't he fully reveal himself, if he wants them to believe and follow him, and give up other fake gods? That's not logical.
No. The ancient authors are VERY clear and explicit that God is the only god. That's what separated the Hebrews from the other religions at that time.TexasScientist said:
That's a stretch. More believable that the religious authors are talking about the image of God and other (lesser) gods.
I believe that you misunderstand why councils were called. Christianity wasn't necessarily evolving. Certain peoples tried to create their own version or change believed doctrine.TexasScientist said:
More evidence that Christianity was evolving from many differing versions in the early church. Instead of 'God' spelling it out, I find it interesting that it took years of theological evolution by men to develop a pseudo consensus of who they want God to be, which is still not uniform in belief. Clearly this is a construct of human endeavor to create a uniform doctrine of faith.
- The Arians denied the divinity of Christ so the Council of Nicaea was called.
- The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit so First Council of Constantinople was called.
- The Nestorians denied that Mary was the Mother of God, the Council of Ephesus was called.
- The Council of Trent was called after the Protestant Rebellion to affirm the canon of scripture and to reform abuses that occurred in the Church.
"My guy"? You presume too much. And your 'conclusive' evidence is frankly ... not.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Yes!BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"There are none so blind as those who will not see."TexasScientist said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.TexasScientist said:You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:
.
Coke Bear said:Great question, just like we don't teach 1st graders Algebra and Calculus, God wasn't going to confuse a polytheistic, child-sacrificing people with the concept of the Trinity. They did follow him and reject the false gods. Of course, the Hebrews keep screwing that up as well, but that's the point of the OT.TexasScientist said:
Why wouldn't he fully reveal himself, if he wants them to believe and follow him, and give up other fake gods? That's not logical.
Why not? It would be much easier to convince ignorant superstitious people by revelation. He would have the ability to eliminate confusion. From a practical standpoint, their early polytheistic beliefs weren't so much different than the Roman era polytheistic beliefs to justify avoiding confusion with the Trinity. Clearly, the Trinity is a contrived concept that evolved as Christianity evolved. The evolution of Jesus' Christology is evident in the writings of the NT. The Trinity is not recognized in Judaism. (Duet. 6:4.)No. The ancient authors are VERY clear and explicit that God is the only god. That's what separated the Hebrews from the other religions at that time.TexasScientist said:
That's a stretch. More believable that the religious authors are talking about the image of God and other (lesser) gods.
The 'early' OT writings don't declare the other gods are not real. Not even the 10 commandments make that claim. Exodus was a demonstration of Yahweh's power over the other gods of Egypt. Ex. 12:12.I believe that you misunderstand why councils were called. Christianity wasn't necessarily evolving. Certain peoples tried to create their own version or change believed doctrine.TexasScientist said:
More evidence that Christianity was evolving from many differing versions in the early church. Instead of 'God' spelling it out, I find it interesting that it took years of theological evolution by men to develop a pseudo consensus of who they want God to be, which is still not uniform in belief. Clearly this is a construct of human endeavor to create a uniform doctrine of faith.When one reads the Church fathers, they will find uniform doctrine. Councils were called to answer heresies of those who tried to make Christianity into something it was not.
- The Arians denied the divinity of Christ so the Council of Nicaea was called.
- The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit so First Council of Constantinople was called.
- The Nestorians denied that Mary was the Mother of God, the Council of Ephesus was called.
- The Council of Trent was called after the Protestant Rebellion to affirm the canon of scripture and to reform abuses that occurred in the Church.
Are you denying that during the time of Origen and Tertullian doctrine was evolving? The attempt to create a uniformity of doctrine arose from Rome's need to establish a state religion.
A preponderance of the evidence, frankly is conclusive.Oldbear83 said:
"My guy"? You presume too much. And your 'conclusive' evidence is frankly ... not.
What do you think a jury would find if presented with the observations of reality against the superstitious claims of religion?
Very magnanimous of you to concede.TexasScientist said:Yes!BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"There are none so blind as those who will not see."TexasScientist said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.TexasScientist said:You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.TexasScientist said: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?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.TexasScientist said:Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?TexasScientist said:You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.Mothra said:
.