Guy Noir said:

---

I think the best evidence that there is a creator is that there is a creation. The explanation in Genesis is not a full scientific account of what happened, but it is a recorded item that the world was created.

Hypothesis : If there is a created world then there is/was a creator.
Hypothesis 2: If there is no created world then there is/was no creator

Conclusion: There is a created world thus there is a creator

---

Thank you for the response! As we currently have no strong theory on the origins of the singularity of the Big Bang, this is a fair thought.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

---

This gets me back to my above question regarding using scripture as a source for moral truth:

Quote:

---

My issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

---

This gets me back to my above question regarding using scripture as a source for moral truth:

Quote:

---

My issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

---

---

Well, in the matter of Scripture, there are not 'thousands' of sources. While disparaged by some, the Council of Nicea actually set clear and rational standards for building the Canon.

And while some specific words and phrases may be disputed, that is only nuance.

No competent authority seriously denies that the Torah is consistent, and the Old Testament's books are accepted in all mainstream Christian churches except for the RCC Deuterocanonical books.

And the debate over New Testament text never contradicts Christ's essential teachings on Sin, Redemption, Forgiveness and Compassion.



[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books][/url]

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

---

This gets me back to my above question regarding using scripture as a source for moral truth:

Quote:

---

My issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

---

---

Well, in the matter of Scripture, there are not 'thousands' of sources. While disparaged by some, the Council of Nicea actually set clear and rational standards for building the Canon.

And while some specific words and phrases may be disputed, that is only nuance.

No competent authority seriously denies that the Torah is consistent, and the Old Testament's books are accepted in all mainstream Christian churches except for the RCC Deuterocanonical books.

And the debate over New Testament text never contradicts Christ's essential teachings on Sin, Redemption, Forgiveness and Compassion.



[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books][/url]

---

While it is true that there are a limited number of sources in the form of the Christian scriptures, the interpretation of those sources is where the issue lies. The Council of Nicea did set standards for building the canon, but it did not address the issue of interpretation.

The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

What level of certainty are you looking for?
Why do we need to know?

Baylorjacket: 'The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.'

Incorrect. First, only the most radical splinter groups have much difference in the essentials. The number of denominations often comes down to political considerations and egos of certain leaders.

This is one reason why Scripture matters. It's pretty stupid, for example, for those groups who claim to be 'faithful' to the Gospel but who reject the actual text of Scripture. But hypocrisy has always been common in many parts of human society, like the self-proclaimed 'Shao Lin Monk' who bragged as much about his vegetarian diet and commitment to a simple life as he did his Kung Fu prowess, until we found out about his 3-times-a-week fried chicken habit and merchandising of clothing as a business. You can always find charlatans in any group of notable size, but that in no way discredits the message or ideal of that faith.

Christianity is notable, in that believers are constantly challenged to search their hearts to see if we practice what we claim. We relate to Peter, not because he was a perfect follower but because - like us - he had moments of great accomplishment and miserable failure. We relate to Scripture, because the accounts of Ruth, Job, Joseph and so many others are not of invincible superheroes but ordinary people going through trials and tests.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Baylorjacket: 'The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.'

Incorrect. First, only the most radical splinter groups have much difference in the essentials. The number of denominations often comes down to political considerations and egos of certain leaders.

This is one reason why Scripture matters. It's pretty stupid, for example, for those groups who claim to be 'faithful' to the Gospel but who reject the actual text of Scripture. But hypocrisy has always been common in many parts of human society, like the self-proclaimed 'Shao Lin Monk' who bragged as much about his vegetarian diet and commitment to a simple life as he did his Kung Fu prowess, until we found out about his 3-times-a-week fried chicken habit and merchandising of clothing as a business. You can always find charlatans in any group of notable size, but that in no way discredits the message or ideal of that faith.

Christianity is notable, in that believers are constantly challenged to search their hearts to see if we practice what we claim. We relate to Peter, not because he was a perfect follower but because - like us - he had moments of great accomplishment and miserable failure. We relate to Scripture, because the accounts of Ruth, Job, Joseph and so many others is not of invincible superheroes but ordinary people going through trials and tests.

---

Definitely agree with you on the first point. My apologies, I meant there are thousands of denominations with some having major theological differences (and the rest having minor theological differences)

I'm not so much talking about the major differences in theological interpretation (Physical/Spiritual resurrection, young earth creationists, etc.), but the more minor differences. One's interpretation of this can influence who they vote for to represent them, which could legislate discrimination towards a group of people and cause suffering.

I guess my point is I have no problem with the morals you mentioned earlier that can be found in Scripture, and hope to continue to work on those qualities myself, but for social justice issues that split the church (gay marriage, transgender rights, woman leadership in the church, slavery in the past, etc.), how do we know which is the correct interpretation and God's position?

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Baylorjacket: 'The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.'

Incorrect. First, only the most radical splinter groups have much difference in the essentials. The number of denominations often comes down to political considerations and egos of certain leaders.

This is one reason why Scripture matters. It's pretty stupid, for example, for those groups who claim to be 'faithful' to the Gospel but who reject the actual text of Scripture. But hypocrisy has always been common in many parts of human society, like the self-proclaimed 'Shao Lin Monk' who bragged as much about his vegetarian diet and commitment to a simple life as he did his Kung Fu prowess, until we found out about his 3-times-a-week fried chicken habit and merchandising of clothing as a business. You can always find charlatans in any group of notable size, but that in no way discredits the message or ideal of that faith.

Christianity is notable, in that believers are constantly challenged to search their hearts to see if we practice what we claim. We relate to Peter, not because he was a perfect follower but because - like us - he had moments of great accomplishment and miserable failure. We relate to Scripture, because the accounts of Ruth, Job, Joseph and so many others is not of invincible superheroes but ordinary people going through trials and tests.

---

Definitely agree with you on the first point. My apologies, I meant there are thousands of denominations with some having major theological differences (and the rest having minor theological differences)

I'm not so much talking about the major differences in theological interpretation (Physical/Spiritual resurrection, young earth creationists, etc.), but the more minor differences. One's interpretation of this can influence who they vote for to represent them, which could legislate discrimination towards a group of people and cause suffering.

I guess my point is I have no problem with the morals you mentioned earlier that can be found in Scripture, and hope to continue to work on those qualities myself, but for social justice issues that split the church (gay marriage, transgender rights, woman leadership in the church, slavery in the past, etc.), how do we know which is the correct interpretation and God's position?

---

Again, what level of certainty are you looking for?
Why do you want to know God's position?

BaylorJacket: 'for social justice issues that split the church (gay marriage, transgender rights, woman leadership in the church, slavery in the past, etc.), how do we know which is the correct interpretation and God's position?'

Thanks for your posts, BaylorJacket. I start with that because I disagree with this post, but want to make my point respectfully.

Humans often fall for ideas which seem right and good to people, but it often leads to bad results.

Slavery, for example, was originally created as a reform in human behavior. Early wars, like many now, were for scarce resources, and so the losing tribe was often facing mass executions as a consequence. This was common from ancient China to Egypt to the Aztecs. But this also meant that wars would be fought with great ferocity, since you literally had nothing to lose by fighting against any odds. Slavery was originally created as a way for prisoners to pay for their keep and also offer an option to ending a war without killing everyone.

But Slavery became a trade, even an industry, so popular that some places still practice it today. If you want to know why I care about border security, for example, consider that many young boys and girls who fall into the control of the cartels end up victims of human trafficking, a bland term which in actual practice means those kids are slaves.

So I am cynical about 'social justice', since it so often applies different standards according to a person's race, age, sex, or culture. And a lot of young people, lacking in the critical thinking skills essential to making life decisions, get herded into supporting policies and causes which, if they were able to think through, they might question or at least demand to be clarified.

For example, you mentioned the trans community. I have no problem with an adult deciding to change their sex, anymore than I have a right to complain if someone wants cosmetic surgery or to engage in a high-risk activity like motorcycling or skydiving. But I absolutely oppose those groups trying to persuade minors to have major surgery to change their sex. Especially since such groups often work to keep the knowledge of their efforts hidden from the child's parents. I understand that some parents are not good parents, but some group of strangers with a social agenda is hardly a better choice, and certainly can make no moral claim to replacing a child's parents.

Now as to the Church. Scripture makes plain that Church leaders are held to a higher standard than ordinary believers, for the obvious reason that as leaders they are influencing people to behave in a certain way, and again I do not believe that a stranger is entitled to control people just because those people attend their church.

With regard to Slavery, I would also suggest that those who accuse the Church in general of supporting Slavery paint with a firehose. My ancestors were Anabaptists, for example, who strongly believed that Slavery and Racism were and are abhorrent to God. My family was nearly wiped out in the Civil War, because my ancestors enlisted to end Slavery. Certainly the Union Government was happy to play on their sympathies, but I take great offense to those whose comprehension of the Slavery and Racism issue so falsely maligns millions of good people who not opposed the practice but fought and worked to end it.

In fact, if you take the time to look you will find that most people who operated the Underground Railroad which got escaped slaves out of the South were church members, and as I mentioned a lot of young men joined the Union Army because they believed as a matter of faith that Slavery was an offense to God.

It's easy, but wrong, to generalize just for an easy argument.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: 'for social justice issues that split the church (gay marriage, transgender rights, woman leadership in the church, slavery in the past, etc.), how do we know which is the correct interpretation and God's position?'

Thanks for your posts, BaylorJacket. I start with that because I disagree with this post, but want to make my point respectfully.

Humans often fall for ideas which seem right and good to people, but it often leads to bad results.

Slavery, for example, was originally created as a reform in human behavior. Early wars, like many now, were for scarce resources, and so the losing tribe was often facing mass executions as a consequence. This was common from ancient China to Egypt to the Aztecs. But this also meant that wars would be fought with great ferocity, since you literally had nothing to lose by fighting against any odds. Slavery was originally created as a way for prisoners to pay for their keep and also offer an option to ending a war without killing everyone.

But Slavery became a trade, even an industry, so popular that some places still practice it today. If you want to know why I care about border security, for example, consider that many young boys and girls who fall into the control of the cartels end up victims of human trafficking, a bland term which in actual practice means those kids are slaves.

So I am cynical about 'social justice', since it so often applies different standards according to a person's race, age, sex, or culture. And a lot of young people, lacking in the critical thinking skills essential to making life decisions, get herded into supporting policies and causes which, if they were able to think through, they might question or at least demand to be clarified.

For example, you mentioned the trans community. I have no problem with an adult deciding to change their sex, anymore than I have a right to complain if someone wants cosmetic surgery or to engage in a high-risk activity like motorcycling or skydiving. But I absolutely oppose those groups trying to persuade minors to have major surgery to change their sex. Especially since such groups often work to keep the knowledge of their efforts hidden from the child's parents. I understand that some parents are not good parents, but some group of strangers with a social agenda is hardly a better choice, and certainly can make no moral claim to replacing a child's parents.

Now as to the Church. Scripture makes plain that Church leaders are held to a higher standard than ordinary believers, for the obvious reason that as leaders they are influencing people to behave in a certain way, and again I do not believe that a stranger is entitled to control people just because those people attend their church.

With regard to Slavery, I would also suggest that those who accuse the Church in general of supporting Slavery paint with a firehose. My ancestors were Anabaptists, for example, who strongly believed that Slavery and Racism were and are abhorrent to God. My family was nearly wiped out in the Civil War, because my ancestors enlisted to end Slavery. Certainly the Union Government was happy to play on their sympathies, but I take great offense to those whose comprehension of the Slavery and Racism issue so falsely maligns millions of good people who not opposed the practice but fought and worked to end it.

In fact, if you take the time to look you will find that most people who operated the Underground Railroad which got escaped slaves out of the South were church members, and as I mentioned a lot of young men joined the Union Army because they believed as a matter of faith that Slavery was an offense to God.

It's easy, but wrong, to generalize just for an easy argument.

---

Thanks for the response Oldbear. I can tell you genuinely try to follow Christ, at least in this discussion lol, and I respect that. We probably honestly align pretty similarly on many of these topics - I'm all for consenting adults living their life, but I agree pressuring children instead of simply educating children at an appropriate age is not okay.

Likewise, the church has done some incredible things. Many social justice reforms in recent history started from a brave human who was positively influenced by their belief in Christ. In the same vain, many others have used the Bible to push back against social reform (SBC with Slavery for example).

My main point is you can find justification for nearly any belief or act depending on your interpretation of scripture. I'm 100% all for people pursuing their spiritual faith, building community, and discussing with others their beliefs and convictions - but when it comes to us defining Human Rights, I'm a strong believer that we should start first with all rights, and only remove a right if it is agreed to be immoral with some form of logical or physical evidence.

I'll list a few out:
- Killing an innocent human? Not a human right - removed
- Assaulting a child? Not a human right - removed
- Freedom from slavery? Human right
- Marriage between two consenting men? Here, we have a large percentage (fortunately shrinking) of Christians who don't think this is a human right and use scripture as justification. They have a pretty good case too, as some of the scriptures are pretty straightforward on the topic.
Progressive Christians who affirm gay marriage also base their stance on scripture.

In this case, what do we do? Both genuinely believe they are interpreting scripture correctly, so how do we determine what is the correct interpretation?

Baylorjacket: "In this case, what do we do? Both genuinely believe they are interpreting scripture correctly, so how do we determine what is the correct interpretation?"

This is why I believe we should encourage education. One very good pastor I knew, made a point that 'Scripture does not contradict itself', meaning when someone presents a Scripture which appears to be contradicted by a different passage, a deeper discussion should be held to find out which is correct.

Going back to Slavery and Male dominion in the Church, for example. If you pay close attention, at no point does God direct people to take slaves to please Him, He simply speaks to those who have slaves and directs them to treat them with kindness and compassion. This is because we have free will; and the God of Heaven allows men to rule their own lives.

The Church Leadership question is more complex. If you read Scripture, you will find women in important roles. Eve, Sarah, Deborah (the Judge), Bathsheba, Esther and Ruth all played critical roles in Biblical history, not to mention Mary Magdelene and Lydia of Thyatira. It's obvious that God's plan for women includes leadership and principal roles, while at the same time following an established role ordained from Genesis.

As suggested in other posts, one's fruit demonstrates the nature of one's 'tree', so to speak.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

---

This gets me back to my above question regarding using scripture as a source for moral truth:

Quote:

---

My issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

---

---

Well, in the matter of Scripture, there are not 'thousands' of sources. While disparaged by some, the Council of Nicea actually set clear and rational standards for building the Canon.

And while some specific words and phrases may be disputed, that is only nuance.

No competent authority seriously denies that the Torah is consistent, and the Old Testament's books are accepted in all mainstream Christian churches except for the RCC Deuterocanonical books.

And the debate over New Testament text never contradicts Christ's essential teachings on Sin, Redemption, Forgiveness and Compassion.



[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books][/url]

---

While it is true that there are a limited number of sources in the form of the Christian scriptures, the interpretation of those sources is where the issue lies. The Council of Nicea did set standards for building the canon, but it did not address the issue of interpretation.

The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.

---

No one comes to the Father except through Me.

We have found a point of agreement.

I really like Alistair Beggs saying, "the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things." Most of the rest of it is arguing over carpet color and music choices.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: 'for social justice issues that split the church (gay marriage, transgender rights, woman leadership in the church, slavery in the past, etc.), how do we know which is the correct interpretation and God's position?'

Thanks for your posts, BaylorJacket. I start with that because I disagree with this post, but want to make my point respectfully.

Humans often fall for ideas which seem right and good to people, but it often leads to bad results.

Slavery, for example, was originally created as a reform in human behavior. Early wars, like many now, were for scarce resources, and so the losing tribe was often facing mass executions as a consequence. This was common from ancient China to Egypt to the Aztecs. But this also meant that wars would be fought with great ferocity, since you literally had nothing to lose by fighting against any odds. Slavery was originally created as a way for prisoners to pay for their keep and also offer an option to ending a war without killing everyone.

But Slavery became a trade, even an industry, so popular that some places still practice it today. If you want to know why I care about border security, for example, consider that many young boys and girls who fall into the control of the cartels end up victims of human trafficking, a bland term which in actual practice means those kids are slaves.

So I am cynical about 'social justice', since it so often applies different standards according to a person's race, age, sex, or culture. And a lot of young people, lacking in the critical thinking skills essential to making life decisions, get herded into supporting policies and causes which, if they were able to think through, they might question or at least demand to be clarified.

For example, you mentioned the trans community. I have no problem with an adult deciding to change their sex, anymore than I have a right to complain if someone wants cosmetic surgery or to engage in a high-risk activity like motorcycling or skydiving. But I absolutely oppose those groups trying to persuade minors to have major surgery to change their sex. Especially since such groups often work to keep the knowledge of their efforts hidden from the child's parents. I understand that some parents are not good parents, but some group of strangers with a social agenda is hardly a better choice, and certainly can make no moral claim to replacing a child's parents.

Now as to the Church. Scripture makes plain that Church leaders are held to a higher standard than ordinary believers, for the obvious reason that as leaders they are influencing people to behave in a certain way, and again I do not believe that a stranger is entitled to control people just because those people attend their church.

With regard to Slavery, I would also suggest that those who accuse the Church in general of supporting Slavery paint with a firehose. My ancestors were Anabaptists, for example, who strongly believed that Slavery and Racism were and are abhorrent to God. My family was nearly wiped out in the Civil War, because my ancestors enlisted to end Slavery. Certainly the Union Government was happy to play on their sympathies, but I take great offense to those whose comprehension of the Slavery and Racism issue so falsely maligns millions of good people who not opposed the practice but fought and worked to end it.

In fact, if you take the time to look you will find that most people who operated the Underground Railroad which got escaped slaves out of the South were church members, and as I mentioned a lot of young men joined the Union Army because they believed as a matter of faith that Slavery was an offense to God.

It's easy, but wrong, to generalize just for an easy argument.

---

William Wilberforce says hello.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

See the book above "How I did it."

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

RMF, I found a site with all the quotes from leading scientists, engineers, astrophysicists, etc. regarding Stephen Meyer's book:

https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/book/endorsements/

I think you'll see that your characterization of the ID argument is not quite how these elite scientists view it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "If you are trying to paint a picture that Christians are on average more ethical/moral than any other religion/society, I'd have to disagree with you."

There are problems with that point. I'd say there are people who actually live their faith, while others put up a face for their neighbors and peers that is expected, while in private they are very different.

For example, one thing which has always bothered me is that Scripture makes clear that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, so long as you have earned that money. But Jesus and others warned the rich of severe punishment. The key is avoiding love of money.

What I take from that, is that it's why we do a thing that makes it good or bad, and accordingly whether we are true or false to our faith.

There will always be cynics who claim this ia just a variant of the True Scotsman argument, but I think it is a valid and consistent way to look at anyone's claims to moral identity.

With the lessons of the mote in the eye and the Good Samaritan to guide us.

---

I think that's certainly a fair point - my issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

I fully agree though that intent is an important factor.

---

God is correct.

---

How do we know God's position/thoughts on the matter?

---

For me, there is Scripture.

---

This gets me back to my above question regarding using scripture as a source for moral truth:

Quote:

---

My issue following that logic though is then it requires us to define what the correct interpretation of the core source is (in this case Christian scripture). We have thousands of denominations that hold at times significantly different theological and moral ideas, who each believe their interpretation is the correct one. How can we define who is correct?

---

---

Well, in the matter of Scripture, there are not 'thousands' of sources. While disparaged by some, the Council of Nicea actually set clear and rational standards for building the Canon.

And while some specific words and phrases may be disputed, that is only nuance.

No competent authority seriously denies that the Torah is consistent, and the Old Testament's books are accepted in all mainstream Christian churches except for the RCC Deuterocanonical books.

And the debate over New Testament text never contradicts Christ's essential teachings on Sin, Redemption, Forgiveness and Compassion.



[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books][/url]

---

While it is true that there are a limited number of sources in the form of the Christian scriptures, the interpretation of those sources is where the issue lies. The Council of Nicea did set standards for building the canon, but it did not address the issue of interpretation.

The fact that there are thousands of denominations with significantly different theological and moral ideas shows that there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Each denomination believes that their interpretation is correct, but they cannot all be right.

---

No one comes to the Father except through Me.

We have found a point of agreement.

I really like Alistair Beggs saying, "the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things." Most of the rest of it is arguing over carpet color and music choices.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Humans? Yeah. Also animals, the environment, etc.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Humans? Yeah. Also animals, the environment, etc.

---

evolution seems to struggle with ethics or, is it ethics seems to struggle with evolution.

6 on one side, half-dozen the other.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

Is collectivism all you recognize, comrade?

Do you also prefer to pray on the street corner?

You wouldn't know it but there are humanist groups out there, which is not even my point. I was talking about ethical morality, one based on doing good for goodness' sake, not to avoid eternal torment or to achieve the gift of offering eternal praise to the guy who set up a system that includes eternal torment.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

Is collectivism all you recognize, comrade?

Do you also prefer to pray on the street corner?

You wouldn't know it but there are humanist groups out there, which is not even my point. I was talking about ethical morality, one based on doing good for goodness' sake, not to avoid eternal torment or to achieve the gift of offering eternal praise to the guy who set up a system that includes eternal torment.

---

I recognize which collectives typically do the heavy lifting of charitable work. I also recognize they Samaritan.

By they way, where do you prey, councilor?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Humans? Yeah. Also animals, the environment, etc.

---

You mean like PETA, who kill animals they claim to help, or those eco-activists who falsified data as scare tactics?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

No, you do not understand it. ID is not an explanation that is without evidence, logic, and reasoning, or a conclusion that one defaults to simply because science can't explain something. Neither must science "fail" for ID to succeed.

Let me demonstrate by simplifying the ID argument through an example: suppose you are a casino manager, and there is a guy at the poker table who has won 1000 hands of poker in a row. Do you believe that guy is on the level? Or do you think he is cheating? You did not witness anything that proves he cheated. What is your conclusion, and why? How did you come to your conclusion?

Another example: you come across a house made from a deck of cards on the floor. There is no one around. How did the cards form like that? Did they fall from the table and land in that shape, or did someone make it? You have no video evidence to find out. What is your conclusion, and how did you come to that conclusion?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Read carefully what this author from your link wrote:

"The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science."

Then, his next sentence is this:

"To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations."


So, this author is saying that the "incompetence" of science that ID asserts, is true. Intelligent Design deals with what science cannot, but in a reasoned, logical, and evidence based way. I disagree with this author, though, that "science must fail for ID to succeed". No - it is science that ID draws from, NOT competes with.

4. ‘Reason is itself a matter of faith.’
- Chesterton

Nobody escapes faith.

And only religion truly upholds reason.

Materialism ends up denying it.

— Knowland Knows (@KnowlandKnows) March 5, 2023

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover. ID's realm of operation is increasingly shrinking, and operates in the same realm as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science operates on posing questions, research, observations and testing hypothesis, and making reliable predictions with a high degree of certainty. Neither ID, Creationism, nor any religious belief has made any valid contribution to our understanding of nature and the universe. It's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps. It's a religious construct in an attempt to hold onto and rethink beliefs that science has steadily been chipping away. Religious beliefs have been steadily eroded because modern science has progressively refuted those beliefs. Religion is in the throes of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.