snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Aug 23, 2006 16:11:00 GMT -5
(1) Only one refers to a man’s seed so I don’t see who every time the bible talks about seed in relation to sexual intercourse that it is talking about the man’s seed only. I do think you are mixing up some of what the Bible says and some old pagan beliefs. “Classical Greek medical theory considered women to be merely vessels in which the man's sperm was incubated much like the earth was the place where sown seeds grew. In late Roman antiquity, medical theory acknowledged that women actually contributed to the formation of their children. Since it is the man's seed that initiates the pregnancy, a woman's contribution to the child was of a lesser quality than that of the man's. Yet, Stoics and others agreed that the mother contributed elements of soul as well as body. A distinct improvement from classical Greece.” (http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/antqty1.html) (2) Hero concept? Zeus was a wife beater and an adulterer Hercules was stupid and killed his wife Romulus was raised by wolves. Although the mother was a virgin he didn’t die for them he just made a city On the surface yeah they look like the story but I guess you need faith. Also Jesus didn’t have super strength. We all can do everything Jesus did. He was human and God and it isn’t like a genetic trait like some of the Greek Myths would show you. God also didn’t raise up to be a so great king he started humble and ended humble. He had no faults unlike the Greek myths about gods. (3)I don’t think any of the names are mystical. Accutally yes it does. Like I said you would still believe instead of is that it. That is all you have to back up your statement. I would find sixes all around me if I wanted to . My middle name has six letters. (4) My last name has six letters. And when I get married my new last name will have six letters. Hum 666. I had 3 sixes in my phone number once. Numerics added 1) So then when it refers to seed the first time it's a contradiction in the others? Wouldn't that be erata? Pagan beliefs? Wonder who got the concept from who on this one.... 2) The hero archetype: - His mother was a royal virgin X
- His father is a king X
- The king is a near relative of the mother X
- Circumstances of conception are unusual X
- Reputed to be the son of a god X
- At birth there is an attempt to kill him X
- Spirted away X
- Raised by foster parents in a far country -
- Told nothing of his childhood X
- On return after manhood he goes on to achieve his future kingdom X
- After defeating a king, child or dragon, -
- he marries a princess -
- He becomes king X
- Reigns uneventfully X
- Prescribes laws X
- Looses favor with his subjects X
- Driven from the throne of the city X
- Meets with a mysterious death, X
- often at the top of hill X
- Does not have children succeed him X
- His body is not (or remained) buried) X
- Has more than one holy sepulchers X
Oedipus has all 22 of them; Theseus 20; Jesus 19; Romulus 17; Hercules 17 and on down the list of names. Yes, it's the hero concept. Jesus is no different then other mystery cults of the day. Plus, didn't Jesus drive out the money changers and over turn tables in the temple? This is hardly an acceptable behavior either. Granted it's not wife beating, but it's not civil. 3) Are you kidding me? You seriously believe that list of names I gave you are people that existed? That were flesh and blood? They were considered half men and half gods, how could they not be mystical and mythical? 4) Ronald Wilson Reagan! OMG he was the anti-christ (by that standard)! Go learn the divination of names to numbers Nero is 666 in three languages of that day. He sat on the kingdom on seven hills, he wore purple robes, he took a mortal wound to the head and the description of the beast is of the Roman government. Find the book " When Time Shall Be No More," I believe, talks about some of this. On the genealogy: This is a contradiction plain and simple. There is no name changes for skipping generations so that argument falls flat like I said. They are two different genealogies.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Aug 24, 2006 5:50:39 GMT -5
I almost didn’t reply to any of this. But I can not help it.
No, see you jump to conclusions. Science has seen particles pop into existence in a vacuum then go back to where they came. And we have no explanation where they cam from or where they go. But it has happened. It looks like that something can come from nothing. At least from where we sit. And if this matter does come from somewhere else then matter isn’t coming from nothing. It is coming from somewhere we just don’t know where.
No it’s a law that energy can NOT be destroyed. It is only changed into different states. And it seems that matter and energy can be exchanged. Matter can become energy and energy can become matter. Although we don’t know how to do the latter yet. And as far as the theory of evolution of the laws of physics. I have no idea what you are talking about. our laws of physics are changing all the time. When we find batter info we adjust our view of the universe. Religion on the other hand can not change and doesn’t change. Which is sad.
You really believe that? Of course you do. You ignore the facts around you and believe the crap someone else spits out no matter how crazy they are. Well lets see. I don’t win the lottery everyday and we are here. So I say the odds are better, much better that we are here than the odds that I will win the lottery everyday. Or do you have a different reality than I do? Are you here? If not then how can I talk to you?
Oh one last thing. The bible was written on the back of this lie you call it. Hebrew legend is the start of the bible you so hold up as being truth. If the Hebrew legend is a lie then the foundation of the bible and the bible along with it is a lie. But if that is too hard for you to grasp I’m sorry.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 9, 2007 18:57:30 GMT -5
No, see you jump to conclusions. Science has seen particles pop into existence in a vacuum then go back to where they came. And we have no explanation where they cam from or where they go. This is not an exception to the principle that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Philosopher Dr. Craig explains: "Virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, `. . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)' ([1986], p. 440)" (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html). Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who studied quantum mechanics for his doctoral thesis, states: "This is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics...their `quantum vacuum' is a lot of matter-antimatter potential - not `nothing'" (Refuting Compromise, 2004, p. 182). That just brings the question up a step - we would then need to explain the origin of the "somewhere" from which our universe came from. But that's missing the point of the argument. Whether it's just matter or it's matter and energy, the same question arises: if the total amount is constant, how did it come into existence in the first place? If religion could change, then it couldn't be true. Truth doesn't change over time. Again, this misses the whole point of the argument. Of course we are here, but the question is, How did we get here? You propose that life originated without an intelligence, whereas guerillasaint (quoted above) claims that an intelligence created life. The point she was trying to make is that your explanation of how life originiated is far less likely than winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. How is Hebrew legend the "foundation of the Bible"? The Jews distinguished between God-inspired writings and other religious works.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jan 9, 2007 20:39:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry to jump into the middle of all this but I'd like to correct some inaccuracies here. When some who believe in evolution think that the universe stared with a bang I don’t agree. That's fine because the big bang is not a part of the theory of evolution. That's why they call it the "Big Bang Theory". Now, of course, you have people who accept both scientific theories but one is not contingent upon the other for substantiation. Again, you're attacking the wrong theory. Okay, maybe some basics are in order. So, Squid, what the hell exactly is evolution (the theory of, that is)? Well, I'll provide a definition by Audesirk et al. (2002): Source - Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. and Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life On Earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. It's an excellent collegiate text by the way, if anyone is interested. I see copies at used book stores all the time for a mere fraction of the price for a new one. You wouldn't happen to have a link or a citation to the research from which this data is taken do you? Oh yeah, also, again the origin of life is not an issue covered by the theory of evolution either. That's a separate area of inquiry in the field of abiogenetic research. So, my point is that from this short part of your post where you attack the theory of evolution, you've actually attacked, well, not even a strawman. You've argued against two other theories that aren't evolution. Past concrete, immovable, ideological contradictions I see the major reason why most people are skeptical, doubt or dismiss evolutionary theory is that they are ill-informed of what it is if even informed at all. This is one of the many reasons I so ardently support scientific education. Okay, I'm done. We now return you to you're regularly scheduled thread.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 10, 2007 22:46:06 GMT -5
When some who believe in evolution think that the universe stared with a bang I don’t agree. That's fine because the big bang is not a part of the theory of evolution. That's why they call it the "Big Bang Theory". It's not part of the biological theory of evolution, but it's precisely relevant to the broader "theory of evolution" that tries to explain how the universe evolved to its current state. It is the most common view of the origin of the universe among evolutionary scientists, and I think that was the issue here. I'll provide some: 1. Microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton (Denton, Michael: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323.) 2. Sir Fredrick Hoyle (the famous quote comparing the origin of a single cell to "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.") 3. Astronomer Michael Hart ("Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe," Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, as cited in Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, pp. 141-142) 4. Dr. Don Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp) You're missing the broader point here! Again, this misses the point of the argument. The idea is, the evolution of the universe as a whole (at every level) is highly improbable without a God. Thanks for your comments, solidsquid!
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 11, 2007 6:37:40 GMT -5
why? who made god? if god is more complex than the universe who made god?
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 11, 2007 22:55:00 GMT -5
why? who made god? if god is more complex than the universe who made god? I pointed out in a different thread that there's a key difference between the universe (the creation) and God (the Creator): the universe requires a beginning because it exists in time, whereas God created time and so must exist outside of time altogether, by definition. Anything that exists outside of time has no beginning, and hence God did not need to be created. But even if we cannot figure out how God came into existence, that doesn't negate the fact that at many steps along the way the evolution of the universe requires an Intelligent Designer. In other words, facts are facts, even if we don't understand everything about them. It's like if you dug up a box that contained a beautiful picture in a picture frame. You know that the picture requires an artist whether or not you can find out anything about the artist himself.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jan 11, 2007 23:45:08 GMT -5
It's not part of the biological theory of evolution, but it's precisely relevant to the broader "theory of evolution" that tries to explain how the universe evolved to its current state. It is the most common view of the origin of the universe among evolutionary scientists, and I think that was the issue here. There is no "broader theory of evolution". You're falling into a confusion of language. Cosmological "evolution" is using the colloquial usage of the term, it does not refer to the theory set forth by Charles Darwin and subsequently refined by over a century of interdisciplinary research - which is the one I'm talking about. I'm not speaking of how spiral galaxies formed or quantum fluctuations leading to the "big bang". There is no all encompassing evolutionary "theory of everything". Maybe I should be more specific - where is the original research that produced that figure. I'm familiar with Hoyle's tired analogy which unfornately for Hoyle isn't an accurate analogy for evolutionary theory - also I believe he was referring to the origin of life - again, not the area I'm taking the position of proponent for. I asked for the citation out of curiosity of how this number was produced. No, there is no "broader point" in relation to evolutionary theory. Okay, that's great, but it's not what I'm referring to. You're welcome, I appreciate the exchange. It's good to see active discussion on this board again.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 12, 2007 16:36:35 GMT -5
It's not part of the biological theory of evolution, but it's precisely relevant to the broader "theory of evolution" that tries to explain how the universe evolved to its current state. It is the most common view of the origin of the universe among evolutionary scientists, and I think that was the issue here. There is no "broader theory of evolution". You're falling into a confusion of language. Cosmological "evolution" is using the colloquial usage of the term, it does not refer to the theory set forth by Charles Darwin and subsequently refined by over a century of interdisciplinary research - which is the one I'm talking about. I'm not speaking of how spiral galaxies formed or quantum fluctuations leading to the "big bang". There is no all encompassing evolutionary "theory of everything". I agree - all I'm saying here is that you're arguing semantics, rather than responding to the actual arguments that guerrillasaint presented for God's existence. The main point isn't, "What exactly is the definition of the Theory of Evolution?" but, "What is the evidence for/against God's existence?" The specific probability calculations would be in the sources themselves that I mentioned. Again, I'm not talking about any "broader point" in evolutionary theory, I'm talking about the broader point that was made by the person whose comments you were responding to, guerillasaint. That's fine if you want to point out that the definition of evolution per se is biological evolution, but you didn't really answer her arguments for God's existence, which I believe was the whole point of her post and of this discussion. You know what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jan 12, 2007 18:51:13 GMT -5
There is no "broader theory of evolution". You're falling into a confusion of language. Cosmological "evolution" is using the colloquial usage of the term, it does not refer to the theory set forth by Charles Darwin and subsequently refined by over a century of interdisciplinary research - which is the one I'm talking about. I'm not speaking of how spiral galaxies formed or quantum fluctuations leading to the "big bang". There is no all encompassing evolutionary "theory of everything". I agree - all I'm saying here is that you're talking about semantics, rather than responding to the actual arguments that guerrillasaint presented for God's existence. The main point isn't, "What exactly is the definition of the Theory of Evolution?" but, "What is the evidence for/against God's existence?" The specific probability calculations would be in the sources themselves that I mentioned. Again, I'm not talking about any "broader point" in evolutionary theory, I'm talking about the broader point that was made by the person whose comments you were responding to, guerillasaint. That's fine if you want to point out that the definition of evolution per se is biological evolution, but you didn't really answer her arguments for God's existence, which I believe was the whole point of her post and of this discussion. You know what I mean? I see your point. And yes I did jump into this thread and admittedly hijacked it from it's original line of discussion - for that I apologize. I was simply trying to point out the equivocation of the word "evolution". I suppose it is best for another thread. Sorry, carry on.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 15, 2007 7:29:40 GMT -5
Time doesn’t matter when you are talking about complexity. That is your point to god made us. Because we are too complex to come naturally. Is that correct? If so then god is more complex than us so again who made god? Time has nothing to do with it you are trying to side step the issue.
What fact? Prove that it is fact that god exists. What fact in evolution points to a god? Tell us please.
That is nowhere near the same. We can find out many things about the picture. Even down to the signature of the artist. Your argument has been picked apart before. You’re not even in the same ball park with that argument.
I’m waiting till someone in the lab actually makes life. Its just a matter of time. Then what will you say?
|
|
Kaiouss Khalizad
Maverick's Chew Toy
Anthropic Coincidences: What a coincidence!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Kaiouss Khalizad on Jan 15, 2007 9:16:31 GMT -5
It's excellent to see someone citing sources.
It's true what Dan says about contemporary Big Bang theories in that many rely upon the evolution of physical systems (nearly all, in fact). Of course, I don't see how this is an issue. If I recall, the title of the thread was "Prove to me that god exists." or some such nonsense like that. It is not that every person who does not believe in your God is assuming that they are correct, just that YOU haven't necessarily found the answer or, at least, they don't have good reason to suspect it. I would cite the source "The Unconscious Quantum" by Victor J. Stenger for at least a basic explanation of quantum mechanical theory that seems to be dismissed as unreasonable.
In order to even begin to explain this Creator/creation business, you must first prove that the universe must necessarily have an origin that is a Creator who is necessarily intelligent, benevolent, and ethereal. Only then can you begin to prove the specifics of your being. And one of the ways, surely, that we identify such things is by looking at the world as it is and comparing it with what we would expect the world to be if these things were true. Just like investigating a crime scene, we must investigate the universe.
Even before that step, however, there is the problem that this higher being (let's call him "God" for kicks--it's a name I came up with in my sleep last night) could be any one of the three things I mentioned and not be those other things and leave just as much evidence as exists. God may be evil, but more intelligent than any human and dupe us all into thinking He's good. God may be more good than humanity, but not intelligent enough to leave behind a trace that would detract his similarly dedicated following. God may be more ethereal than humanity and humanity would eventually come to believe these things anyway.
And I believe the exact number of that probability is something like 1/128 billion or something like that. Again, I'd recommend the Unconscious Quantum because this is precisely to dispel myths about the present state of cosmology and to explain, in more detail, just what the real science is. Stenger actually writes a program called "MonkeyGod" in which a monkey banging at the keys could create a universe ripe with intelligent lifeforms (he bases it on the diameter of a proton, which is essentially the basis for a stable universe and, if I recall his program, the main issue with life). Also, if the scientific theory of multiple universes is correct, it should make intuitive sense that we would be in one of the universes that has life.
It always amuses me when a preacher proclaims the wonder of just happening to be in a universe that supports life. What are the odds! We should be in a universe without life! That's like being surprised at seeing more monkeys in the zoo than in the suburbs. Or seeing more water in the ocean than in a desert.
There are a lot of things in this world that do not mesh with our expectations of a universe with a Creator, but because of this unfortunate issue of time, I'll address but one:
The harlequin fetus. Keep in mind that these are born to perfectly amiable, God-fearing (/loving) Christians and these babies have committed no sins (obviously). So why is it that they're born with a skin disease that causes their skin to harden like a shell?
Their eyes are frozen open so that they sting and water with no relief. Their mouth is frozen open so that their tongue follows their lips in drying and cracking. The skin of their bodies cracks until the baby bleeds painfully from every pore. And what does the child die of? Suffocation. Because of either a swollen tongue or restricted lungs (because their chest is solid), the child experiences perhaps one of the most painful deaths known to the human race (if not the most painful). If your answer is that God couldn't solve some problem like Free Will without causing new born children to suffer, then I seriously doubt God's abilities as a Creator and as our idol and final destination.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 15, 2007 20:40:32 GMT -5
Time doesn’t matter when you are talking about complexity. That is your point to god made us. Because we are too complex to come naturally. Is that correct? If so then god is more complex than us so again who made god? Time has nothing to do with it you are trying to side step the issue. Certainly, God is too complex to come about naturally - but only if He had a beginning. But the fact is, if God is outside of time, He has no beginning, by definition. If the universe and human life had no beginning, there would be no need for a Creator, as Stephen Hawking correctly points out. The same applies to God - if God had no beginning, it doesn't matter how complex He is, He did not need a creator. That's what I meant when I said that anything that exists in time requires a creator, whereas anything outside of time (such as God) needs no creator because it had no beginning. The origin of life is a real event in history that all scientists acknowledge, and that event requires a Designer, because life is enormously complex. Also, the intermediate steps in the evolution of the first cell into all the organisms we see today also required a designer, because of the concept of Irreducible Complexity, explained in detail by Dr. Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. Don't read too much into my analogy. The only point I was trying to make was that you can discover a Designer exists without having to find out everything about the Designer. You're assuming that we will someday be able to make life in the lab, which may not be the case. But even if it did occur, it wouldn't necessarily destroy the need for an Intelligent Designer, because it is intelligent scientists who would be creating it anyway!
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 15, 2007 21:07:07 GMT -5
It's excellent to see someone citing sources. In order to even begin to explain this Creator/creation business, you must first prove that the universe must necessarily have an origin that is a Creator who is necessarily intelligent, benevolent, and ethereal. Only then can you begin to prove the specifics of your being. I don't understand your point - all I'm doing is trying to show that an intelligent designer exists. Certainly that designer must be intelligent by definition, because He created us and gave us the ability to think and reason in the first place. Is this Designer benevolent? I think that's reasonable to conclude, because we as humans have a sense of virtue, and of the concept of "right" and "wrong." The fact that we have this sense of morality indicates that our Designer programmed us with this, and must be morally good Himself. This is where the argument from intelligent design falls short - we must look elsewhere to find exactly who God is, and what He's like. At this point I appeal to the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, or successful predictions of the future in the Bible, both of which provide evidence that the God of the Bible (that is, the God of Christianity) is the true God. From there we depend on revelation (God revealing knowledge to us through His written word) to find out more about the actual nature of God. It does, but then you still need to explain how all all those universes could be generated in the first place. The process of universe-creation must be complex, no matter what type of universe is generated. No, because the universe is extremely fine-tuned to support the existence of life, and the probability that all these factors would come together is astonishingly small. The probability of water existing in the ocean rather than the desert is a totally different issue, because it's true by definition! Conditions for the existence of life is not true by definition, it is only true in a factual sense. This is truly tragic, but it seems to be part of the larger question as to how suffering can exist in a universe with a good God. One thing to realize is that if God does exist, then the babies who suffer as harlequin fetuses will probably spend eternity in heaven after they die! So in the long run, it really isn't all that bad. In fact, it's worse for someone who is born healthy but rejects God when he grows up, resulting in spending eternity in hell.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Jan 15, 2007 22:05:04 GMT -5
Hi
Thank you Dan for explaining point far better than I could.
My main point is there are too may things that must happen just right in all of creation for this all to be a coincidence.
What is your biggest argument against God creating the universe?
|
|