A path to faith with science

**jamstigator** · 08-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Also, the odds that a single-celled paramecium could be created randomly out of some primordial ooze are *vastly* higher than the odds that, out of nowhere, a human being could via transcription error grow an entire functional limb. So you're saying that the odds of event A happening are too low, and to explain it you offer event B, which has dramatically lower odds. Logic that is not.

**natureisawesome** · 08-26-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I just told you what's so insulting about It. You don't need it and you're testing God. No that's not an opinion that's what God's word says.

Hardcore newbie:

1 Corinthians
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Is it out of context? Debatable. Jesus appeared to people after he died, to many people. I asketh, why do I not receiveth?

it's funny tho, how is it testing God, I'm just asking the guy for a conversation.

It's testing God because it's unreasonable and unnecessary to ask for a sign. You have the evidence you need already. There's a reason for the name "doubting Thomas".

Here's a good argument I found:

Just what kind of authoritative disclosure do most moderns think they want before they will believe? People want some kind of supernatural, direct disclosure, but then don't realize that it would be worthless to the person next door who would demand the exact same experience. But then, even for the individual who receives such a one-time disclosure the experience would fade and become subject to reinterpretation as time wore on.

Moreover, this would create an individualistic nightmare, since each person would autonomously interpret his own experience curvitas in se. If God were to make a public supernatural spectacle such that everybody would see it and accept his authority, then we would have similar problems. God would have to make this exact disclosure to each new human being, otherwise we are back to the need for human tradition to pass on the event and its meaning. Furthermore, God would have to say everything that he wanted to say in this grand public event so that there would be no misinterpretation a few days or hours (!) later. Dreaming about alternate ways of God's disclosing his authority and excusing oneself for not accepting his given authoritative disclosure are ultimately futile and absurd.

The bottom line is, the best and most valid proof you can ever get is the kind nobody wants to receive, the internal recognition of his spiritual nature.

Ecclesiastes 3:11

11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

God has shown himself to people before. Numerous times. And some people believed, and some didn't. How can you receive God with your eyes if will not recieve him in your heart? Or how will you receive him with your ears if you do not receive him in your heart first. Surely recognition of the heart must come first. God is a Spirit, and if you reject him spiritually how can you acknowledge him with your eyes?

But all humanity is without excuse.

Romans 1:20

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Listen to this:

Luke 16:19-21

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This last verse has important implications. You see, the Jews in Jesus' day weren't alive back in the Exodus to see all the miracles and wonders God showed to the Hebrews. But God says that if they don't hear Moses and the prophets then they won't be persuaded. One of the books in the Old Testament is Genesis. Jesus knew that there is enough evidence already to recognize the validity of that book. And that really is the foundation for all scripture. Jesus refers back to Genesis a number of times. All scripture is built upon that foundation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Well yes I am going by God's word and record. And that is proven True. I don't believe anything is possible. I go with the evidence. It's not highly unlikely. And how can you judge what is more likely or not, if anything is possible??

Well, it's possible that one day I'll go sky diving. highly unlikely, as I'm kind of scared of heights, but anything's possible.

You have no basis for that statement. You don't know anything is possible. And the fact that in this world the natural laws of the universe make some things impossible, clearly is evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
That may be so, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. I know some people get it in the gut and in both sides of the chest but generally it's around that area. I think actually the heart thing I mentioned happens to everyone but may not remember. Different parts of our bodies feel differently under different emotions.

Yeah, but without the brain you have no way to feel anything. you can feel without a heart. you probably wouldn't live longer than a few minutes without it, but it's not necessary for feelings.

What evidence do you have to show that the brain Feels with a capitol F anything? I say the evidence points to the contrary. Our mind is made up of living cells, but in the end it is just matter like the chair you're sitting on. Our brain is wired together as a tool. A man holding the hammer can feel the vibrations in his arm, but the hammer cannot feel, and there is no evidence to support that it can. Your mind is made up of many cells, but do cells feel human perceptions such as love, courage, beauty? No. And so then why would a connection of cells be able to? It's only a collection of cells. They're all matter in the end. Just a collection of individual cells that cannot feel human emotions. Do you dare to disagree? Are you a cell? Is that your source of self-consciousness?

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
You can't be serious. I'd like to hear this one, perhaps. As long as it's not dirty.

Hardcore Newbie:

It's not dirty, but you might consider it to be so, so I'll spare the gory details. Just showing you it's a subjective opinion.

I think I already have an idea, and it seems to be an inaccurate portrayal of Love.

[

QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Humanism or atheism the point I made applies to both of them. But humanism is an organized religion. And don't say they're not, because they admit it themselves

Humanism, to my understanding, is the belief that we don't hinder our fellow men in against their will. if someone wants to call that a religion, be my guest, but not all people who subscribe to that line of thinking would consider it a religion. I don't.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. I used humanism as an example because it sheds light on the fact that recognition of Spiritual Truth is even for them a belief (because they can't see it since it's spiritual), yet something recognized as higher Truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
If people don't have to do anything then why do we feel it necessary to have a government to keep things in order? And why in a democracy do they feel the need to have control over others to establish why they think is right? Obviously they are using they're pushing their moral choice on others as Truth we're all accountable to , but when confronted then it's everybody's own choice and we all have different personal standards. Like I said, lots of people define love differently, but everyone (just about) believes in Love. Can anyone say they hate love??

h.n.:

the idea of a democracy over millions and millions of people is ridiculous in the first place. There should only be four laws, Don't kill people, don't steal or take property, don't engage in fraud, and don't mess with children.

There's no way to establish even that without recognition of Spiritual Truth. That is grossly simplistic and without Christians humanity would still grapple with each other for order. The bottom line is, without God there is no logical basis for laws. It's only survival of the fittest. How does that sound? How would you like that philosophy in full effect. You even the deists who founded this country couldn't have done it without their "natural law" philosophy.

And I'm sure some people can say they've hate love, if they've had really bad experiences with it.

I hope we can both recognize that it wasn't any fallacy on the part of Love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Wrong. Because the point is that the ideology they learned from the world taught them that that was ok . Christian doctrine doesn't teach people to do things like the spanish inquisition. Trust me, I hate the roman catholic church more than you do .

h.n.:

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

This is justice. There's no corruption in this law. Attacking your Mother and Father is one of the worst things you could do. This law is in exact accordance with the seriousness of the offense and with the honor we should bestow on our parents. God wants us to love and honor our parents.

Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Oh you can't be serious. You don't think this means they have to sacrifice tier firstborns on the alter do you??

Exodus 13:1-14

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"(A)Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."

3Moses said to the people, "(B)Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for (C)by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place (D)And nothing leavened shall be eaten.

4"On this day in the (E)month of Abib, you are about to go forth.

5"It shall be when the LORD (F)brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, which (G)He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, (H)that you shall observe this rite in this month.

6"For (I)seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD.

7"Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and (J)nothing leavened shall be seen among you, nor shall any leaven be seen among you in all your borders.

8"(K)You shall tell your son on that day, saying, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.'

9"And (L)it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with (M)a powerful hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt.

10"Therefore, you shall (N)keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.

11"Now when (O)the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, as (P)He swore to you and to your fathers, and gives it to you,

12(Q)you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.

13"But (R)every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and (S)every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.

14"(T)And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' then you shall say to him, '(U)With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.

Numbers 3:12-13

12And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

13Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the LORD.

You see? That why they did it. And this and the old law was used a sort of "type" and full of allegories to lead the way as a tutor to Christ.

h.n.:

Deuteronomy 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

It's not as if God doesn't care about these people at all. If you read the bible, when God is talking to Abraham and talks about sending his family to egypt and then coming back out, he mentions that the Caananites will be judged at a later time because their wickedness had not reached such a full measure. He was patient with them for over 430 years, and since they did not turn to him, he used them just as he used Pharaoh to be a testimony to all nations.

Deuteronomy 7:9-10

9"Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;

10 but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.

God is patient. And he will do Good to those who do good. And he will punish evildoers. And that's just. It's just to destroy anyone who hates God .

It's also important to remember that another reason he told them to wipe them out is because they would later on be a snare to them. And guess what? They did. Because the Hebrews didn't completely wipe them out as God said, and they led Israel into sin and warred against them.

The truth is culture can have an effect on people's understanding of morality etc. But that doesn't mean we can't come to the right conclusion about those things. I have had my own internal struggles trying to understand how God could have done some of those things. But when I finally realized that my objections were all based upon false presuppositions influenced on me by culture etc., then my mind and heart was ready to recognize God's ways better. So often people forget they even have presuppositions. It's important to inspect those.

**natureisawesome** · 08-26-2007, 07:11 PM

Jamstigator said:

A mutation, a copying error, that doesn't just result in a deformity, but in an actual fully-functional well-designed limb, complete with articulating bones, sensory organs, and everything else? Doesn't that seem just a *little* far-fetched?

No. What do you mean "organs"? You mean nerves? There are numerous examples of body deformities where the appendage has nerves. You're not going to call all of them throwbacks to evolution are you?

Jamstigator:

But let us assume that a simple 'copying error' *can* result in such sweeping yet well-designed changes, that are passed along to descendants - okay, and isn't that exactly what evolution is?

Jamstigator:

No. Evolution requires complex and ordered information able to reproduce itself and pass on it's information. It also required a system of interpretation (RNA) to decipher the DNA code itself. These both have to be in place at the same time. Mutations go in the opposite direction because they only produce randomness, and loss of information. And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the inorganic cells defied the laws of nature and formed into live organisms able to reproduce. I want this to get into your head once and for all: mutations are bad. Mutations are not good. Mutations destroy life and produce disorder and randomness.

Again, the simplest explanation - that the data came from the parents - is most likely the correct explanation.

It may have. But if it did, it was because of faulty information.

Jamstigator:

To give you a perspective on just how unlikely it would be for random data to produce such a thing as a functioning tail like that, it surely takes 100k of genetic data for the whole ensemble. So, the odds would be something along the lines of 2^800,000 power against that. For me to even type that number as a percentage, I'd have to devote my entire life to doing just that. *Highly* unlikely. And for it to happen multiple times *and* be inherited across generations? Even worse odds.

But it's not totally random from scratch. DNA has a process of design from it's "blueprints", and somewhere along that process a copying error or mutation takes place. It's not totally random like the kind of randomness we find in nature. So your statistical guess isn't taking that into consideration.

Jamstigator:

QUOTE]But a 'simple copying error' would result in a tumor or cancerous cells or warped bones, something like that. Organized data being replaced with random data and chaos. A well-designed functioning limb replete with all bodily constructs and a connection via nerve endings to the brain is not a simple copying error. Well, I suppose it's *possible*, if it had only happened once, but the odds that that much random data would just happen to fall exactly into place to produce such a thing, and have it be hereditary, that's gotta be monumentally against the odds.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, it's not totally random. Take a look at the pictures I attached. Those are pictures
of hands with six fingers. Some of them have bone in them as you can see in the x-ray ( but not all of them do). But it's well recognized that this is a malformation caused by mutations.

Polydactyly or polydactylism (from the Greek poly = "many" + daktylos = "finger"), also known as hyperdactyly, is a congenital physical anomaly consisting of supernumerary fingers or toes

The extra digit is usually a small piece of soft tissue; occasionally it may contain bone without joints; rarely it may be a complete, functioning digit. The extra digit is most common on the ulnar (little finger) side of the hand, less common on the radial (thumb) side, and very rarely within the middle three digits.

The extra digit is most commonly an abnormal fork in an existing digit, or it may rarely originate at the wrist like a normal digit does.

Polydactyly can occur by itself, or more commonly, as one feature of a syndrome of congenital anomalies. When it occurs by itself, it is associated with autosomal dominant mutations in single genes, i.e. it is not a multifactorial trait.[1] But mutation in a variety of genes can give rise to polydactyly. Typically the mutated gene is involved in developmental patterning, and a syndrome of congenital anomalies results, of which polydactyly is one feature.

The condition has an incidence of 2 in every 1000 live births[1] although the frequency is higher in some groups (an example is the Amish in the United States, due to the founder effect).

Polydactyly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SO there you go. A full extra finger with nerves and all caused by mutations in coding information.

jamstigator:

But if inherited mutations of such complexity *are* possible, without getting the data from ancestors, then tada, you have evolution!

But instead it's the opposite. You see an error in DNA that produces an extra finger or a few extra copies of bone or cartilage does not amount to new information. It's only an (erroneous) copy of preexisting information. Instead we find that mutations break down information and cause randomness.

I couldn't figure out how to show the pictures but here they are.

Image:Polydactyly 01 Lfoot AP.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Polydactyly 01 Rhand AP.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://photos.almosthuman.net/albums...ix_fingers.jpg

__________________

**natureisawesome** · 08-26-2007, 07:14 PM

And what do you mean, "functioning tail"? That's all you . It's not used for balance and there's no muscles in it for grasping onto branches. It doesn't even have the proper bone formation to resemble anything like a functioning tail or prehensile tail.

This is nuts.

**natureisawesome** · 08-26-2007, 07:54 PM

I highly advise you jamstigator, to read this article comparing natural selection and variation with evolution:

Variation and natural selection versus evolution

Please read this if you will, and then if you still have any objections we can go on from there. This will save me a lot of explaining.

**snowblind** · 08-26-2007, 08:00 PM

yo whats your theory on dinosaurs god boy ? i notice nooooo answer

**Hardcore Newbie** · 08-26-2007, 08:01 PM