Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…132133135137138…232

Comments

  • #4022
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    The total cost of my love ... is no charge!!:)
    Here is the link you seek:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58433145&postcount=14011

    No, I don't want something you posted. I want a peer reviewed, scientific link verifying your claim.

    Referencing your own post is not proof. I can't cost through college based on my own opinions without real evidence to back them up.


  • #4023
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    No, I don't want something you posted. I want a peer reviewed, scientific link verifying your claim.

    Referencing your own post is not proof. I can't cost through college based on my own opinions without real evidence to back them up.
    What you ask is something like asking for a peer-reviewed link verifying that the Moon exists ... it is so obvious and logical that there is no requirement for 'peer-review' ... which is just as well ...
    ... because, in this case, conventional science doesn't allow 'peer-review' of ID ... so you have raised a very neat 'Catch 22' behind which you can hide ... if that is what you wish to do.

    But if you're feeling confident in your worldview, please feel free to do your own 'peer review' of the figures and the logic in my link. saint_patricks_day20.gif


  • #4024
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Ah. We're at the stage where it's like saying the bible is fact and instead of proving so you counter by saying prove me wrong.

    I'll leave you to your delusions, it's all anybody who is religious can look forward to, I guess.


  • #4025
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Ah. We're at the stage where it's like saying the bible is fact and instead of proving so you counter by saying prove me wrong.

    I'll leave you to your delusions, it's all anybody who is religious can look forward to, I guess.
    You asked me to provide a link to the maths to 'stand up' my claim in relation to the validity of ID ... and I gave you a link where it is logically and evidentially proven ... and now you're 'refusing to come out to play'!!!:eek::)

    Just because this could destroy your Materialist worldview, isn't a good reason to deny it and run away from it!!!

    ... better to examine the evidence and the logic behind it ... and if your worldview survives ... or doesn't ... so be it. saint_patricks_day20.gif

    ... one way or the other, you'll be all the better for it.


  • #4026
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    You asked me to provide a link to the maths to 'stand up' my claim in relation to the validity of ID ... and I gave you a link where it is logically and evidentially proven ... and now you're 'refusing to come out to play'!!!:eek::)

    Just because this could destroy your Materialist worldview, isn't a good reason to deny it and run away from it!!!

    ... better to examine the evidence and the logic behind it ... and if your worldview survives ... or doesn't ... so be it. saint_patricks_day20.gif

    ... one way or the other, you'll be all the better for it.

    You made something up, how am I supposed to take that as fact?

    You really aren't a scientist are you? Referencing a peer reviewed articles and studies get beaten into you. Making up theories and passing it on as fact does not a scientist make. You wouldn't be able to pass first year with that attitude.


  • Advertisement
  • #4027
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You made something up, how am I supposed to take that as fact?
    I've made a reasoned evidenced post ... and you seem afraid to address it ... why are you hiding from it using a Catch 22 excuse?
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You really aren't a scientist are you?
    I am a scientist ... but one doesn't have to be a scientist to prove that the Moon ... or ID exists.
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Referencing a peer reviewed articles and studies get beaten into you. Making up theories and passing it on as fact does not a scientist make. You wouldn't be able to pass first year with that attitude.
    Maybe the fact that 'peer review' has been 'beaten into you' (to use your own words) makes you unable to accept that there is more to life (and science) than 'peer-review' ... especially when such 'peer review' a priori doesn't allow the peer review of ID.
    ... and if you wish to hide behind such a Catch 22, I can't stop you.

    ... but I think objective observers will draw their own conclusions from you obvious fear to engage with the maths and evidential proof that I have posted for ID here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58433145&postcount=14011


  • #4028
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You made something up, how am I supposed to take that as fact?

    You really aren't a scientist are you? Referencing a peer reviewed articles and studies get beaten into you. Making up theories and passing it on as fact does not a scientist make. You wouldn't be able to pass first year with that attitude.

    He posted an paper before, but it was destroyed. Even the guy that wrote the paper has subsequently admitted it is pure rubbish.

    MrP


  • #4029
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    He posted an paper before, but it was destroyed. Even the guy that wrote the paper has subsequently admitted it is pure rubbish.

    MrP
    I wrote the post I linked to ... and nobody else.

    ... and nothing I wrote was destroyed ... you must be mixing me up with somebody else.;)

    Anyway, Mr P, do you have anything to say about my link ... or are you also afraid that your worldview won't survive an in-depth look at it ?


  • #4030
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    H3aler wrote: »
    they way you are arguing with JC-- not very human i must say :)

    So what, the proper human response is to ignore all the facts and evidence, and just accept whatever bs is the oldest and comes from the driest desert?

    And here was I taking you at face value with all your claims that the bible was nothing but bat droppings over at the A&A sub-forum.


  • #4031
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You mustn't have read much of this poster's posts. Homosexuals are not, apparently, human.

    MrP

    neither are atheists, nor people who accept reality to be, well, real.


  • Advertisement
  • #4032
    H3aler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭H3aler


    bumper234 wrote: »
    All those priests who raped young boys, all those that took part in the Spanish inquisition, all of those who have covered up for crimes committed by clergy.....are you saying that none of them are humans?
    no they are not human, Priests aur atheists who are suffering with natural disorders, they are not human-- Spanish inquisition was also inhuman behaviour :)


  • #4033
    H3aler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭H3aler


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You mustn't have read much of this poster's posts. Homosexuals are not, apparently, human.

    MrP
    yes, homosexuality is disease, They can become human again by removing this animal habbit... Homosexuality is very common in animals..


  • #4034
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    H3aler wrote: »
    yes, homosexuality is disease, They can become human again by removing this animal habbit... Homosexuality is very common animal..

    Really? I've never heard of an animal called homosexuality before. Surprising considering how common it is apparently.


  • #4035
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    H3aler - don't post on this thread again. Back on topic people, don't feed the troll.


  • #4036
    emo72
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,419 ✭✭✭emo72


    sorry guys i dont usually post in here, just wondering what the thinking for a christian would be after the news about the big bang proof yesterday?

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0317/602860-big-bang-echo/

    i think its amazing and quite inspiring stuff. as a scientific person id still describe this as miraculous. bad news for creationism but not incompatible with god. only a god could do something like this.

    i hope this post is appropriate for here, and i mean no offence to anyone.


  • #4037
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    emo72 wrote: »
    sorry guys i dont usually post in here, just wondering what the thinking for a christian would be after the news about the big bang proof yesterday?

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0317/602860-big-bang-echo/

    i think its amazing and quite inspiring stuff. as a scientific person id still describe this as miraculous. bad news for creationism but not incompatible with god. only a god could do something like this.

    i hope this post is appropriate for here, and i mean no offence to anyone.
    You are in the right thread ... and your post is very good and topical.

    The Big Bang Theory ... and this latest discovery, is a conventional scientific theory, that therefore a priori doesn't involve God in the equation.
    You can of course, call it a miracle ... and if it did occur (everything spontaneously exploding out of nothing) it would indeed be a miracle of enormous proportions ... but don't expect Materialists (or conventional science) with its a priori refusal to countenace God in the process, to agree with you.

    The Creation Science view is that this is an 'echo' from the moment of the Creation of the Universe when it underwent an instantaneous inflation to close to the size we observe today ... and it's detection is certainly deserving of a Nobel Prize.


  • #4038
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    You are in the right thread ... and your post is very good and topical.

    The Big Bang Theory ... and this latest discovery, is a conventional scientific theory, that therefore a priori doesn't involve God in the equation.
    You can of course, call it a miracle ... and if it did occur (everything spontaneously exploding out of nothing) it would indeed be a miracle of enormous proportions ... but don't expect Materialists (or conventional science) with its a priori refusal to countenace God in the process, to agree with you.
    Well as they deal with tangable evidence, they might have a problem including God in the equation as their's no material evidence to test, measure or evaluate. It's not that they say their is no god, more that they have no way to speculate on god, his nature or existence. That would be philosophies or metaphysics not science.
    J C wrote: »
    The Creation Science view is that this is an 'echo' from the moment of the Creation of the Universe when it underwent an instantaneous inflation to close to the size we observe today ... and it's detection is certainly deserving of a Nobel Prize.
    The scientific view is that this is an echo of the creation of this universe when it underwent an instantaneous inflation to close to the size we observe today ... So it's settled then the big bang is fact accepted by creationists. :P


  • #4039
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Well as they deal with tangable evidence, they might have a problem including God in the equation as their's no material evidence to test, measure or evaluate. It's not that they say their is no god, more that they have no way to speculate on god, his nature or existence. That would be philosophies or metaphysics not science.
    Conventional science isn't neutral on the existence of God, as you are implying ... it a priori rejects all evidence for His existence ... and deems that research into it (even where the physical evidence is present) cannot be done within science.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The scientific view is that this is an echo of the creation of this universe when it underwent an instantaneous inflation to close to the size we observe today ... So it's settled then the big bang is fact accepted by creationists. :P
    It was actually a 'Big Whisper' as God spoke the Universe into existence through an act of His omnipotent and glorious will ... and the 'echo' of that whisper is still observable today.:)


  • #4040
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    You still haven't provided one example of the existence of God, JC.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #4041
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    There is indeed physical evidence for ID ... and we don't need to wait until we die to evaluate it. The hypotheses that life was Created by God or that it created itself spontaneously are amenable to a logical scientific examination of the physical evidence contained in life itself.

    I want to examine this evidence for myself JC. Where is it? Can you give me a synopsis of it?


  • Advertisement
  • #4042
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    I want to examine this evidence for myself JC. Where is it? Can you give me a synopsis of it?
    ... there is much evidence ... you can start here ... and we can take it from there:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58433145&postcount=14011


  • #4043
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Please stick to the evidence (and the under-pinning logic of any interpretations of the evidence)

    Great idea JC. You have my 100% support for that. I'll tell you what, you lead by example and I'll follow, OK?
    So, evidence for the authenticity of the biblical account, start away old friend.


  • #4044
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Great idea JC. You have my 100% support for that. I'll tell you what, you lead by example and I'll follow, OK?
    So, evidence for the authenticity of the biblical account, start away old friend.
    I was referring to the evidence for ID ... which supports the Biblical Account of Creation by an Intelligence of God-like capacity.
    If it's OK with you, we will start there and move on to other evidence then?


  • #4045
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    I was referring to the evidence for ID ... which supports the Biblical Account of Creation by an Intelligence of God-like capacity.
    If it's OK with you, we will start there and move on to other evidence then?

    Right, start away.


  • #4046
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sorry Safehands ... I was working on something else.
    Its late ... and I'll start tomorrow night.


  • #4047
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    ... there is much evidence ... you can start here ... and we can take it from there:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58433145&postcount=14011

    I read something similar in a Bill Bryson called A short history of everything. What flags up straight away for me is the good old favourites - the infinite regress issue & the Christian God of the gaps argument in this case / thread.

    Most physcologists are convinced (like myself) that the heart rules the head and that gut feel (heart) often dictates our final view (head) on a subject. (Jonathan Haidt has some good youtube lectures on this stuff.) Gut feelings can be extremely tough to change even if empirical evidence points in the opposite direction. Look at peoples views on, homosexuality or assisted suicide on threads on boards for example. No matter how much the impirical arguments stack up against some folks, they simply cannot shake that feeling that homosexuality or assisted suicide is "just wrong". Its human nature whichever side of the argument we land on.

    My gut feelings are not convincing me of intelligent design, let alone that a "Christian" intelligent designer did it. I just end up with more questions than answers. But maybe you are right with creationism, maybe not.

    For me, people can believe what as they feel (acting on that belief may be questionable of course) but it grates me to hear I will be punished in hell for eternity because my gut feeling (i.e. human nature) is not convinced by the arguments presented for the bible and / or creationism.


  • #4048
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    But maybe you are right with creationism, maybe not.

    Quick clue for anyone still undecided on this matter, JC has been proven wrong by the evidence. The evidence in fact had him proven wrong before he was born.

    Yes Evolutionary theory* as it currently stands may yet be proven wrong. But there is no chance that creationism or ID or any of the other idiotic theistic alternatives will replace it. Current Evolutionary theory will be replaced by better, more accurate, Evolutionary theory.


    *But not evolution itself, as a process that has been factually verified.


  • #4049
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Quick clue for anyone still undecided on this matter, JC has been proven wrong by the evidence. The evidence in fact had him proven wrong before he was born.

    Yes Evolutionary theory* as it currently stands may yet be proven wrong. But there is no chance that creationism or ID or any of the other idiotic theistic alternatives will replace it. Current Evolutionary theory will be replaced by better, more accurate, Evolutionary theory.


    *But not evolution itself, as a process that has been factually verified.

    Now now now hold your horses and cool your jets there for a minute!

    JC has already stated
    J C wrote: »
    Sorry Safehands ... I was working on something else.
    Its late ... and I'll start tomorrow night.

    Now i for one am convinced that JC as a good god fearing Christian wouldn't dare tell a lie and am looking forward to him posting SOLID indisputable evidence for "God's" existence and for creationism.

    *Waits with bated breath*


  • #4050
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    I read something similar in a Bill Bryson called A short history of everything. What flags up straight away for me is the good old favourites - the infinite regress issue & the Christian God of the gaps argument in this case / thread.

    Most physcologists are convinced (like myself) that the heart rules the head and that gut feel (heart) often dictates our final view (head) on a subject. (Jonathan Haidt has some good youtube lectures on this stuff.) Gut feelings can be extremely tough to change even if empirical evidence points in the opposite direction. Look at peoples views on, homosexuality or assisted suicide on threads on boards for example. No matter how much the impirical arguments stack up against some folks, they simply cannot shake that feeling that homosexuality or assisted suicide is "just wrong". Its human nature whichever side of the argument we land on.

    My gut feelings are not convincing me of intelligent design, let alone that a "Christian" intelligent designer did it. I just end up with more questions than answers. But maybe you are right with creationism, maybe not.

    For me, people can believe what as they feel (acting on that belief may be questionable of course) but it grates me to hear I will be punished in hell for eternity because my gut feeling (i.e. human nature) is not convinced by the arguments presented for the bible and / or creationism.
    The heart ruling the head is a Human failing ... that can potentially affect anybody with any worldview. Its known as bias and Evolutionists are just as likely to be biased in favour of their worldview as Creationists.
    When I was an Evolutionist, I was so committed to the Spontaneous Evolution, long ages worldview that it took me over 10 years to finally accept that it didn't actually make sense ... and I then became a Creationist.
    ... so I certainly don't under-estimate the reality of bias and the heart ruling the head.


  • Advertisement
  • #4051
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Now i for one am convinced that JC as a good god fearing Christian wouldn't dare tell a lie and am looking forward to him posting SOLID indisputable evidence for "God's" existence and for creationism.

    *Waits with bated breath*
    OK lets kick off with the mathematical argument (and you can't get anything more solid than maths applied to what we observe physically) ...

    .....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the specific amino acid sequence for a specific functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^82)!!!!

    ....if the sequence for a specific functional protein cannot be produced fairly readily by non-intelligently directed chemistry then the production of anything approaching a living cell spontaneously is totally impossible!!!

    ...so Intelligent Design is the most likely hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...
    .....in fact, it is the only mathematically validated hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!

    ... and the Intelligent Design of life is proof that Intelligence(s) of God-like proportions Created life.


Advertisement