The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet You, OregonJim, attempt to discredit and deny the scientific method apparently to put it on an "even keel" by denying Objective Facts exist, with what you accept as evidence without the mediator of falsifiabilty, without the Rules of Evidence, all to serve your pre-judice that the Christian Bible is handed down by God and is Absolute Truth.

Huh? I am wholeheartedly in FAVOR of the scientific method. Where am I trying to discredit it?

Let me put my objections a different way. Evolutionists are rabidly defensive against separating OBSERVATIONAL science from HISTORICAL science. That is, they deny that the CONCLUSIONS they draw from observation of the world NOW is laced with assumptions about how the world WAS long ago. This has nothing to do with the scientific method. It has to do with how the explanation for evidence of evolution MISAPPLIES the scientific method. Objective facts do indeed exist, but evolutionists mix them in with ASSUMPTIONS dishonestly. For instance, ALL radiometric dating methods are not only based on vast assumptions about constant rates of decay, equilibriums that are not demonstrable, and predicate assumptions, they also disagree with each other by orders of magnitude when applied to the same sample. When used carefully, they can be useful for RELATIVE dating, but not ABSOLUTE. Another thing - most people aren't even aware that evolutionists date the age of the earth, not by sampling anything that actually COMES from the earth, but by guesstimating the age of meteorites. Can you say BLIND FAITH?

Have you ever tried to have a rock sample dated? I have. Do you know what they ask you? "What is the approximate date you believe for this sample?" "In what geographical area was this sample found?" Can you say PRESUPPOSITION?

When you change these assumptions to match the Biblical account, the OBSERVATIONAL data STILL FITS. In fact, the Biblical account RESOLVES more problems than evolution does. There is a lot of good stuff that flows out of the evolutionary model. Why? Because those things match the Biblical model!

Remember - at one time, "science" was so convinced that the earth was at the center of the solar system that it was irrefutable. They put the sun-centered "heretics" to shame. Even the church believed the scientists to the point that they incorrectly interpreted the Bible to match. Then truth prevailed, which ultimately came from the astronomer who interpreted the Bible CORRECTLY.

Now think about this. Genetic entropy is scientific fact. The information in our DNA is getting progressively lost. That's why we die. That's why the whole race will die. Evolution says we are supposed to be evolving, not devolving. The Bible says we were cursed because of sin, and will die. Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, which would have allowed them to live forever. But they chose to believe the lie and were cursed. That curse could be theorized as the introduction of an imperfection into DNA.

Originally Posted by enorbet Please, do link someone who is respected by the scientific community as one who is diligent and forthright,

I already have. You seem to mean respected by the EVOLUTIONIST scientific community. You see, it is a battle of FAITH here, not science. Evolutionists are some of the biggest bigots on the planet. Just like you, they reject anything out-of-hand that doesn't agree with their viewpoint. They have a double standard. They don't care about the data, they only care about WHO IS PRESENTING IT. They are being exposed, and the general public is starting to see that. They can no longer hide behind their credentials, because the data itself exposes them. More and more non-atheists are joining the scientific community and discovering the subtle (and not so subtle) errors. Ironically, it is those who believe in God who are far more objective about the evidence than atheists. But the evolutionists in the scientific community are a "good ole boys" club, and it's finally being infiltrated by objective re-examination of the data.

Here is the universal attitude of indoctrination in evolution:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Professor Richard Lewontin Evolutionary biologist Harvard University

Think about this: Why are you so narrowly particular in the sources you will accept? It is because you are unable (or unwilling) to examine the data itself and you are relying on "professional" conclusions to tell you what to believe. If you were able to objectively look at the data, your interpretive sources would be of little importance. The truth is in the data, not the interpreter. In other words, you are forming your beliefs based upon your hand-selected subset of pre-interpreted data. You have chosen your "religion" and it is entirely composed of evolutionist bias.

While evolutionists continue to grasp at straws, inventing pure fantasies like "dark matter" out of thin air in a desperate attempt to keep the dam from bursting, new scientists are stepping back and looking at the big picture - and evolution is showing itself to be the pink elephant that it really is. The acceptance from the public is slow but sure, simply because we have an entire generation that has been indoctrinated with the lies from the textbooks.

Again, the Bible teaches this. Many will hold to the deceit, even when they know it is wrong. They love the lies more than the truth. Think about that. No ultimate accountability versus a submission to the One who created you. Pride in your own accomplishments versus glory to God. Choose-your-own morals versus honoring the Given Standard. But, then the end will come, and I'm looking forward to that. You or someone else said that there are no "I told you so's" in Heaven. That's absolutely correct. I'm not interested in winning an argument or joining a popular club. I'm interested in the Truth.

@OregonJim - You think you're in favor of the scientific method because it suits your purpose. Your purpose can be summed up in one word - Bible. This is the book you hold in highest regard. It is actually sacred to you and everything else must conform to it, or it is hogwash in your mind. You continually redefine terms to suit this agenda and totally interpret history and science through your views on the Christian Bible. You attempt to discredit Science every time it balks at your notions and write it off to no concern for the data, but who is presenting it, an obvious and incorrect slur. You minimize what you want and maximize what you want according to it's agreement with your view of the Bible. You minimize actual data I have mined about your "experts" while insisting they are the ones in the right, the 3,000 you mention, versus the 1,300,000 in the US alone that trust the evidence for Evolution, for example.

Genetic Entropy is not a fact. It is proven bunk. Please Google "genetic entropy scholarly" to see for yourself.... though I know you won't do it. Or...simply consider Cockroaches, Crocodiles and Horseshoe Crabs for a few examples. I didn't make up the facts that your "experts" have bad records. I simply reported documented fact such as Jerry Bergman being fired without tenure for lying about his credentials. You give zero specifics and just wipe out the millions of credible academics with clean records in one broad-brush Bible stroke.

Age of Earth - You act as if a few meteorites were dated and the conclusion of the Earth's age was settled. You ignore the numerous fields of study that correspond and correlate. Argon dating dated Lucy to roughly 3,000,000 years ago. Schoolchildren realize Eastern South America and Western Africa make a nice fit, but it took Science finding plant and animal fossils as well as geological data to prove they were once joined, and measuring Continental Drift to determine the rate. The split did not happen in 10,000 years. It took hundreds of millions of years since the motion is only a few centimeters/year. Young Earth is bunk.

Geocentrists did NOT put Heliocentrists to shame. Heliocentricity was first recorded to be proposed by Aristarchus circa 300 BCE. Some of that data wasn't found until after Christianity forced Geocentricity because it made Earth "God's Chosen Place for His Chosen People". Scientists were not responsible for that beyond being forced to comply or be jailed or killed, like Galileo. Copernicus did NOT consult the Bible to theorize Heliocentricity, he used Math and found problems associated with Geocentricity disappeared. It took Kepler to postulate elliptical orbits to solve the rest, and though he was very religious, because he had Blind Faith in God, not necessarily the Bible, he kept that separate from studying the world and relied on evidence and Math, believing God must be a mathematician.

Since you redefine everything in terms of the Bible, and I don't accept the Bible as an authority on anything, this conversation can serve no purpose but to make those who already side with Faith and those who side with Reason, more polarized. I will attempt to resist rising to the bait and in the future limit my responses to you, as all but useless. We speak entirely different languages and serve different purposes. Case closed. That you deny Evolution and a ~4 Billion year old Earth just caps it all off as to how you "reason" and how much you respect and credit the scientific method.

Originally Posted by enorbet I will attempt to resist rising to the bait and in the future limit my responses to you, as all but useless. We speak entirely different languages and serve different purposes. Case closed.

The rest of your response serves to illustrate your deep indoctrination into the evolutionist Faith. My examples (e.g. Genetic Entropy) are current science, while you choose to mix old and new to bolster your arguments. You declare genetic entropy as "bunk" simply because it is a serious challenge to your beliefs without any viable alternatives. Therefore, the evolutionist declares "bunk" without any justification. "Move along, people - nothing to see here - all is as it was".

You fault me for applying the Biblical model to the data, while speaking out of the other side of your mouth and clinging to your own Faith by rejecting any other possibility. The truly objective and honest person considers BOTH arguments, applies them BOTH to the data, and observes which one more fully explains the results. You, sir, are deluded by your own beliefs and the evidence here clearly shows that. I was on your side for nearly 40 years before I realized that same delusion in myself. It's hard to admit a lifetime of being in error. Thank God that it is no longer true for me, and I pray that you will see the folly as well. But you will never get beyond rationalization until you ask yourself, "What if I'm wrong? What if I'm PROFOUNDLY wrong?". The consequences are worth considering. For ANYONE.

So, we did not get math, TV, new strains of diseases, computers, dog, plant and other breeds &c &c &c? Must Be figments...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e So, we did not get math, TV, new strains of diseases, computers, dog, plant and other breeds &c &c &c? Must Be figments...

What does any of that have to do with evolution? TVs and computers and math don't depend on the age of the earth or the explanation for how we got here. Dogs and plants? Diseases? Huh? Sigh. More indoctrination. Fables from school teachers.

Many things make blind faith fall apart except blind faith.

"We" are hypocrites* (evolving*) but at least some are evolving faster as "we" aren't religious witch includes sin and stu-f-ing-pidity!

Originally Posted by OregonJim The rest of your response serves to illustrate your deep indoctrination into the evolutionist Faith. My examples (e.g. Genetic Entropy) are current science, while you choose to mix old and new to bolster your arguments. You declare genetic entropy as "bunk" simply because it is a serious challenge to your beliefs without any viable alternatives. Therefore, the evolutionist declares "bunk" without any justification. "Move along, people - nothing to see here - all is as it was".

See? I knew you wouldn't google "scholarly genetic entropy". I suppose you like all Young Earthers remain smug in that if you assume earth is only a maximum of 10,000 years old, cockroaches, crocodiles, and horseshoe craps (to rename a few) have yet to have enough generations to actively test the concept. The evidence for an Earth age of 3.8 Billion years is absolutely overwhelming and coincides from all fields of study - Geology, Astronomy, Biology not to mention that whole Tectonic Plate Continental Drift snag, you so conveniently ignore.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You fault me for applying the Biblical model to the data, while speaking out of the other side of your mouth and clinging to your own Faith by rejecting any other possibility. The truly objective and honest person considers BOTH arguments, applies them BOTH to the data, and observes which one more fully explains the results. You, sir, are deluded by your own beliefs and the evidence here clearly shows that. I was on your side for nearly 40 years before I realized that same delusion in myself. It's hard to admit a lifetime of being in error. Thank God that it is no longer true for me, and I pray that you will see the folly as well. But you will never get beyond rationalization until you ask yourself, "What if I'm wrong? What if I'm PROFOUNDLY wrong?". The consequences are worth considering. For ANYONE.

You are so absolutely and unshakably convinced of your inside track on The Truth you even profess to know me better than I do. You simply cannot accept that, for better or for worse, I (nor anyone else) do not have Faith and I try to not have beliefs. This shows you to be utterly intractable which you likely view as a virtue, but which absolutely proves you have no commitment whatsoever to the scientific method beyond a means to prove the efficacy of the Christian Bible, or rather your interpretation of it, including your judgment of all individuals. You are entirely insular and only preach, never converse or debate. Typical.

Originally Posted by enorbet You are so absolutely and unshakably convinced of your inside track on The Truth you even profess to know me better than I do.

And, once again, your presuppositions and beliefs are glaringly obvious. I told you what GOD knows about you, not what I know about you. Whether you believe it or not, your beliefs do not change the truth one iota. You say, once again, you have no faith. I submit that belief in evolution/atheism/materialism requires far more faith than any other belief system known to humanity. That is not just my own opinion - I know of at least seven books that state that very fact, and countless people I've encountered across two continents who agree.

Tell me - if I gave you uncontestable proof that the Bible is true, would you become a Christian?

Originally Posted by OregonJim <snip> I told you what GOD knows about you, not what I know about you.

So you know what God knows? or God speaks through you?

Originally Posted by OregonJim Whether you believe it or not, your beliefs do not change the truth one iota.

Nobody's beliefs change the truth. That's partly why I try to not have any. I want to know verifiable truth. You want to promote The Bible.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You say, once again, you have no faith. I submit that belief in evolution/atheism/materialism requires far more faith than any other belief system known to humanity. That is not just my own opinion - I know of at least seven books that state that very fact, and countless people I've encountered across two continents who agree.

I fully expect that is so since without exception every single person so far (few though you specify) has been a graduate of or somehow closely involved with Christian Schools and/or the whole ridiculous "Creation Science" scam, most, proven liars and frauds and all utterly outside any serious scientific study. It keeps changing it's name but it's the same, tired old crap from the Scopes Trial - That Ol' Time Religion. You apparently don't even read let alone consider anyone from actual Science without that bias.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Tell me - if I gave you uncontestable proof that the Bible is true, would you become a Christian?

Like most of your circular logic this is a loaded question. It also reveals your complete lack of understanding of the nature and process of Science. In Science there is no such thing as "uncontestable". The contest is indeed rigorous but never assumed to be 100% uncontestable anytime, anywhere. My simple example of White Swans illustrates that so if you even followed the link I provided above, it didn't sink in nor did you choose to attempt to falsify it. That's particularly ironic since falsification is a key element of Science, Logic and Reason.


So please allow me to alter that word to "scientific" or at least "objective" to satisfy your question as best I can. If a preponderance of evidence did, and even could somehow in some unimaginable way manage to have what I trust is presently and possibly always impossible, namely objective evidence from outside our Universe, then of course under those circumstances I would have no choice but to give it the benefit of doubt until and unless it were to be falsified. To me, just like Religion itself, this is an exercise in futile speculation since such evidence cannot presently exist, but I am mildly interested in what you call "uncontestable proof".

Originally Posted by enorbet If a preponderance of evidence did, and even could somehow in some unimaginable way manage to have what I trust is presently and possibly always impossible, namely objective evidence from outside our Universe, then of course under those circumstances I would have no choice but to give it the benefit of doubt until and unless it were to be falsified. To me, just like Religion itself, this is an exercise in futile speculation since such evidence cannot presently exist, but I am mildly interested in what you call "uncontestable proof".

I see that you recognized the reason for the question. It was simply to test if you were sincerely interested in truth, regardless of where it is found.

Very few atheists have ever answered yes, even when they spot the reason for the question. You are no exception. Any answer other than a simple "yes" is a very strong indicator of a closed mind. Your statement that the "evidence cannot exist" is even more telling. I'm very sure that you would have said "yes" had I used anything other than the Bible as a test subject. It shows your prejudices and biases clearly, and taints your credibility. Yes, I have strong reasons and strong evidence to believe what I believe, but I'm always open to challenges and discovering truth wherever it is found.

You don't seem to realize that people lie and cover up things, even in the scientific community. As soon as you find something that fits your agenda, you grab it and run with it, never considering that there might be some politics behind much of what you read. It takes a bit more effort than googling to dig up the real truth. Creationists are persecuted in the scientific community. It is impossible to get tenure as a creationist precicely because of the politics. Trumped up charges are used when real challenges to evolution are raised. They discredit the scientist and throw out the data. I have documented proof of that in over three dozen court cases. Countless others never go to court. Objective truth seekers? Indeed, there is more politics than science in today's science.

If you're not afraid of creationism - if you think it's all a bunch of bunk - then why don't the evolutionists allow the creationists to do their work and hang themselves without any effort from them? I think you know the answer.

I have no doubt that evolution will be proven wrong in my lifetime. Nobody is suggesting to throw the baby out with the bath water - many good things have been discovered. But the evidences of origin will be proven wrong. Yet, I also have no doubt that creationism will continue to be rejected. "Science" is already postulating alternatives to evolution, like the idea that extraterrestrial aliens seeded the primordial ooze. And this is considered objective, valid science by the established "community". As I said earlier, it's not a battle of science, it's a battle of faith. People would rather trust in aliens over God, and they will twist and stretch science until they can rationalize themselves into belief - just like they did with evolution.

Do "we" even come close to properly educating 2/3rds of the world's??? Truth is only lies but to slaves, free your minds!

"We" don't need faith that there's no "gods" and immortality just evolving common sense, sorry!

Mormons can quite obviously talk to "gods" better than yours because they had magic stones,,, not just pews with golden views. Plus then, Budismo is even smarter than all other not so smart "truths!"

"We" can not stop yous from rearing your kids in those close minded rooms but "your" apocalypses as part of our evolution would be a worst case "fix!" http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5542821

Add: Religions stopped savages by being savages...

I would also like to point out if we leave Adam and Eve in those rooms until they die, according to yous they go to hell like dogs!

So it is written... so we must evolve!

Originally Posted by OregonJim <major snippage> If you're not afraid of creationism - if you think it's all a bunch of bunk - then why don't the evolutionists allow the creationists to do their work and hang themselves without any effort from them? I think you know the answer.

Indeed I do. I'm not afraid of "Creationism" beyond the "divine license" it often gives to terrorism. It is bunk as long as it has no basis in reality... has and can have no evidence. Scientists have zero problems with anyone, even nutters, pursuing whatever course they choose no matter how wild or absurd. There is no attempt to prevent such speculation. This is not the same as expecting respect or acceptance for anything that has no objective evidence and cannot stand up to a wide variety of peer review and is not falsifible. You can't join the club if you don't pay your dues and follow the rules, wherever they take you.

Originally Posted by OregonJim I have no doubt that evolution will be proven wrong in my lifetime. Nobody is suggesting to throw the baby out with the bath water - many good things have been discovered. But the evidences of origin will be proven wrong. Yet, I also have no doubt that creationism will continue to be rejected. "Science" is already postulating alternatives to evolution, like the idea that extraterrestrial aliens seeded the primordial ooze. And this is considered objective, valid science by the established "community". As I said earlier, it's not a battle of science, it's a battle of faith. People would rather trust in aliens over God, and they will twist and stretch science until they can rationalize themselves into belief - just like they did with evolution.

You are delusional. While many scientists speculate that life may be ubiquitous (and on that level, I agree), no credible scientists has any confidence whatsoever that intelligent life even exists elsewhere, let alone the preposterous idea "they" have visited Earth. There is no doubt that many, including me, want for intelligent extraterrestrial life to be found true, but simply wanting something to be true is not compelling in the least. In fact it is to be guarded against. Something you apparently don't get.

Edit - PS - I noticed you had no response for "So you know what God knows? or God speaks through you?"

@Enorbet,

Your mind is closed as was demonstrated by you earlier. There is no point in further discussion.

One observation that occurs to me: You claim no Faith and no Religion, and not even the slightest interest in either. Yet this thread is titled the "Faith & Religion mega Thread", and you show up in it regularly. That makes you one of two things: a troll or a hostile entity.

No response is necessary. The facts speak for themselves.