Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Take the Atheist Challenge!!!
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 286 of 321 (108165)
05-14-2004 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Rrhain
05-14-2004 6:22 AM


I think this web site is hosted in Germany.
OT: it seems likely that the physical computer is in Florida, since a ping from Boston passes thrugh New York without hopping the pond, and the last known location in the chain is Orlando.
If you're trying to invoke Behe, I should point out that it's been shown that cillia and flagella evolved, too.
Nitpick: It's been shown that there are possible and plausible evolutionary pathways by which cilia and flagella could have evolved, which is sufficient to disprove "irreducible complexity" of these structures, but AFAIK the actual pathways aren't known well enough to be regarded as "proven" (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt that those are the actual pathways).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2004 6:22 AM Rrhain has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 287 of 321 (108166)
05-14-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Parasomnium
05-14-2004 4:09 AM


Re: Damage control
I'm not sure about that. I think its more of a perspective of once you really know God, you are shown the truth. So you would only believe that you are created. Its what you feel as a true Christian.
This would lead some people into arguements that they don't have a right arguing, and is probably what started me off. But again, I didn't originally enter this thread with the intentions of arguing TOE, although I am gald to have this discussion.
I just didn't want the TOE to interfere with the challenge.
This is all I have time for, probably won't be back until Monday, when I can tackle rhain's novel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Parasomnium, posted 05-14-2004 4:09 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by jar, posted 05-14-2004 10:15 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 288 of 321 (108171)
05-14-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 9:02 AM


Re: Damage control
I believe you meant to say "creationalist contradict themselves"?
*sigh*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:02 AM riVeRraT has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 289 of 321 (108172)
05-14-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 9:13 AM


Re: Damage control
You say
So you would only believe that you are created. Its what you feel as a true Christian.
but many true Christians believe that they evolved.
How can you explain that?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 05-14-2004 10:51 AM jar has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 290 of 321 (108177)
05-14-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by jar
05-14-2004 10:15 AM


What evolved?
but many true Christians believe that they evolved.
How can you explain that?
As I read the Pope's word on this they can easily believe that we evolved but that the spirit (soul) did not. That is what was "created". An interpretation of this is that there was that point in time when an early H. sapian was given a soul by God.
Since there is an apparent sudden change in our ancestors when we started to make much more advanced tools, developed art and expanded throughout the world one could point to that as the time we received our souls. This was a few 10's of thousands of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by jar, posted 05-14-2004 10:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 05-14-2004 10:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 291 of 321 (108178)
05-14-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by NosyNed
05-14-2004 10:51 AM


Re: What evolved?
Just about the time of the last (IMHO) obvious miracle, BREAD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 05-14-2004 10:51 AM NosyNed has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 292 of 321 (108180)
05-14-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 9:04 AM


Re: Damage control
riverrat writes:
Do we actually know how this is done, and don't say evolution. I want to know the mechanics of it.
Its not magic is it?
No, it's not magic. Some or one of the bacteria has a mutation that gives it an immunity to the virus. We will call this bacterium Scott. The virus may kill all the other bacteria, but Scott survives and undergoes mitosis. The daughter cells of Scott also inherit the immunity and they undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity. Those daughter cells of the daughter cells of Scott undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity. Those daughter cells of the daughter cells of the daughter cells of Scott undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity... etc...
After a few hundred generations, the bacteria in the dish now has immunity to the virus. Since viruses require hosts to reproduce, their number in the dish goes down to almost zero. However, it just happens that there was a random mutation in one of the viruses that allow the virus to bypass the Scott's original immunity. We will call this mutant virus Tom. Tom is able to inject its RNA into the descendants of Scott and those descendants produce offsprings of Tom. The offsprinps of Tom inherit the specific RNA info that allows them to bypass the original Scott's mutation. They then inject their newly mutated RNA into other Scott's descendants and infect more bacteria and so on and so forth.
So no, it did not happen by magic.
Edited:
By the way, I see no reason why Scott and Tom can't get married.
This message has been edited by Lama dama ding dong, 05-14-2004 10:11 AM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:04 AM riVeRraT has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 293 of 321 (108217)
05-14-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 12:08 AM


riVeRraT writes:
You are not paying attention.
Or you miss-read a few posts.
Go back and read the whole thing lol.
No, I've been paying careful attention, and I regard your blithe dismissal as a rather thin and ineffective smokescreen. Care to actually answer the questions, or are you simply planning to continue stumbling on like the proverbial headless chicken?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 12:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 294 of 321 (108220)
05-14-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Sylas
05-14-2004 4:46 AM


Some semantical picking of nits...
Sylas writes:
I think that facts are things established beyond reasonable doubt; and that direct observation is not the only way this happens. Indeed, direct observation is often not as good as a strong indirect case through traces left behind. Direct witnesses play well to a jury, but it is surprising how often they get things wrong.
In the most literal sense, EVERY observation of the external world is indirect and inferential, and the only TRULY "direct" observations occur behind our retinas and between our ears. For example, the attributes of your computer monitor are those that you infer from the patterns made by the photons that bounce off it. Your observation of the monitor is not truly "direct," but is rather dependent upon a multitude of naturalistic interactions before the information finally reaches your cognitive centers.
The reason I'm picking this nit is because I think it makes the case that the observation of common descent is basically as "direct" as the observation of one's computer monitor: both are inferences based on certain patterns that form in our observations. IMHO, the difference is at most quantitative, but not qualitative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 4:46 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 2:16 PM :æ: has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 295 of 321 (108222)
05-14-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 8:59 AM


Re: fact and theory
riVeRraT writes:
But comparing gravity with evolution, is not fair. If people believe in gravity, it doesn't interfere with thier belief in the Bible, which is a big thing for many people.
So if you go around claiming that evolution is fact, it could be taken the wrong way, and mis-lead people into not believing in God. Doubt is a #1 demon IMO for not finding God.
You are speaking to Ned here, but allow me to comment.
It is up to Christians to decide if their religious beliefs are compatible with what we find out by science. Science is simply concerned to find out what we can of the natural world by empirical methods.
The comparison with evolution and gravity helps underline for people that, from the perspective of conventional science at least, the theory of evolution is at least as well established as the theory of gravity.
If this causes people to lose their faith, the "blame" lies squarely with those creationist who insist -- more than anyone else -- that their God is incompatible with evolution. There are also some scientists who say the same thing, but they are far and away a small minority. By and large scientists recognize just fine that the details of how natural processes work is not a disproof of a creator of the natural cosmos.
The group that is most vocal about God being in conflict with the findings of conventional science are creationists. They are the ones who insist that evolution is atheistic... not evolutionists (with isolated exceptions).
If you are really concerned about causing people to lose faith in God, you need to be far more careful about insisting that evolution is the same as atheism. It isn't; but alas I can't persuade everyone of that. If creationists succeed in associating evolutionary biology with atheism, then of cource Christians who become persuaded of the solid factual status of evolution will be forced to question their faith. It is fairly common that creationists, on discovering just how well supported evolutionary biology really is, end up losing their faith altogether.
I don't think science has a right to mis-lead the public in this sense, and our schools should be teaching the possibility of God, or creation. The mere fact that so many people believe in God, is enough evidence to justify it.
You have yet to present ANYTHING that corresponds to misleading. Let's make this personal... I promise not to take offense at your answer. Do you think *I* am misleading the public, or that I don't have the right to describe evolutionary biology in the terms I have used in this thread? Do you have enough background in biology and evolution to actually challenge my assessment?
It is common for the possiblity of God to be emphasized in schools; and for schools to emphasize that evolution is not a disproof of God. Yet still the creationists insist that on making it a big conflict issue.
That is their teaching; not a teaching that shows up in conventional science classes.
You have this whole issue completely backwards.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 01:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 8:59 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 296 of 321 (108225)
05-14-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by :æ:
05-14-2004 1:55 PM


::: writes:
In the most literal sense, EVERY observation of the external world is indirect and inferential, and the only TRULY "direct" observations occur behind our retinas and between our ears. For example, the attributes of your computer monitor are those that you infer from the patterns made by the photons that bounce off it. Your observation of the monitor is not truly "direct," but is rather dependent upon a multitude of naturalistic interactions before the information finally reaches your cognitive centers.
The reason I'm picking this nit is because I think it makes the case that the observation of common descent is basically as "direct" as the observation of one's computer monitor: both are inferences based on certain patterns that form in our observations. IMHO, the difference is at most quantitative, but not qualitative.
I know what you mean, and concede the basic point.
However, I do think there is a meaningful notion of some observations being "more direct" than others; even if we recognize that this is not a dichotomy, but a comparison with big gray areas and a continuous spectrum of "directness".
My semantic quibble is with the notion that observation of a monitor is "basically as direct" as observation of common descent. Sure, the difference is of degree, not of kind. And yet, certainly observation of the monitor is much "more direct" than observation of common descent. If you acknowledge a "quantitative" scale of some kind for ranking directness... doesn't that mean we can speak of observation of the monitor being "more direct" than observation of common descent? I think it is MUCH more direct.
Hence, although I grant your semantic nit; I don't think the original point was particularly misleading.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 01:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by :æ:, posted 05-14-2004 1:55 PM :æ: has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 297 of 321 (108227)
05-14-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Zachariah
05-12-2004 5:36 PM


Re: Taking the Challenge
This thread seems to have drifted away from the actual challenge, so not sure if anyone is really interested in my endeavor. I have read the book of John 4 times. Twice in the NIV version and twice in the New Century Version, which really is a better read than the NIV. I also prayed sincerely before each reading.
I read the book with an open mind, which means open to new ideas with no bias. So I didn’t assume it was true and I didn’t assume it was false. I asked God to show me the truth (not necessarily your truth) and the below is what I received.
According to John 20:31 the book of John was written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
To trust in something means I must have confidence that the information given is true. The question for me is does the book of John hold verifiable truth? Here is what came to light.
1. John 21:23-25 Leaves the author and his backers unknown. The disciple who Jesus loved is not identified.
2. The short OT references, which the writer uses to confirm the truth of his writing, don’t really back up the writer’s point. Several are lines taken from Psalms which are songs.
3. None of these references seemed to describe the messiah when the entire scripture was read.
4. Never found the mention of the rising after three days.
5. The whole flesh eating and blood drinking scenario even grossed out the speakers audience. An odd comment since the Jews aren’t supposed to drink blood.
6. John 14:15 If you love me you will keep my commandments. They would seem to be different than God’s commandments. John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; just as I have kept my father’s commandments and abide in his love. But the commandments of Jesus aren’t given.
7. Testimony: John 5:31-32 If I alone testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of me, and I know that the testimony which he gives about me is true. That testimony is not written down and it seems that at the time this statement was made John was dead. John 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. The Pharisees called him on the self testimony in John 8:13 So the Pharisees said to Him, You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true. But then John 8:14 Jesus answered with Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true. And with John 8:17-18 Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am he who testifies about myself, and the father who sent me testifies about me.
8. There are 3rd party conversations that didn’t include the writer or Jesus. John 4:51-53
9. John 7:53-8:11 My bible states that the earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have these verses. This makes that section suspect.
The quotes are full of double talk (if that is the correct term for that). Quite frankly it is like reading a politician’s speech. The rules change to fit the need.
Overall I felt the book was aimed at the people of the time and as I stated before I didn’t really pull any wisdom for the ages out of it.
Dear Zachariah and RiverRat: Your posts lead me to believe that you were hoping for an emotional response. The style of writing in the book of John doesn’t really evoke an emotional response. (That’s how advertising gets you to buy the stuff you don’t need.)
On its own merits the book of John didn’t give me any truths that I can verify today or that would alter my way of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Zachariah, posted 05-12-2004 5:36 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Zachariah, posted 05-14-2004 4:30 PM purpledawn has replied

fnord
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 321 (108228)
05-14-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zachariah
05-06-2004 10:03 PM


It's been more than a week now for me, one week of bible reading, praying (by Zach), and keeping eye and heart open for some sign or something else to happen. But it didn't. Nothing.
Now it seems to me that this can mean one of three things (but I'm open to more suggestions):
1. I haven't tried hard enough
2. God doesn't want me
3. God doesn't exist to begin with
Which one is it? I think everyone must judge that for him/herself. But if you want my opinion (and if you don't I'm gonna give it anyway): I believe 1. isn't true, I've been told 2. isn't true, so that would leave, eh, hm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zachariah, posted 05-06-2004 10:03 PM Zachariah has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 321 (108239)
05-14-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by purpledawn
05-14-2004 2:43 PM


Re: Taking the Challenge
I wasn't looking for an emotional response your response is fine. I guess I shouldn't have gone so far as to single out the book of John for the reading. Anything in the bible would have been fine. By my refering to the book of John it seems you were thinking I had some special area in there that you were supposed to latch on to. The only thing I wanted in reality is for you to read something in the bible and pray sincerely to GOD. You did this. I appreciate your honesty and hope that you will continue to read and try to understand the reading you undertake. There are alot of areas that were misunderstood in your reading of JOHN. I hope you will read more in the bible and try to research it out some to see if you can get to the bottom of some of your questions or interpretations that you listed. If you have a question for me ask away and I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for giving it a shot. The seed has been planted that is all I can do. God bless you throughout your life I hope you do well. -Zachariah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2004 2:43 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2004 9:56 PM Zachariah has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 300 of 321 (108242)
05-14-2004 4:35 PM


Closing time soon - Final remarks?
As we are now at 300 messages, it's time for any closing remarks.
This topic will soon be closed per standard procedure.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2004 8:30 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024