Steve: Please back your claim on whales with documentation

[mattrose]

Truman,

You've got your mind made up on this issue, at least for now. You are wrong about the certainty we can feel about the evolutionary paradigm. But hey, you could potentially be right about evolution in general. But even then, you are wrong about the theological consequences if evolution is, in fact, true.

I'm just wondering why you think you'll convince people that actually KNOW God that there isn't one?

If you say... I KNEW God once too... you're admitting that God is real.

If you say... I never actually KNEW God, but neither do you... You have no real basis for saying this.

For myself, I felt God convict me of sin when I was 17 years old. I, an unemotional boy, wept. I then felt led to open my Bible and opened directly to a passage that was EXACTLY what I needed to hear. I then felt God say to me "I want you to be a minister," subsequently doubted this calling, asked for a confirming sign, and received one clear as day (a fellow Christian sharing a 'word of knowledge' about my calling even though I had told nobody).

I actually KNOW that there is a God. I also know that personal experience doesn't have unlimited apologetic value. Nevertheless, you have to realize that you're trying to convince people against a belief that they know is true experientially.

In any case, I do enjoy talking with you once a while. You sort of remind me of Napolean Dynamite's brother, which I find entertaining.

[steve7150]

If you say... I never actually KNEW God, but neither do you... You have no real basis for saying this.










Truman was mistaken when he thought he knew God and is mistaken once again in his preaching of the gospel of Atheism. Instead of being humble and saying that he simply does not know, Truman commits himself fully to an unprovable belief and preaches as if he knows of God's nonexistence.
That's not the sign of a True-Man.

[Ian]

Matt is right - you can be convinced all you want of the likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead, but nothing beats personal experience. The "word of knowledge" that was given to someone about me was of a very different nature than that concerning Matt. In my case it concerned an ugly truth about me, and a warning, and it came from somebody who could not possibly have known about such a thing. In hindsight, though it led to painful consequences, it is one of the incidences I value the most from my Christian experience.

[jonperry]

Wow, I have not been here in a while. It's interesting how a discussion about ambulocetus turned into an argument over the existence of God.

...there is no arguing that scientists believe in evolution but part of the reason is that they have no alternative because they don't allow any supernatural thoughts to contaminate their theories.

Just to add to Steve7150's comment here: Science is a conversation limited to observation and logic. This is not because scientists believe that the only things which are real are those which we can observe. This is not because science has some sort of vendetta with God (though some individual scientists may). Science — hard science at least — has limited its scope to observation and logic because this limit helps researchers focus on the facts instead of going off on fruitless tangents.

By limiting science to observation and logic we've been able to virtually end polio in the United States. We've invented airplanes, trains, automobiles, cellphones, and in an ironic twist, we've even made it possible for pretty much anyone to create their own Young Earth Creationist discussion board online.

In biology we've used observation and logic to discover how species give rise to new species and we've begun to work out the history of life on earth. Knowing this history and the mechanisms of evolution (some of which are still being worked out) we've been able to make many other discoveries. I mentioned a few of them earlier in this conversation but nobody has bothered commenting on them.

Neither science nor evolution equate to atheism but science can not study a being which does not reveal itself in an observable way. Until God reveals himself (or herself) in a way which can be observed and studied, he will not be found in legitimate scientific theories. Science is currently ignoring God, not out of malice, but for the sake of utility.

[steve7150]

By limiting science to observation and logic we've been able to virtually end polio in the United States. We've invented airplanes, trains, automobiles, cellphones, and in an ironic twist, we've even made it possible for pretty much anyone to create their own Young Earth Creationist discussion board online.









Science is fabulous and hopefully continues discovering new cures and new technologies. To me it's analogous to the Parable of the Talents. God called the servant who did nothing with his talents "wicked." The other two servants who accomplished much with the talents given to them by God were given more talents to use.
God has given us brains and intellect and a drive to learn, and he expects us to use it and this is what drives science whether or not God is given any recognition.

[doubledmateo]

So... Steve. Can you or can you not back up your claim on the whales?

[jriccitelli]

By limiting science to observation and logic we've been able to virtually end polio in the United States. We've invented airplanes, trains, automobiles, cellphones, and in an ironic twist, we've even made it possible for pretty much anyone to create their own Young Earth Creationist discussion board online (Jon)

Didn't I note before that observation does not design anything, designers and engineers make things. A scientist is a scientist when looking, identifying and testing what already exists, but he becomes an 'engineer' when he starts to build. We have 'invented' planes trains and automobiles.

Science does not technically design or build. What are you saying? That belief in design would limit further inventions??

[jriccitelli]

Science is currently ignoring God, not out of malice, but for the sake of utility (Jon)

Science itself (observation) is fully convinced there is a God.
Billions of people ‘observe’ that Creation has design; thus a creator.
I don’t trust a ‘scientist’ has any more common sense or available information than any other common intelligent person, especially when it comes to recognizing what is truly amazing: The wagging tail on a dog, the flight of a bird, the strength of a bear and an ant, the taste of honey, strawberries and lime, the smell of cinnamon and vanilla, the beauty of flowers and a sunset, the stripes on a fish and a tiger, the eye to see them, the beating of a heart, the touch of a woman, the love of a mother, the birth of a baby, it doesn’t take a scientist to observe all this.

This is not because scientists believe that the only things which are real are those which we can observe… Until God reveals himself (or herself) in a way which can be observed and studied, he will not be found in legitimate scientific theories (Jon)

This sounds like a contradiction, note also that no one is asking science to 'study' God (?).
Why is it most popular scientific theorists believe Meteors or aliens from other planets may have deposited the origins of life here? Have they seen these specific aliens and meteors

What is the reason scientists have to ‘prove’ lifeforms have ‘no design’ or designer and produced themselves? Why is there such rabid ‘opposition’ to a Designer, when all the evidence glows, moves, tastes, and smells like design

If observation demands the objects have design, then the prevailing argument would have to be there is a designer. The argument against design would be ridiculed in any sane court, you couldn’t say a knife acted on its own. In a court trial you have evidence that leads to a guilty party, the court never looks at the ‘evidence’ and says nothing happened and nobody did it.

[Ian]

I appreciate your posts on this topic, jr!

As a photographer, I`m always looking out for the next best device; terrible gearitis. If only I could find an image stabilization device like the humble chicken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKu785g0O0

Not in a million years could Truman convince me that chance could blindly evolve such a talent.

[steve7150]

Not in a million years could Truman convince me that chance could blindly evolve such a talent.

Ian

Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am






Not to mention the Bombardier beetle and the Hummingbird among many others.