The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by kostya Not ALL evolutionists have given up on that, of course. Yet the smartest among them have got it that they aren't going to find transitional species. So now they're talking about "instantaneous" change from a "less" to a "more advanced" species. Sorry, I couldn't found any Internet links; but I think you'll have no problems finding them, fond as you are of evolution stuff.

Like a brick wall. I already said this and linked to it but THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES! From this point on, every time you say otherwise to someone, please know that you are lying to them.

Originally Posted by reed9 I already said this and linked to it but THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES! From this point on, every time you say otherwise to someone, please know that you are lying to them.

Or should I say that evolutionists are "lying" when presenting something as something else?

But I don't think they are, nor am I. It's just all about religion: there are "deist" religions, then there are "atheist" religions. In both cases folks are judging about something they haven't seen.
To me as a believer this proves that the Creator created this world and human brain in such fashion, that humans are able to choose what to believe in. According to the Bible, there are no atheists among demons, for example.

...And I'll try to keep my word this time and not come back to this discussion which has nothing to do with the main purpose of this site. And the site itself I find to be very helpful and you folks are doing great job here, too.
So, bye, see you in other threads .

Originally Posted by SL00b And yet, you say that humans are an invented machine, designed by God. Contradiction.

Where have I said humans are a machine?

bluegospel: A robot is defined as an invented machine

Adam was created by God who breathed his own breath into him, giving him life, with the senses that attend life.

Originally Posted by SL00b My brain has full control of my nerves, as has been verified by numerous studies.

The members of your body are controlled variously: your heart for example, is controlled by your brain, through your nerves, without an apparent element of will. Yet if you will to stand to your feet, your will controls your body's members through the brain and nerves.

Originally Posted by SL00b We can do an experiment, if you like. We can select one of your nerves, and sever it. Then you can observe the outcome, and you don't have to depend on me. The objective truth of the nature of nerves will become apparent to you.

That's not the point. Besides that would hurt.

Originally Posted by SL00b The story of Jesus itself borrows very heavily from other religions. Just some examples: - When Mary Magdalene washes the feet of Jesus with her hair, this is borrowed straight from the Egyptians, with Mary as Isis and Jesus playing the role of Osiris. - Speaking of Osiris, he was dead for three days and was resurrected. Sound familiar? - One of the central themes of the Gospels is an apocalypse. Apocalyptic traditions were rampant in the Near East at that time, and as it sat astride the major trading routes, all the ideas came through Israel. - On the subject of common themes... virgin birth. Mithras is a primary example. Mithras is also a great example of the concept of substitutive sacrifice, the central pillar of Christian belief. There are many, many more.

OK, OK, this is an interesting one and maybe this last time I'll give an answer. For the sake of them who ARE interested in the Bible.

While there's no certainty as to what IS truth in Plutarch's writings and how correct are the modern reconstructions of the lost languages like Egyptian and Assyrian, yet there, no doubt, IS such thing as similarity between Biblical and pagan teachings.

And there's no mystery about the answer for those who know the Bible. Truth and counterfeits, that's it. Satan, who "transforms himself into the angel of light" as the Bible has it.

--Genesis 3:15 gives the first prophecy given to Adam and Eve when NO other people existed and it speaks of enmity between Satan and the followers of God, revealing also the ultimate victory of the latter.
--There were other prophecies given (through Enoch, for example) and not all of them are recorded in the Bible, yet they were heard by people and angels.

And since Satan is the beginner of false worship in general, he tried to give it all features of the true one, so that people could be mislead to think they're serving God. Therefore all that was consistently revealed to true worshippers of God was imitated in false cults.
With one serious difference: God's religion can explain the meaning of everything in it and it all works well for developing god-pleasing qualities in men, and the pagan counterfeit avails to nothing... This is also one of the reasons why those ones are long forgotten while the true one is still available in the book most translated and printed among other books.
This is it in general, but to be able to answer ALL the questions you need be "earnestly seeking" for it. Are you?

...And how did the inventors of Osiris who "gets resurrected on the 3d day" (if it sure speaks of THREE days exactly) KNOW about Jesus to be resurrected on 3d day?
--Even if this information about ancient god Osiris IS correct, it is nothing strange. 3 is a "sacred" number in ancient cults, so why not in 3 days??
--The story of Jonah was used by Jesus to show how he was about to be resurrected on the third day, yet even then his followers had hard times to understand what was going to happen, to which they admitted in their own truthful and sincere writings (read the gospels to verify that). So pagan worshippers could hardly KNOW what God's true worshippers only understood some time after it happened.

--Was God, therefore, to change 3 days to 4/5/6/whatever just because pagan god Osiris already "had been believed" to have been resurrected on the third day???
Funny question since Osiris never existed nor had actually been resurrected. Nor are we sure Plutarch wasn't driven by dislike for Christian faith, nor was ALL Plutarch's information accurate.

But this is a piece of "solid food", mind you.

Originally Posted by kostya Not ALL evolutionists have given up on that, of course. Yet the smartest among them have got it that they aren't going to find transitional species. So now they're talking about "instantaneous" change from a "less" to a "more advanced" species. Sorry, I couldn't found any Internet links; but I think you'll have no problems finding them, fond as you are of evolution stuff.

I encourage you to read some of Francis Collins work. He's an evangelical christian and Director of the National Institute of Health, who has written about how he reconciles his belief with his science.

From an interview

What would you say to Christians who feel that the randomness or the chaos that evolution can sometimes imply flies in the face of their most cherished beliefs? I would say that I understand that and I'm sympathetic with how jarring that realization can be. I would say that the stance that some believers take, which is simply to reject evolution, is also to reject the information that God has given us, the ability to understand. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures.

My emphasis.

Originally Posted by reed9 Like a brick wall.

IMO, in this case instead of arguing for the heck of it, it would be more rational to launch atheist/agnostic website, slap adsense onto it, and host all arguments/discussions there (since people are stubborn and will argue forever, that may actually be profitable). I mean, if somebody's faith has no logical basis behind it, and the person cannot be reasoned with, then the most reasonable decision would be to use that person's faith/stubbornness for your own benefit.

Originally Posted by SigTerm IMO, in this case instead of arguing for the heck of it, it would be more rational to launch atheist/agnostic website, slap adsense onto it, and host all arguments/discussions there (since people are stubborn and will argue forever, that may actually be profitable). I mean, if somebody's faith has no logical basis behind it, and the person cannot be reasoned with, then the most reasonable decision would be to use that person's faith/stubbornness for your own benefit.

There's a ton of excellent ones already out there run by people who write far better than I do. I do my small part by contributing money to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Secular Coalition for America, and the New England Skeptical Society. Still, I do think there is a benefit to posting on forums like this. Not that I think there's much chance that believers will change their mind, but at least getting the message out there, get it in the public consciousness, and ideally help it become more mainstream. Hey, for the first time atheists are less disliked in the US than a significant political group, ie, the Tea Party.

Since the inertia of any of my threads that have to do with matters eternal tends here, I've taken the liberty to spare the moderators the trouble:

Article # whatever of A Layman's Reflections:

The “Inner-I” Specimen

There are exactly 2 quintessential types of specimen that can be tested by humans that will ever give evidence to the effects of human death.

Forgive the necessary simplism here:

1) The “Outer-Them”: that part of human nature external to self
2) The “Inner-I”: that part of human nature internal to self

The “outer-them” is obvious. The “inner-I” is more enigmatic, especially in consideration of death. The effects of death on “outer-thems” has been tested involuntarily from the dawn of time, and that quite exhaustively. Human observation of the death of “outer-thems,” proves two things, quite conclusively.

1) Death is certain
2) Death is final

Whereas death of “outer-thems” is tested ad infinitum, death of the “inner-I” is tested but once, by one, and shared by none this side of death. As such, it cannot be tested scientifically, as with “outer-thems.”

Most everything external to the “inner-I” is tested ad infinitum. Yet the effect of death on the “inner-I,” is tested but once, and that because it is internal to self. There is one exception.

Some here have alluded to sharing sensory observations as supportive of scientific conclusions. There is human testimony on historical record that one has conclusively died, and been raised again to life, having after death relationship with his friends. The Apostle John is quoted as having said, “We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life . . . And now we testify and proclaim to you that he is the one who is eternal life . . . We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that you may fully share our joy.”

As far as I know, the written source of this excerpt is the only testimony we have on historical record of one dying on our behalf, and conquering death by resurrection, for us. That source is the Bible. Human death occuring once per human, gives us reason to consider such testimony very carefully. God be merciful on whoever should be so presumptuous as to handle such evidence hastily, or even worse, casually.

Originally Posted by kostya It is not "poor design", according to the Bible it is a consequence of sin, the original disobedience to God of the first human couple.

Please cite to us where in the Bible God redesigned humans because of sin. Genesis mentioned that women would give birth in pain, but that's hardly a redesign of humans, and sounds like He was done giving epidurals. Any other examples of post-Apple bio-engineering?

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Please cite to us where in the Bible God redesigned humans because of sin. Genesis mentioned that women would give birth in pain, but that's hardly a redesign of humans, and sounds like He was done giving epidurals. Any other examples of post-Apple bio-engineering?

He didn't "redesign" because of sin. But sin makes things bad. What's designed to work well doesn't always work well and in the end they all die (in addition to women giving birth in pain), even the strongest. "Unforeseen occurrence" (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12) causes good and bad at random.
It was not supposed to be like that in a world blessed by God.
Such is the world where humans are allowed to try to "become like gods"(Gen 3:5) and even animals reflect the changes effecting humans. This is logical, since the man was made to "have in subjection all the fishes of the sea, the creatures of the earth etc..."(Gen 1:28).

In Romans 5:12 (for example) it is explained: "sin" is what causes men to err and repent, fall ill, suffer and die. A whole book with explanations is needed for us to bring our minds back in balance; it was not so with Edam and Eve to whom only one (!) commandment was given.
And Romans 8:19-22 brings the point home, that this is a temporary thing allowed by God on purpose, to which he'll put and end when he considers the issue (which is better, with or without God?) proved. And so on and so on...

The "churches" have to stick to the lies they earlier accepted from false religions (Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, Mother of God, predestination, God being both evil and good, etc.). When the Bible says otherwise, they prefer to stick to the dogmas because it is these very dogmas that originally distinguished them from other Bible-based believers. This was how "sects" started and sects is what they in fact are with relation to the Bible.
Not surprising many clergymen find it even saving in their position to accept evolution, when what their Church teaches is so far from being satisfying. Without that, too, they're risking to lose their parish on which they depend for money.

But Jesus never took money for teaching people and commanded his apostles not to do that either. Love for truth wouldn't allow his followers to modify it to fit what other people believe. It is for those only, who're seeking the truth and for them there WILL be satisfying answers to any questions, not contradicting with science nor itself nor with love.

For others it is always possible to doubt or contradict it, cause everyone sticks to the faith of his preference and various arguments have but secondary role here. And my effort here was ONLY to demonstrate, that the Bible argumentation is far from being contradicting, incomplete or unscientific.

And besides, I'm not sure how humans are in position to speak of "poor design" of something they don't yet even 50% understand.

Life "works" for millions of years, the same species remain the same species (as fossils show), mutations are corrected, genetic code does its work so that life forms still exist and are still functional. Humans are known to survive in hardest circumstances (as they were put throughout human history).

What works of equal effectiveness are humans known to have produced, that I could accept their ability to even judge whether life is "poor design" or not???

And you, reed9, would you refer as to "experts" to them whose qualities are SO unequal to the issue in question? Where is your SCIENTIFIC approach ?

Originally Posted by kostya And you, reed9, would you refer as to "experts" to them whose qualities are SO unequal to the issue in question? Where is your SCIENTIFIC approach ?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask here. Do you mean to say because humans can't build life, they haven't the expertise to talk about life?

Originally Posted by reed9 I have no idea what you're trying to ask here. Do you mean to say because humans can't build life, they haven't the expertise to talk about life?

And what else is "expertise"?

Otherwise they must qualify as "consumer rights experts". Well that will make sense only if the Manufacturer exists. But hey, in that case they have to first try it HIS way and "read the manual" and follow it. Then maybe they will say:"ah well, it didn't work for me, sorry". And then techsupport group will give its suggestions of what to do next.

Originally Posted by kostya And besides, I'm not sure how humans are in position to speak of "poor design" of something they don't yet even 50% understand.

I just can't help myself...

How do you how much there is to understand in order to even assign a number like this? You're just making stuff up, which isn't a strong argument. (And again engaging in an argument from ignorance.)

Life "works" for millions of years, the same species remain the same species (as fossils show), mutations are corrected, genetic code does its work so that life forms still exist and are still functional. Humans are known to survive in hardest circumstances (as they were put throughout human history).

Your "life works" argument neglects the multitude of species that have gone extinct. By definition the life that exists now has been able to adapt to their respective environments. The concept of species itself though is not clear cut as you seem to think. There is considerable disagreement over what exactly constitutes of "species". Working definitions generally define it as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (Mayr definition). On the genetic level, all life exists in a continuum, we are built from the same stuff and share many of the same genes.

Your argument that we don't understand life well enough to critique the engineering is misguided at best. Take the eye for example. We clearly have a good knowledge of optics and how to build lenses. The eye, from our engineering standpoint, is backwards and inefficient. That makes sense in the context of evolution. In the context of an all-powerful all-knowing God designing it, there's some explaining to do. The answer I've most often heard is that we shouldn't think of it as God's engineering project, but more like a work of art, or people just chalk it up to God's ineffable nature. Which isn't an answer. If your goal is to try and understand the universe, taking that position is shutting off the door to inquiry and understanding. It's throwing up your hands and saying, "God works in mysterious ways" and then walking away from the question, ie, it's a complete affront to reason, intelligence, curiosity, and wonder.