|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]Would you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. Last year, you said that you'll only listen to peer-reviewed papers. This video recounts the court case that spanned years that it took to fight the system, fighting the bias in the academic community, to get fairness to operate in science. https://youtu.be/dESkfaURR38?As has been said, Muz and tsf live in a world where there is no bias in opinions, every person is objective and heeds scientific principles, where governments never make mistakes, where people are not corrupted to do wrong for financial gain. The same bias you see in every day life ... that does not change just because the person has a university degree in science. People are the same everywhere. Link to a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal? I'll wait. Peer review is mostly broken anyway. Everyone in the game knows it. But it keeps the grants coming and the papers churning so everyone is happy. yeah, academics are fighting to have per reviewed scrapped No. The academics, who make their living off the system (money) are the ones who want the system to remain as it is. As I've said before, tsf (lowercase) and Muz live in the world where - there is no money-corruption, the Media never lies, government workers never make mistakes, and the majority of people who believe everything they hear believe that the mob is never wrong.Just today there is an ongoing Hearing on the Possible Inappropriate Relationship Between Top Scientific Journals and U.S. Government, see the link below: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/watch-live-house-select-subcommittee-coronavirus-pandemic-hearing/ To do otherwise would challenge their world views to their foundations. They feel secure in the belief that there all these institutions who have their back, full of competent people acting in their best interests, you know because these people are "reputable" and "qualified". They've turned their backs on their faith, so if this is also false, they have nothing to lean on. Scary. You've based your whole life on something without proof or evidence. Nothing more than the fact you grew up with a belief in some god that you had foisted upon you and you have the gumption to say 'if this is also false'. LMFAO. You've wasted literally 40+ years believing in a story literally imprinted into your malleable child mind when you were an infant. Literally no choice but to be brainwashed. Not for one minute would you be the religion you are if you were born into another culture. Literally not one minute. Talk about nothing to 'lean on'. Deluded doesn't scratch the surface.
You have no formal scientific education beyond reading New Scientist, so you know two fifths of fuck all.
You don't have a deep understandingof the compexity of life and reality. There are many who do have that deep understanding and rather being less convinced of their faith, they are even more convinced by it.
I hold an MSc. I was not raised in a Big C family. I know how the two can co-exist and I am far from unique.
I don't struggle with my religious upbringing like you do. What I struggle with is people like you who demand others choose as you have. Or else.
And now we have an amateur psychologist on deck. I'm struggling with my religious upbringing am I? Hahahaha. You fool. Fortunately for me I grew up in a family where I wasn't brainwashed by both parents. One was a believer, one wasn't. You know what that gave me? The ability to think and choose. I stopped going to church decades ago in my early teens because I HAD A CHOICE. Something your upbringing never gave you the opportunity to do. Now you're so invested in it you can't critically evaluate if it's even true or not because to do so would be an attack on your very character and an acceptance you have wasted a large part of your life believing in a fairytale because you were literally indoctrinated. You're worm food old mate. Made from the remnants of exploding stars and will return to dust in a few short years. In 75 years time not a single person will know you even existed. But cling to your superstitions if it brings you some comfort. Just like the blanky you had when you were a child. You cling to it. [/quote]You stereotype people and project your own struggles onto them. According to you they are too brainwashed to come out the other side like you did. Or have you considered that they know all you know, and know it better, and maybe they know things you don't. Maybe they have delved deeper in to the science you have blind faith in and found that nope, this doesn't explain it? But what really matters is that you have no right to convert others to ypur new religion, because you don't know the truth. Do you? Fark you love putting words in people's mouths. It's a pretty disingenuous way to make a point. Nowhere have I ever said religious people should be converted to atheists. Of course you don't struggle with your religious upbringing. To do so would put you in a situation of self reflection whereby you might realise all this 'faith' stuff has been a giant waste of time and you've been fed a lie. I completely understand why you don't. Intellectually dishonest.
But if they don't convert to atheism they should be ignored, sidelined and ostracized from any political or social causes and decisions, be subject to a parallel legal system, until they do, right? Admit that's how you work.
Even though atheism is actually the minority, locally and even more so globally. Democracy eh?
I believe its not for me tell people their faith has been a waste of time or to be excluded on the basis of their faith. I've seen enough murder, war, death, suffering and abuse in the name of atheists and secularists. There you go putting words in my mouth again. Weird to base your faith system on what some despot in Cambodia, China or Russia did or believed but here we are. I'm not religious because of this.......... Religious war - Wikipedia.......but you'd be well within your rights if you decided not to be. [/quote]I don't my base faith on what they did-which is a fucking lot affecting a huge proportion of the world's people. My faith stands on its own. Around 90% of the world's wars are NOT related to religion-from your link.So if you want war, death, destruction, oppression, crimes against humanity, choose secularism and its close cousin atheism. Hahahahahaha
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]Would you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. Last year, you said that you'll only listen to peer-reviewed papers. This video recounts the court case that spanned years that it took to fight the system, fighting the bias in the academic community, to get fairness to operate in science. https://youtu.be/dESkfaURR38?As has been said, Muz and tsf live in a world where there is no bias in opinions, every person is objective and heeds scientific principles, where governments never make mistakes, where people are not corrupted to do wrong for financial gain. The same bias you see in every day life ... that does not change just because the person has a university degree in science. People are the same everywhere. Link to a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal? I'll wait. Peer review is mostly broken anyway. Everyone in the game knows it. But it keeps the grants coming and the papers churning so everyone is happy. yeah, academics are fighting to have per reviewed scrapped No. The academics, who make their living off the system (money) are the ones who want the system to remain as it is. As I've said before, tsf (lowercase) and Muz live in the world where - there is no money-corruption, the Media never lies, government workers never make mistakes, and the majority of people who believe everything they hear believe that the mob is never wrong.Just today there is an ongoing Hearing on the Possible Inappropriate Relationship Between Top Scientific Journals and U.S. Government, see the link below: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/watch-live-house-select-subcommittee-coronavirus-pandemic-hearing/ To do otherwise would challenge their world views to their foundations. They feel secure in the belief that there all these institutions who have their back, full of competent people acting in their best interests, you know because these people are "reputable" and "qualified". They've turned their backs on their faith, so if this is also false, they have nothing to lean on. Scary. [/quote]You've based your whole life on something without proof or evidence. Nothing more than the fact you grew up with a belief in some god that you had foisted upon you and you have the gumption to say 'if this is also false'. LMFAO. You've wasted literally 40+ years believing in a story literally imprinted into your malleable child mind when you were an infant. Literally no choice but to be brainwashed. Not for one minute would you be the religion you are if you were born into another culture. Literally not one minute. Talk about nothing to 'lean on'. Deluded doesn't scratch the surface. You have no formal scientific education beyond reading New Scientist, so you know two fifths of fuck all. You don't have a deep understandingof the compexity of life and reality. There are many who do have that deep understanding and rather being less convinced of their faith, they are even more convinced by it. I hold an MSc. I was not raised in a Big C family. I know how the two can co-exist and I am far from unique. I don't struggle with my religious upbringing like you do. What I struggle with is people like you who demand others choose as you have. Or else.
And now we have an amateur psychologist on deck. I'm struggling with my religious upbringing am I? Hahahaha. You fool.
Fortunately for me I grew up in a family where I wasn't brainwashed by both parents. One was a believer, one wasn't. You know what that gave me? The ability to think and choose. I stopped going to church decades ago in my early teens because I HAD A CHOICE.
Something your upbringing never gave you the opportunity to do. Now you're so invested in it you can't critically evaluate if it's even true or not because to do so would be an attack on your very character and an acceptance you have wasted a large part of your life believing in a fairytale because you were literally indoctrinated.
You're worm food old mate. Made from the remnants of exploding stars and will return to dust in a few short years. In 75 years time not a single person will know you even existed. But cling to your superstitions if it brings you some comfort. Just like the blanky you had when you were a child. You cling to it. You stereotype people and project your own struggles onto them. According to you they are too brainwashed to come out the other side like you did. Or have you considered that they know all you know, and know it better, and maybe they know things you don't. Maybe they have delved deeper in to the science you have blind faith in and found that nope, this doesn't explain it? But what really matters is that you have no right to convert others to ypur new religion, because you don't know the truth. Do you? [/quote]Fark you love putting words in people's mouths. It's a pretty disingenuous way to make a point. Nowhere have I ever said religious people should be converted to atheists. Of course you don't struggle with your religious upbringing. To do so would put you in a situation of self reflection whereby you might realise all this 'faith' stuff has been a giant waste of time and you've been fed a lie. I completely understand why you don't. Intellectually dishonest. But if they don't convert to atheism they should be ignored, sidelined and ostracized from any political or social causes and decisions, be subject to a parallel legal system, until they do, right? Admit that's how you work. Even though atheism is actually the minority, locally and even more so globally. Democracy eh? I believe its not for me tell people their faith has been a waste of time or to be excluded on the basis of their faith. I've seen enough murder, war, death, suffering and abuse in the name of atheists and secularists.
There you go putting words in my mouth again.
Weird to base your faith system on what some despot in Cambodia, China or Russia did or believed but here we are.
I'm not religious because of this.......... Religious war - Wikipedia
.......but you'd be well within your rights if you decided not to be.
I don't my base faith on what they did-which is a fucking lot affecting a huge proportion of the world's people. My faith stands on its own. Around 90% of the world's wars are NOT related to religion-from your link.So if you want war, death, destruction, oppression, crimes against humanity, choose secularism and its close cousin atheism. [/quote]Hahahahahaha read the section Prevalance. And then read it again.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhile we're at it can you please provide one instance of a dinosaur and human skeleton that are found in the same sedimentary layer seeing 'THEY LIVED AT THE SAME TIME'. I can wait for that too. Muzrubenmuz, this article answers your question in detail. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Nope. Not reading anything from that sham of a site. Try linking an article from somewhere else. Any country, any institution, any religion besides YEC. You can't.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNope. Not reading anything from that sham of a site. Try linking an article from somewhere else. Any country, any institution, any religion besides YEC. You can't. You know why I keep pressing with responding to you guys on this football website? Because people like you are representative of the average bloke in your thinking. People like you are not fascinated by information, evidence or arguments. Rather, you only read from sources that you trust. And that is fine, most of the time. But history shows, when the majority is wrong, the only way to shift the masses is by persuasion of facts and evidence. And history shows that very few people are driven by facts and evidence. This is why truths take a long time to catch hold. It starts with the Pioneers, then the Early Adopters, then the Early Majority. Muz, the way you think places you in the bulk of society who are either the Late Majority or Laggards. (I'm using the terminology of the Diffusion of Ideas by Everett Rogers. The reason is, the people in the Early and Late Majority do not make decisions base on fact and evidence. They only shift if they see their trusted mates doing the same. In other words, it's literally a hopeless case offering evidence and reasoning to you - because, as you've shown, you won't read anything unless it's part of the establishment-thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
So no link. It's not surprising because you can't. Also I notice you still haven't addressed your bison claim.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo no link. It's not surprising because you can't. Also I notice you still haven't addressed your bison claim. For funsies, I asked the Chat Bots the same question: can you please provide one instance of a dinosaur and human skeleton that are found in the same sedimentary layer seeing 'THEY LIVED AT THE SAME TIME'. No credible instance exists of dinosaur and human skeletons being found in the same sedimentary layer. Dinosaurs and humans did not coexist. Dinosaurs went extinct around 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, while anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) only appeared about 300,000 years ago. The Earth's fossil record shows a clear timeline in which there is a significant temporal gap between the extinction of dinosaurs and the emergence of humans. Why Dinosaurs and Humans Did Not Coexist:- Geological Time Scale: Dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic Era, spanning the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, which lasted from about 230 million to 66 million years ago. Humans appeared much later, during the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic Era.
- Fossil Record: The fossil record is well-documented and shows distinct layers containing different types of fossils. Dinosaur fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that are dated to the Mesozoic Era, whereas human fossils are found in much more recent strata, often in the context of archaeological layers from the Quaternary period.
- Paleontology and Stratigraphy: The science of stratigraphy shows that different layers of rock correspond to different periods in Earth's history. The absence of human fossils in Mesozoic layers and dinosaur fossils in Quaternary layers supports the conclusion that they did not live at the same time.
Misconceptions and Claims:Some claims have been made regarding the discovery of human and dinosaur remains together, but these are either misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or deliberate fabrications. Here are a few examples and explanations: - Paluxy River Tracks: In Glen Rose, Texas, tracks found in the Paluxy River bed were once claimed to show human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. However, these "human" footprints have been debunked as misidentified dinosaur tracks, erosion patterns, or outright hoaxes.
- Creationist Claims: Some creationist sources claim that certain fossils or artifacts prove that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. However, these claims lack scientific verification and are often based on misinterpretation or rejection of established scientific methods like radiometric dating and stratigraphy.
Conclusion:No scientifically verified instance of dinosaur and human skeletons being found together exists. All credible evidence supports the conclusion that dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart. If you encounter a claim suggesting otherwise, it is essential to scrutinize the source and the evidence presented critically.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
I mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them."
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
You're laughable. Me not believing in god has nothing to do with how old the earth is according to scientific consensus. God could not exist and the earth could be 6000 years old if that's what the science showed. Your belief means you MUST believe it's 6000 years old. It has to be 6000 years old. That's the difference. Also you've linked Francis Collins above. He is not a YEC. (Nor is Michael Behe. He believes the earth is billions of years old). Care to retract or you're happy for one part of his belief system to be in alignment with yours, while some of his others aren't? See what happens when you don't know what you're talking about?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Hahahaah spot on. Our pal johnsmith likes to cast dismissive little diatribes about "the gullible sheeple" refusing to even consider information from dissenting sources yet bases 99.99% of HIS arguments on 2 wack job websites and a handful of discredited pseudo-scientists... you cant argue against that sort of logic, even at the end of a shotgun... Why is it ALWAY the ones that come to an epiphany in middle age that become the most fervent evangelists?? Whether that is religion, politics or even Australian football, the ones that "find god" so to speak late, are farkin the pitts.... lol
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Do you like Pokemon, John?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? I have said from the start that people use the same thinking in everything they do: health, MRNA vaccines, politics, spirituality etc. Hence, if you are a crowd-follower for MRNA vaccines, then you are going to be a crowd-follower in spiritual matters. The crowd-follower says: I am part of a crowd. Everyone in the crowd has different beliefs. You cannot assert that everyone in the crowd is wrong. Therefore ... as you said ... you accuse people of small-thinking. This is how I think through the process: 1 - Is there, or is there not a god? 2 - If there is a god, and with so many religions all claiming theirs is true, how do you tell which one is true, or which are not true. It comes down to evidence, evidence, evidence. You are not operating on evidence, evidence, evidence. Instead, you are operating from a crowd-mindset, that anyone who steps out and says the crowd is wrong, automatically is insulted and put down. Same thinking about MRNA vaccines. Same thinking about spirituality.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. It's pretty compelling though isn't it? And it's not just one endemic animal to one country is it? It's literally thousands and thousand of singular species traversing thousands of kms to set up camp in a completely different part of the world and completely and utterly disappearing from anywhere they went through. Thoughts on animals native to Easter Island? Or did they swim 5000kms from New Zealand or Chile? It's a hurdle you YECs can't jump. Care to comment on Mr ID Michael Behe's belief that the earth is billions of years old? Is he wrong? What about the bison? I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]I mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: This has nothing to do with anything. The earth could be 6000 years old and god wouldn't need to exist for it to be so if the science supported that age. Both things don't have to be true at once. There are plenty of christians dear pastor john that believe the earth is billions of years old and there is a god. It's not an either / or. For you god is real therefore the earth MUST be 6000 years old.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]I mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: This has nothing to do with anything. The earth could be 6000 years old and god wouldn't need to exist for it to be so if the science supported that age. Both things don't have to be true at once. There are plenty of christians dear pastor john that believe the earth is billions of years old and there is a god. It's not an either / or. For you god is real therefore the earth MUST be 6000 years old. Here's an interesting YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@IsGenesisHistory/videosEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie https://youtu.be/jeSxIqAYP4M?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. In any debate, usually each side presents evidence in a way to substantiate their stance. Hence, you do not see a government health official ordering research to find out if the MRNA vaccines - that the compelled 95% of the population to take - whether those are dangerous or not. The government health official is not going to spend millions of dollars to find evidence that they themselves were culpable. Are you daft, or do you actually understand that? Hence, this is why, when evidence of vaccine danger is presented to the English and Australian Parliaments, hardly any MP's show up. The entire Parliament chambers are virtually empty. They don't want to know. And people like Muz, who trust the pollies, assume that no news is good news. Typically, you will not find an atheist scientist admit to evidence that would prove the existence of God. I give you an example. An atheist scientist did mathematical modelling of a fossil of a shoal of fish, and found that the orientation of the fish were consistent with how a shoal of fish will swim with respect to one another. Hence, the scientist concluded that these fish were, as it were, snap-frozen in time in the act of swimming. Now, in various articles I read on this -- and there are quite a few -- the scientist essentially said they had no explanation for it. Notice carefully that the atheist scientist will never go anywhere near the possibility that these fish were buried in a catastrophic mud slides consistent with torrential water flow during a global flood. A good scientist will at least canvass all possibilities. But a biased scientists will NOT discuss all possibilities. So the scientist left it as him having no idea how these fish were snap-frozen in mud. This shows why atheist scientists will violate their scientific method -- which should cover all possibilities -- to go nowhere near something that could substantiate the Bible. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? You cannot assert that everyone in the crowd is wrong. Is this not what you are doing?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? I have said from the start that people use the same thinking in everything they do: health, MRNA vaccines, politics, spirituality etc. Hence, if you are a crowd-follower for MRNA vaccines, then you are going to be a crowd-follower in spiritual matters. The crowd-follower says: I am part of a crowd. Everyone in the crowd has different beliefs. You cannot assert that everyone in the crowd is wrong. Therefore ... as you said ... you accuse people of small-thinking. This is how I think through the process: 1 - Is there, or is there not a god? 2 - If there is a god, and with so many religions all claiming theirs is true, how do you tell which one is true, or which are not true. It comes down to evidence, evidence, evidence. You are not operating on evidence, evidence, evidence. Instead, you are operating from a crowd-mindset, that anyone who steps out and says the crowd is wrong, automatically is insulted and put down. Same thinking about MRNA vaccines. Same thinking about spirituality. Fine, PLEASE, pretty please provide us with this so called evidence???? Not the Jesus lawyer parable again, or the links to creationist websites, just solid, verifiable, physical evidence ..... that would help, please and thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]I mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: This has nothing to do with anything. The earth could be 6000 years old and god wouldn't need to exist for it to be so if the science supported that age. Both things don't have to be true at once. There are plenty of christians dear pastor john that believe the earth is billions of years old and there is a god. It's not an either / or.For you god is real therefore the earth MUST be 6000 years old. Yep, pretty much me.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. It's pretty compelling though isn't it? And it's not just one endemic animal to one country is it? It's literally thousands and thousand of singular species traversing thousands of kms to set up camp in a completely different part of the world and completely and utterly disappearing from anywhere they went through. Thoughts on animals native to Easter Island? Or did they swim 5000kms from New Zealand or Chile?It's a hurdle you YECs can't jump. Care to comment on Mr ID Michael Behe's belief that the earth is billions of years old? Is he wrong? What about the bison? I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. Funnily enough, many moons ago, this very theory was the rage in evolutionary island biodiversity circles... From Chile if memory serves me right... Places like Micronesia and Polynesia and remote habitats like Easter Isalnd are fascinating :)
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. In any debate, usually each side presents evidence in a way to substantiate their stance. Hence, you do not see a government health official ordering research to find out if the MRNA vaccines - that the compelled 95% of the population to take - whether those are dangerous or not. The government health official is not going to spend millions of dollars to find evidence that they themselves were culpable. Are you daft, or do you actually understand that? Hence, this is why, when evidence of vaccine danger is presented to the English and Australian Parliaments, hardly any MP's show up. The entire Parliament chambers are virtually empty. They don't want to know. And people like Muz, who trust the pollies, assume that no news is good news. Typically, you will not find an atheist scientist admit to evidence that would prove the existence of God. I give you an example. An atheist scientist did mathematical modelling of a fossil of a shoal of fish, and found that the orientation of the fish were consistent with how a shoal of fish will swim with respect to one another. Hence, the scientist concluded that these fish were, as it were, snap-frozen in time in the act of swimming. Now, in various articles I read on this -- and there are quite a few -- the scientist essentially said they had no explanation for it. Notice carefully that the atheist scientist will never go anywhere near the possibility that these fish were buried in a catastrophic mud slides consistent with torrential water flow during a global flood. A good scientist will at least canvass all possibilities. But a biased scientists will NOT discuss all possibilities. So the scientist left it as him having no idea how these fish were snap-frozen in mud. This shows why atheist scientists will violate their scientific method -- which should cover all possibilities -- to go nowhere near something that could substantiate the Bible. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/ Are you serious? You're appealing to the 'god of the gaps' because a scientist doesn't understand something? You also do know there has been more than one 'catastrophic mud slide' don't you? They happen all the time. One in PNG last month buried dozens of people that, in a million years time, will be fossilised. Clown.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? You cannot assert that everyone in the crowd is wrong. Is this not what you are doing? I'm teaching you how to think. Very few people have received teaching on how to think. :)
When someone makes an assertion (e.g. the other side is wrong) -- you then go to their reasons.
Reasons:
- I think the other side is wrong, because anyone who thinks the other side is wrong is automatically deemed small minded;
OR
- I think the other side is wrong, because of reasons A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H etc. etc. Reasons, reasons, evidence, evidence, logic, rational-thinking.
There is a difference. Consider that.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. In any debate, usually each side presents evidence in a way to substantiate their stance. Hence, you do not see a government health official ordering research to find out if the MRNA vaccines - that the compelled 95% of the population to take - whether those are dangerous or not. The government health official is not going to spend millions of dollars to find evidence that they themselves were culpable. Are you daft, or do you actually understand that? Hence, this is why, when evidence of vaccine danger is presented to the English and Australian Parliaments, hardly any MP's show up. The entire Parliament chambers are virtually empty. They don't want to know. And people like Muz, who trust the pollies, assume that no news is good news. Typically, you will not find an atheist scientist admit to evidence that would prove the existence of God. I give you an example. An atheist scientist did mathematical modelling of a fossil of a shoal of fish, and found that the orientation of the fish were consistent with how a shoal of fish will swim with respect to one another. Hence, the scientist concluded that these fish were, as it were, snap-frozen in time in the act of swimming. Now, in various articles I read on this -- and there are quite a few -- the scientist essentially said they had no explanation for it. Notice carefully that the atheist scientist will never go anywhere near the possibility that these fish were buried in a catastrophic mud slides consistent with torrential water flow during a global flood. A good scientist will at least canvass all possibilities. But a biased scientists will NOT discuss all possibilities. So the scientist left it as him having no idea how these fish were snap-frozen in mud. This shows why atheist scientists will violate their scientific method -- which should cover all possibilities -- to go nowhere near something that could substantiate the Bible. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/ Are you serious? You're appealing to the 'god of the gaps' because a scientist doesn't understand something? You also do know there has been more than one 'catastrophic mud slide' don't you? They happen all the time. One in PNG last month buried dozens of people that, in a million years time, will be fossilised. Clown. We're talking of fossils all around the world, even at the high peaks of the Himalaya https://www.google.com/search?q=fossils+Himalayas
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? You cannot assert that everyone in the crowd is wrong. Is this not what you are doing? Very few people have received teaching on how to think. :)
And you're one of them
|
|
|
|