It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:34 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Top Ten Signs That You're a Christian
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Top Ten Signs that You're a Christian


10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.

Link: Godless Geeks.com


Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:31 am 
Hello Catherine,

First post here.

I'm just wondering if this 'Top Ten' post of yours was personally inspired or someone elses words? I'm curious about your opinion/stand on christianity in a deeper sense. I can't tell from this last post. Lets discuss.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Religion discussion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Thank you, Lucas.
No, that's not mine...I wish it was! But I'm not that smart.

I think my cousin, who lives in Los Angeles sent that to me. Did you try the link?

I am not religious, Lucas. I grew up in a staunch Republican, Southern Baptist household where we were at our church everytime the doors were open. But I'm an insatiable learner and I was a questioner even as a child.

I respect all persons who are religious, regardless of their religious choice, as long as they don't try to force their religious beliefs onto me. If they want to discuss religion, as you seem to want to do, I would love to do that, but in order to have informed discourse, I think it would be more meaningful if we sort of divided it into topics, so we could stay focused. It's also helpful to do it when we're both online and can give and take.

Would you agree on a topical discussion, then? Perhaps you would like to invite some of the other members, too. Jesse, dori, Eva, John, and any others you see here. I'm not sure of their religious leanings, but they're fair-minded people, all of them.

I have art class this morning and I will be back sometime this afternoon. I'm usually online a couple of hours a day, unless something comes up and prevents me from sitting down without interruptions. I'm more likely to be here at night.

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:25 pm 
,Catherine,
Smart? Do you think that the person you wrote that was smart??! Do you understand the definition of intelligence, Catherine? A smart person is a person who reads the facts and makes an educated statement. That 'Top Ten' was in no way, shape or form 'smart'. Whoever wrote that has not put enough time or research into what they have written. If you want to consider yourself an intellect, you first have to remove your ignorance and arrogance and search for the truth. I have read more books about creation, christianity and evolution than you could possibly imagine. It has been my job and passion for most of my life. Some of the most respected scientists of our world in physics, astronomy, biology, geoolgy and other fields, agree that our world was created by an intelligent designer. They have come to this conclusion because science proves it! Professor Richard Ferriman, a former Noble Peace Prize winner declared, "Many scientists DO believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistant way".
These men are smart. These men, who have written countless books, papers and articles on science, are the ones that have real knowledge, not some uneducated stiff who can write down unresearched "top Tens". I could dig through more books of mine, find other top ranking, highly respected scientists who have concluded that creation is the only plausible explanation, and quote them, but, I wil stop here and wait for a formulated response.
Cheers.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Lucas...you are obviously a very passionate person about religion, and as such, you will have to begin your side of the debate by stating what god it is you're talking about, and why this god is better, smarter, and more believable to you than any other god.

I think it would be a good idea to state which religion you're talking about, also.

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:24 am 
Catherine,

I do not want to discuss "who's God is smarter or better". That discussion would be equavilent to discussing who's father is stronger. Great fun on the playground, but both pointless and absurd. What I want to discuss is your opinion on why this christian-bashing "top ten" author is so "smart". Do you actually believe that what he/she wrote was intellectual in any shape or form?
If that is the case, which I'm supposing it is from your past post, than I will get down to my point. There are two camps or two belief systems apparent in this world. One is evolution and the other creation. One believes that life spontaneously arose from nothing, and the other holds that we are purposely created individuals made by an Intelligent Creator.
One belief is supported by science and the other is not.
First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong. To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing and that things are becoming more and more disorganized. Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized. Here we have two fundamental laws that govern our universe directly contradicting evolution's premise. And these are only two! There are more things i could point to in science that refute evolution. There are many things in science i could point to and show prove creation. But as evolutionists, you disregard all that. There is a lot of literature out there in this world that shows evolution as the faulty theory it is. There is a lot more literature out there than what you read in your highschool science textbooks and what you hear on tv, and I highly suggest that you look into it. There's a book you should read, and others should as well, called "The Intellectuals Speak out about God". There's a nice quote I want to share with you:

"Unitl quite recently it was thought by many people that the leading scientists universally support atheism, that science is the rational alternative to theism. However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism. There is now strong scientific evidence for the exitence of God. Scientists, without presupposing God or creation, without trying to prove them, have come up with findings that strongly supprt the existence of God, His creation of the Universe and man, and supports a supernatual purpose for the world we live in."

Now, are these men of science smart or is your "author" the smart one?
To believe in evolution is to be guilty of ignorance. If you search out and learn what science really says, than you are doing yourself a better service than sitting on a flawed theory with weak arguments.

oh, and my God is better than evolution because He gives me hope of heaven, eternal life and everlasting love. What has evolution promised you today???

Cheers.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:14 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
Interesting post Lucas, but you have not answered Cathreine's questions.

Quote:
you will have to begin your side of the debate by stating what god it is you're talking about, and why this god is better, smarter, and more believable to you than any other god.

I think it would be a good idea to state which religion you're talking about, also.


I have to agree, we can get nowhere wihtout knowing what and who we are supposed to be discussing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Quote:
Do you actually believe that what he/she wrote was intellectual in any shape or form?


Lucas...to answer your question...the evidence of the intelligence of the person who wrote the Top Ten is obvious in the questions themselves. Since I don't know the person, I think it would be foolish and a waste of my time and yours to continue that side of the argument. It is my opinion that the intelligence is there, and your opinion is the opposite...nuff said on that point.

I believe god is unproved, not disproved. Let's look at #9 of the Top Ten list for starters:

Quote:
You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.


The universe is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of the universe, and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum. The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. As to the where did we come from argument, we go back to the design element...who made god?

For thousands of years humans created mythical answers to "mysteries" such as thunder, lightening, the seasons, fertility of both humans and the earth. The design belief of the theists is based on ignorance, nothing more. The more we learn, the fewer gods we need. God belief is just answering a mystery with a mystery, and therefore answers nothing. Also the theists would like for the human masses to remain in ignorance of natural elements that challenge their god explanation. Ignorant people aren't going to question, seek answers, and thus make discoveries that the theists don't want them to make...and the biggest thing they don't want them to do is to lose their faith, because faith keeps them ignorant.

A natural law is a description, not a prescription. The universe is not governed by anything. Natural laws are merely human conceptions of the way things normally react, not behavioral mandates, as with societal laws. If the design argument is valid, the mind of a god would be equally governed by some principals of order, requiring a higher lawgiver.


Quote:
Intelligent Design and Creationism

The next scientific type of argument is called intelligent design. It states that life on Earth is so complex that it must have had an intelligent designer. This argument has evolved from the creationism argument, and it’s gaining strength by masquerading as a science. It's not science because there is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. To get around legal restrictions on teaching religious dogma, proponents of intelligent design say that they don’t know what this designer was; it could have been an alien or a god. This is disingenuous. If it was an alien, then the obvious question is, where and how did the alien originate? If they really mean God, which is what I think they mean, then it devolves largely back to creationism. So, I will treat intelligent design and creationism as basically the same.
Proponents of intelligent design make many claims:

A watch requires a watchmaker.
A design requires a designer.
The physical laws require a lawgiver.
The complexity of life and the Universe require a cause that is not part of this natural world.
The laws of physics were fine-tuned for life.
Science can't explain all the features of life.
Our system of life on Earth was designed.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.
What they really claim is God did it!
Let’s start with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. However, it does not apply to the Earth, because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet.
Next, let’s consider the laws of physics. They are quantified explanations of how matter and energy behave, not anything like man-made laws. We currently don’t know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values, but that doesn’t mean that some god set them that way. The simple solution to the question of the source of the laws of physics is to accept them as brute fact, with no source. Besides, if it were true that a god set up the Universe for life and us to exist, he certainly had to wait a long time for the result. The Universe has been around for about 13 billion years. It took about nine billion years before our Earth was formed, and single celled bacteria were forming ecosystems about a billion years after that. Life on Earth evolved and became more complex. Then humans, God’s supposed reason for the whole creation, finally came along within the last hundred thousand years or so. This seems like a lengthy and complex process for an omnipotent being that could have simply snapped everything into existence. Using God as the source of the laws of physics just doesn’t make sense. Once again, religionists are trying to explain one unknown with another unknown.

The core argument in intelligent design is the fact that evolutionary biologists can't yet fully explain all the features of life; therefore life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is the old “god of the gaps” argument, and it is logically and historically flawed. It's logically flawed because it's based on a lack of knowledge — explaining these gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown (perhaps supernatural) being. Like all “god of the gaps” arguments, this is not falsifiable, can't even be tested, and says nothing about the moral qualities of this unknown being, god, or gods. It's historically flawed because science has shown excellent progress in explaining the world around us, and there is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet explained the origins of every single process of life. Because biochemical processes don't leave behind fossils, it's not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize. However, evolutionary biologists are making excellent progress in understanding the processes and origins of the biochemistry of life.

Life is a process — not a design. It requires an explanation — not an intelligent designer. This explanation is the fact and theory of evolution. “Evolution” simply means change over time. It’s a fact that enormous changes to life on Earth have occurred. The fossil records are clear and unambiguous on this. The theory of evolution explains the processes that caused these changes.

The evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming and conclusive. This evidence is not just in the fossils, but also in the the body parts and genes of every living thing. If you have any doubts, take a little time to learn the theory of evolution, then spend a few hours in any natural history museum or public library. If your mind is at all open, you will see the evidence. Remember, ignorance of how evolution works is no argument against it. The basic theory of evolution is completely solid, and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the complex history of life.

You don't even need to go to a natural history museum or library to see evidence for evolution; our own bodies have many signs of our evolutionary heritage. When we get goose bumps, our bodies are trying to keep warm by raising hairs that no longer help. The ability to wiggle ears is of no use for us, but not for some distant ancestors. We also have many useless, vestigial organs such as nipples on males, the appendix and the tailbone, which is just a holdover from when our primate ancestors actually had tails millions of years ago.

In fact, just about every cell in our bodies contains the evidence of our evolutionary origins. The basic process of life on Earth is so common that we share about 50% of our genes with carrots, and more than 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. Here are some useful biological facts:


We get an exact copy of the mitochondria in each cell from our mother.
Every male gets an exact copy of his Y chromosome from his father.
Both the mitochondria and Y chromosomes slowly mutate over time at a known rate.
With this knowledge, geneticists can estimate how recently any two of us shared a common female ancestor, or any two males shared a common male ancestor. Using this information and other data, the evidence strongly points to the claim that most or all of us are descended from a group of Africans that started migrating about 100,000 years ago.

The faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. When we study the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel through seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back through these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. In fact, evolution did a better job with the eyes of the octopus and squid, which have the light sensing cells on the surface, where they should be.

Let me address a common example that creationists use. “Look at the wonderful design of the human eye,” they say. “Surely this design could not have happened by chance. It must be that God did it.” Actually, it did happen by chance — countless little chance events of changes in the gene pool over millions of generations, all controlled by the harsh realities of natural selection and survival of the fittest. While the initial changes in the gene pool were chance events, survival of the fittest is obviously not random. This is the heart of the basic theory of evolution; individuals can pass their genes and characteristics on to their offspring. If a gene makes an individual more likely to have offspring that survive, its offspring that carry that gene will be more likely to have offspring that survive. In effect, species are designed to fit their environment. The designer is the blind process of evolution, however, not some god or gods.


You’ve probably heard people say that evolution is “only a theory.” It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. Basically, a scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The theory of evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.

Even more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis, which deals with the origins of life from non-life. Simple experiments have shown that amino acids, the molecular units that make up proteins, can be made in lab conditions simulating Earth's early atmosphere, and are even found in outer space. Amino acids are not living, but abiogenesis scientists are learning many ways that life could have originated from amino acids.

There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most creationists probably aren’t aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is a human concept. In the Universe, I maintain, things have no intrinsic purpose; they just exist. Does an atom have any purpose? Does a rock? Does a star? Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating, of creating more life. However, we must realize that this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people, and the Universe have no intrinsic purpose. We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good; but it’s important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Remember, when creationists begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. Don't be fooled by this logic slight of hand.

A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the Universe. [b]The idea of God used to make sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an Earth and everything else. The biblical Universe was much simpler then. The Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament. It contained the stars and held back the celestial waters. Above that were heaven and God.

We now know that the Universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient. It is the height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole Universe was made just for us. Our perspective has changed. We are no longer at the center of the Universe — not our planet, not our star, and not even our galaxy. As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center. It is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either.

It is also necessary to note that in order for creationism to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history. These fields of science make predictions and get results. Creationism makes no verifiable predictions and gets no useful results, and thus cannot in any way be called a science. A simple example of this is the field of oil exploration, where you won't find any creationist geologists — because they don't get results. And, with large amounts of money at stake, the companies want results.

Studies have shown that most people say that they base their belief in God on the design argument. I think that this is why creationists are putting so much energy into promoting their view. They realize that if the design argument were to fall, people might have to rethink their belief in God.


Catherine

Sources: The Cause Against God, by George Smith.

An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein

Bertrand Russell on God and Religion, edited by Al Seckel

Critiques of God, edited by Peter Angeles

www.godlessgeeks.com

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Last edited by Catherine on Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:19 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Dori...you are exactly right, but I am going to assume Lucas is a Christian.

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
Yes, that all sounded so familiar.

Cathreine, are you familiar with the magazines Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer? I live one county over from CFI but as a fairly housebound person have only been there once. Great people!

But I hear the anger of Christians every day. I keep wondering, if one is headed for heaven, why be so angry all the time? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of an all seeing, all loving god?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm 
Catherine,

You've made some interesting points, but outdated and ignorant. You want to say that MY faith keeps me ignorant, when it is yourself that is clouded in it. I do not know what science you trying to use but it is not the same one the rest of the world knows. So, here we go.

Lets start from the beginning. If the universe isnt a thing, then what is it? I had to chuckle when I read that, because that is one of the most unintellectual things I have ever heard. Go read a book. Go read many of them. The universe is indeed a 'thing'. To believe that its not is to try and refute every scientist that has walked this earth and every knowledgable idea that we have come up with. Simply ridiculous.
Next you state that 'god' must have a creator. It makes sense to those that do not understand what God actually is. First, the universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as I'll show a bit later. God, however, had no beginning, so does not need a cause. For something like God to have created the universe, He must be seperate from time and space, thus He can have no beginning. He does not stand within the realms He has created, He stands outside. He is not governed by the same laws that govern our universe and our earth. I think you can agree with me that there is cause and effect in this universe, correct? Everything that is, has a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. The universe, that has a beginning (I will get there soon) thus, necessitates a cause. That cause(God) must be seperate from whatever it is causing(universe), and such things as time, matter and space. Sorry, being a little redundant here. But this is logic. If you want to refute logic, than there is no way I can argue it. It is what it is.
Ok, so, I said that the universe has a beginning. One of evolutions greatest problems is, where did the universe and its massive energy come from and when did it begin? It is illogical to believe that the universe just suddenly appeared by random chance. It makes sense that an intelligent designer, who exists outside of the universe, time, energy and space, purposely created it. I regress back to the second law of thermodynamics which shows that everything is becoming more disorganized and more chaoitc. The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. The heat of the sun only speeds the disorganiztion process.
"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Henry Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise, I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that my cat walking on my keyboard could write a book.
So, putting that to bed, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics holds true. You can try and distort it as much as you would like and say that it does not work for an open system, but it does. Saying a cat is actually a fish does not make it so. Learn the facts then argue them. With the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holding true to the earth, our solar system and the universe, this is hard evidence that our universe had a beginning. Whoever wrote your internet article has many more flawed ideas that I will happily point out. The 2nd Law itself is enough for the evolutionary theory to come crumbling down, but its only the beginning. Also, I want to debate here. I want you to form these arguments, Catherine. Don't let someone else think for you. How do you explain what I have just showed you?
Cheers


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:20 pm 
I've also taken the liberty to organize some sources that show the disillusion that the 2nd Law supports evolution. Happy readings!

Creationist Interpretations of Chemical Organization in Time and Space," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (March 1986), pp. 157-158.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).
Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 185-215, and "Creation and the Laws of Science," in Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), pp. 153-188.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), pp. 3-10.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970), and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968).
Walter L. Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of Life," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 13-14 (addresses some arguments raised by Dr. John W. Patterson and Francis Arduini, etc., shows that the basic arguments used by Evolutionists against the 2nd Law have no relevance to the origin of life).
Robert A. Gange, "Commentary on the Patterson/Walter Exchange," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 14-16, and Origins and Destiny (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986) (contains an explanation of The New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics and the information content in biological systems).
Tracy Waters, "A Reply to John Patterson's Scientific Arguments," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 8-9.
Jerry Kelley, "Thermodynamics and Probability," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 11-13, and "On the Nature of Order," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 14-15.
Dudley J. Benton, "Thermodynamics, Snowflakes, and Zygotes," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 86.
David A. Kaufmann, "Human Growth and Development, and Thermo II," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June 1983), pp. 24-28.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 91-110.
Harold L. Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (March 1980), pp. 226-227, 206, and Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 72-73, 59.
Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, especially pp. 200-201, and Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
J. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1973).
Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis By Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), pp. 377-398.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:24 pm 
Just a little thing on the construction of the eye.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that the intricate engineering displayed in the human eye was so specialized and complex that he could not begin to imagine how th eye might have developed through the evolutionary processes of natural selection.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selcetion, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pg.217


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Your argument remains one of ignorance, Lucas, because you are arguing that a deity of some kind created the universe and everything in it.

You are saying that everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. God is the first cause, hence, your deity, the inmoved mover, so to speak. God is the creator and the sustainer of the universe, according to you.

The major premise of your argument is contradicted by the conclusion that your god did not have a cause. You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe. Do you understand cause and effect?

Some theists assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the arugment wishes to prove.

Your belief in your god is one of intimidation. It isn't a case for a god's existence; it is an argument for belief, based on irrational fear. Your kind of reasoning only suggests that you have chosen the religion with the worst hell. You have sacrificed honesty to the maintenence of a lie. Religion demands time, energy, and (mostly) money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of this world. Religious conformity, a threat to tyrants, is a threat to freedom.

In any case, a belief in a deity based on fear is not a belief that produces admiration within me. Rather, I see no reason why such a being deserves to be worshipped.

As a last statement on this aspect of our discussion, let me be clear: You must either declare your "religion" or you and I will not discuss anything further in this thread.

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:26 am 
Catherine,

How is it ignorance that I argue God created the universe? I know many very intelligent men and women around this world that would claim that you are the ignorant one! But I am not going to play the name calling game. That is for the weak of mind to play.
Let me introduce you to cause and effect, Catherine.

I will employ a three part deductive argument, where P stands for a premise and C stands for a conclusion:

P1 - Anything that comes into existence cannot come from nothing; that is, it must have a cause that brings it into existence.

P2 - The universe is something that came into existence.

C1 - Therefore, the universe cannot have come from nothing; that is, it must have a cause.

This conclusion then functions as a premise in another deductive argument:

P3 - The universe cannot have come from nothing, i.e., there must be a cause for the existence of the universe.

P4 - The cause of the universe may itself have a cause, and so on in a chain of cause and effect extending backward in time.

P5 - Every series of causes, every sequence of causes and their effects, no matter how far back in time it extends, must have a beginning and hence a first cause.

C2 - The backward chain of cause-and-effect for the universe cannot go on forever, that is, it must have a first cause.

C2 then functions as a premise in the final part of the argument:

P6 - The backward chain of cause-and-effect for the universe begins with a first cause.

P7 - The first cause, by being uncaused, has an unconditional existence.

P8 - That which has an unconditional existence must be God.

C3 - Therefore, God exists as the first cause of the universe.

This is cause and effect.

And, Catherine, I do not feel the need to state my religion. If you feel like ending this discussion, do so. It matters not to me. I will carry it on with someone else. Furthermore, why have you not come back with a counter to my other facts that I displayed for you? Have you given up on trying to prove that evolution works with the 2nd Law? Or are you just waiting around for a scientist to prove it? Either way, it is not going happen. Evolution is in direct contradiction to it. You can't push a square peg through a circular hole...no matter how badly you want it to fit. But then again, thats what you evolutionists have been doing for 150 years.

What you may see as ignorance, Catherine, I see as the only other option. When evolution has failed us, God is the only alternative to our creation. You can keep telling me that I am being ignorant, and I will keep showing you that evolution is wrong, thus leaving only one option left: God. You, among many other self-proclaimed intellects, fail to see the many holes in your arguements because your stubborn in them. You don't want God to be true. You dont want to believe that there is a God because then, when you die, He is going to judge you on what you have done with your life. If you are right, and there is no God, you and I will both just die and disappear. But if I am right, then when I die, I will meet my Creator in heaven, and you will not. Why take that gamble?

Tell me, Catherine, why do you hate the idea of God so much?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group