Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesI am confusedand there STILL is. does that then mean that the "scientists'" information that you toute are eclipsed by what these "superstitious" people believe in? you make interesting comments, and draw false conclusions. fascinating. this reminds me of what Chesterton says in Everlasting Man: "there are some poeple who never passed out of it (some prehistoric mode of life) and indeed there are some who never passed INTO IT." and it STILL IS! and how does that make it LESS "awe-inspiring"? this also, once again, PRESUPPOSES that man had not been given direct revelation from God concerning these issues, which CAN'T be scientifically verified. we would expect that Adam and Eve would've passed down the understanding that they'd received from God to their children and generations of ancestors (seeing how they lived almost 1,000 years they would've been present during SEVERAL generations), and indeed we see that this is true from the writings of Moses in the Pentateuch. HAD to? why? this is as foolish as saying that man created God in order to deal with chaos and set rules and such things. in order to do that, one would need a point of reference in order to understand what chaos was in the first place. same applies here. one would need to understand what the absence of God is in order to understand the need for His presence. logically, they wouldn't need to. just as C.S. Lewis points out. if this world were meaningless, we should never have known that. we should never have found that out. if this world were completely without light, we never would've found that out. if this world were without God, we NEVER would've found that out. you need a point of reference for such things. and in your case you have none. so you have to borrow from the Bible and Theology in order to deny them. well, His words were recorded, and He validated those claims by rising from the dead and appearing to Peter, then the "12" and then to over 500 people (1 Cor 3:5-6). sounds like good enough reason to trust what He says to me. what i meant to say was: "maybe what you think to be "rational" is simply the by-product of some accidental genetic mistake that conferred some kind of survival advantage on your alleged apelike ancestor, which gives no reason to suppose your ideas to be true?", which make complete sense, and undermines your thinking at ground level. you make another mistake. you appeal to "rationality" without giving a solid basis for trusting rationality. rationality must be ASSUMED to be trusted. it's like believing in something as stupid as scientific absolutism. but this is systemic contradiction. science does not prove the scientific method. the methods of science cannot themselves be PROVEN by science, they must be taken on philosophical grounds. what mistakes do you suppose i'm suggesting of my God? thanks for asking. actually i used to believe very much in evolution and millions of years, because that's what we're taught in schools, whether we like it or not. but on closer inspection and careful study, i've realized that evolution is completely false. it's just a religion of secular humanism that attempts to explain this universe and its contents without a Creator, and is couched in terms of science. it's hard to believe that you're serious. science ASSUMES, and PRESUPPOSES that science is TRUSTWORTHY, something that can only be substantiated philosophically. here's a couple of quotes that you'll find fascinating (all coming from Atheistic, Naturalistic scientists): i doubt you would say such things about Charles Darwin, or some of the early pioneers of evolutionary thought. when they ran into a problem, they didn't give up on their beliefs. they tried to find the evidence to support it. Darwin stated that the fossil record was one of the biggest objections that could be raised agianst his theory, however he and others still believed it anyway. you don't understand what you're talking about. none of your claims are accurate. there's a pre-committment to materialism. if you choose not to see that, there's no point in talking to you. yeah. they are assumptions and presuppositions. but like i said before, we have the same evidence. we just interpret it differently because of our axioms. you also resort to putting the burden of proof on the positive position of Theism. but you make a serious mistake. as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out, "You seem to be using the tactic of throwing the burden of proof on those asserting an affirmative proposition, e.g. ‘God exists’ as opposed to the negative proposition ‘God does not exist.’ But then an example of self-refutation occurs: the proposition: ‘The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position’ is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!" have you seen a dinosaur changing into a bird? have you seen Gautama Buddha? have you seen Ghenghis Khaan? have you seen George Washington? have you observed the necessary information increasing mutations and evolutionary processes that are necessary for "goo-to-you" evolution to be true? your questions are nugatory, not to mention, self-refuting. of course. it makes sense with the evidence, scientifically, historically, morally, logically, and is substantiated by the life and death of Christ. also the impossibility of Naturalism gives firm support for Creation and the God of the Bible. a "sane, rational, and educated mind" seems only to be one that agrees with you. i gave you a long list of names of brilliant scientists who also agree with the Bible. your conclusions are too simplistic. you'd be surprised to know just how many people have been fooled into thinking that age is a substance that can be measured. if "molecules to man" evolution is so observable, can you give me the necessary examples of the millions of "observable" information INCREASING genetic changes (and not simply examples of sorting or loss of information) if evolution is fact??? i'd like an answer to that please. don't mistake observable facts of science with story telling of the unobserved past. then maybe you'll be interested in this quote from Leading cosmologist George Francis Rayner Ellis honestly admitting the role of philosophical assumptions: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." It is hard to resist the suggestion that some skeptics have minds so open that they need to be careful lest their brains fall out. Seriously, G.K. Chesterton pointed out that an open mind should be like an open mouth—only good when it has something of substance to chomp into. i've done this, and i see no support for your claims, other than you say so, or a prior commitment to materialism, which is no more respectable a position than me saying that i have a committment to the Bible. i've already demonstrated this claim to be a naive one that you should know better than. i quoted several top notch scientists that vehemently disagree with you. Biblical Christianity was the foundation for science in the first place! how do you attempt to abandon or question the very source of your knowledge? funny. YOU didn't ask that kind of question. your questions (THE REASON FOR THIS THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE) were questions of science and philosophy and had nothing to do with Jesus. if you attempt to apply this overly critical method to every other historical event or person, do you know what you end up with? nothing. no one. Jesus Christ is one of the best attested historical figures of the the ancient world. there is more documentation and support for His existence than for any other person of antiquity. you throw out Jesus, you throw everyone else out too. no. the manuscript support, the eyewitness testimony, the teachings, the extra-biblical literature all attest to that just fine. i don't know anyone educated in this topic that would ever make such a stupid claim. so it's wrong for me to do it, but alright when you do it? i'm not asking much here man. just stop being so unreasonable. sounds fair. i already gave you Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's brilliant response to that foolish stance, so i won't belabor the point. i do have one question though, what do you call evidence? what would convince you? i know of plenty of evidence that satisfies my imperceptable and meager (according to you) understanding, but what do YOU consider good evidence? don't ask your questions in a vacuum. your lack of a solid foundation is what strikes against you hardest. your "reasoning" has no basis for trusting it. just as C.S. Lewis said: "For it is not dependence simply, but dependence on the non-rational that undermines the credentials of thought." here's a couple of quotes to leave with you that'll hopefully help you to understand the bankruptcy of your position: “I grew up believing in this (evolution) Myth and I have felt—I still feel—its almost perfect grandeur. Let no one say we are an unimaginative age: neither the Greeks nor the Norsemen ever invented a better story. But the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational, how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about evolution?” -- C.S. Lewis "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." --Professor Haldane, Possible Worlds |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame