Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

The Bringer wrote:But you can't have ethics without it.

Can you prove ethics Melissia?

I am not an ethics major, so I would not deign to attempt to do such (my field of study being more scientific in nature than philosophical). I can, however, prove that ethics exists outside of religion, therefor your entire premise is false.

And it's quite simple. Ethical systems exist which do not require a belief in one or ore deities, therefor ethics are not tied to belief in one or more deities. There is no simpler line of logical reasoning than this.

Please show me the systems, if you cannot prove them.

TheCapm wrote:When i say evidence, I mean more like facts in favor of Christianity.

Oh dear... I had high hopes of some actual evidence, rather than some conjecture and terrible understanding of basic scientific principals.

I was genuinely interested.

Edit: Edited for clarity as to what I was referring to.

SilverMK2 wrote:Oh dear... I had high hopes of some actual evidence, rather than some conjecture and terrible understanding of basic scientific principals.

explain? Could be I twisted them up

EDIT: Yes, well, there is not a whole lot of actual facts about anything as far as how the world came into existence unless someone happens to be 4,000+ years old

TheCapm wrote:The occurrence of The Flood would explain many things that evolution attempts to explain itself. For instance, the grand canyon could have easily been caused by a flood.

Formation of the grand canyon

Fossils deep under the surface could have easily been caused by one massive flood washing it all together like one giant mixing bowl, instead of it occurring over millions and millions of years.

Various ways fossils were thought to have been created in the past
Ways in which fossils are created
Accuracy of fossil dating (about half way down the page)

It would explain the formation of mountains in non-volcanic areas not along the earth's plates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

It would explain the extinctions of certain species only known about because of fossil sites.

Could you give an example? And what exactly you mean by this (I was not sure).

There where thousands of prophecies made about Christ confirmed through other records in history not just the bible (just in case you are an atheist) that were all fulfilled during the life of Christ. The chances of one person fulfilling all of them were calculated to a figure that contained over a billion zeros in it against 1. Thus showing that there are supernatural events.

I can't comment on this, since I have no knowledge of this subject area.

Evidence against evolution that just stands to reason. How could a single celled organism have the capacity to evolve when its DNA strand that is minuscule.

Fossil record of evolution
Process of evolution



Sorry for all the wiki links, but they cover the basics and have obviously got links to other related areas of study within the text as well.

Edits: Formatting errors

TheCapm wrote:EDIT: Yes, well, there is not a whole lot of actual facts about anything as far as how the world came into existence unless someone happens to be 4,000+ years old

We actually have a fairly reasonable idea as to how the world came into existence. Happened a lot earlier than 4,000 years ago too

However, I am going out now, so if you come up with any actual facts, please let me know. As I said earlier, I am genuinely interested.

@SilverMK2
mind highlighting the certain parts of the articles you want us to looks at?

rubiksnoob wrote:

micahaphone wrote:But-but- We need to see what would happen if humans disappeared, and why the Bermuda Triangle is haunted by USOs, which are submarine UFOs!

They're real. This guy says so.

^ basically


..I need to recall the forum rules, especially those that deal with swear words. ta.

SilverMK2 wrote:

TheCapm wrote:There where thousands of prophecies made about Christ confirmed through other records in history not just the bible (just in case you are an atheist) that were all fulfilled during the life of Christ. The chances of one person fulfilling all of them were calculated to a figure that contained over a billion zeros in it against 1. Thus showing that there are supernatural events.

I can't comment on this, since I have no knowledge of this subject area.

I can and the most appropriate response is this:

SilverMK2 wrote:

TheCapm wrote:When i say evidence, I mean more like facts in favor of Christianity.

Oh dear... I had high hopes of some actual evidence, rather than some conjecture and terrible understanding of basic scientific principals.

I was genuinely interested.

Edit: Edited for clarity as to what I was referring to.

I myself am not a "professional", and most of the stuff I know is second hand. If you are interested, I found this article

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

The Bringer wrote:Please show me the systems, if you cannot prove them.

The entire history of the study of formal ethics? Moral absolutism is by no means the only accepted ethical system.

TheCapm wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

TheCapm wrote:When i say evidence, I mean more like facts in favor of Christianity.

Oh dear... I had high hopes of some actual evidence, rather than some conjecture and terrible understanding of basic scientific principals.

I was genuinely interested.

Edit: Edited for clarity as to what I was referring to.

I myself am not a "professional", and most of the stuff I know is second hand. If you are interested, I found this article

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

Im guessing your joking, im at work i cant check

but "clarifyingchristianity" sounds like one of four things:

1. rational site with discourse about religion

2. Parody/satire site

3. Crazies

4. Parody/Satire and Crazies

From "b_proof.shtml" i can guess its either 2, 3 or 4

Arguing with a creationist is pointless.

If they choose to reject the scientific evidence provided by the most advanced methods from across the world, that are now totally accepted within academia and common understanding, then you linking wiki at him isn't going to sway his determination to look for what he perceives as gaps in the wording or any shred that might facilitate dismissing all the evidence presented.

Because you'll get that argument that 'none of this can be proved as none of you were about 4k years ago', despite scientists proving it, because the creationist denies the proof.

Creationists have made the concious choice to believe the words written several thousand years ago and then translated and rewritten hundreds of times, over the information supplied to them by the most advanced centres of learning worldwide, who agree with each other regardless of nationality or culture.

In that regard, this line of discussion is set for nothing more than discord, frustration and ill will on both sides.



Basically it goes like this:
Tim: Evolution is the real deal
Bob: Prove it
Tim: Carbon dating, fossil records, geographic layering etc
Bob: I don't believe in those things and all this could have happened a few years ago, so, prove it!
Tim: But I just showed you how we prove it.
Bob: But I have chosen to ignore or dismiss those methods, so prove it!!
Tim: bah, I could argue with you all day, instead, how about I buy you a cold beer and you promise me you'll never find yourself in charge of governmental grants for the sciences...

Christianity's a cult like any other, only difference is that its a more established and ingrained one, but I guess ignorance is bliss.¬¬

Ironically enough, it looks the same on both sides of the argument MGS.

Many creationists believe that evolutionists will never stop believing in evolution no matter how many facts are presented against it.

I recently saw this show on the Discovery channel. This guy consistently found blood cell tissue in fossils. And this is what he said:

"Funny, there is no way that tissue could survive 1 million years even, maybe DNA could last as long as the tissue did..."

He completely ignored the obvious conclusion of the existence of tissue in a dinosaur fossil, that conclusion being: Maybe the dinosaurs aren't 60 some million years old.

Rather, he chose to say that this piece of knowledge, that tissue would disintegrate after that much time, was wrong.

The Bringer wrote:Ironically enough, it looks the same on both sides of the argument MGS.

Many creationists believe that evolutionists will never stop believing in evolution no matter how many facts are presented against it.

I recently saw this show on the Discovery channel. This guy consistently found blood cell tissue in fossils. And this is what he said:

"Funny, there is no way that tissue could survive 1 million years even, maybe DNA could last as long as the tissue did..."

He completely ignored the obvious conclusion of the existence of tissue in a dinosaur fossil, that conclusion being: Maybe the dinosaurs aren't 60 some million years old.

Rather, he chose to say that this piece of knowledge, that tissue would disintegrate after that much time, was wrong.

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Sure its rare for cells like this to be preserved but cmon the pantheon still has yew in its columns (wooden centers to keep them aligned) and because of the tight seal the wood is still fresh inside. Cells only deteriorate when exposed, if they are not exposed they dont have a chance to decompose

He completely ignored the obvious conclusion of the existence of tissue in a dinosaur fossil, that conclusion being: Maybe the dinosaurs aren't 60 some million years old

So throw out the rest of the evidence to show the fossils are that old? 0_o yeah because that makes a whole lot of sense.

"This guy consistently found blood cell tissue in fossils"

doubt it because i've only heard of this one case

The fact is creationists have an agenda, true some evolutionists have an agenda themselves. But scientists have no agenda they are just looking for facts, the fact that scientists are treated as idiots because their findings do not match creationist bias is degrading to creationists only

That's because religion isn't founded on proof. Religion doesn't give a damn about reality, or facts, or proof, or logic, or rationale. Just pure blind faith. Nothing more. Proving something to a religious creationist is pointless because they do not base their belief systems on proof to begin with.

The Bringer wrote:
Many creationists believe that evolutionists will never stop believing in evolution no matter how many facts are presented against it.

Which is a pretty stupid belief to hold. Maybe they should wait until they have some actual opposing facts to represent before making assumptions about how other people would react?

As for the second part, presuming that you are relating it correctly, the error is on your part. The 'most obvious conclusion' is only such if you're ignorant of how bones are dated. If the geological rock layer, the positioning, and whatever dating tests you run on it all say, '60 million years' and then you have one thing that contradicts that, the 'most obvious conclusion' is not to suddenly decide everything is wrong and the anomaly turns all preceding research on it's ear.

The Bringer wrote:
He completely ignored the obvious conclusion of the existence of tissue in a dinosaur fossil, that conclusion being: Maybe the dinosaurs aren't 60 some million years old.

Rather, he chose to say that this piece of knowledge, that tissue would disintegrate after that much time, was wrong.

The first one is actually the less obvious conclusion, as it disconfirms a massive amount of established knowledge in multiple scientific fields; much of which is used to establish the expected rates of tissue decay in samples dated according to ambient rock strata.

In general, when falsifying evidence is found, its effects are limited to the theories that immediately govern the determination of expected results.

Its been my experience that the majority of Young Earth creationists have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the scientific method, and the logic that underpins it; what you're presented here is a really good example of that.

TheCapm wrote:@SilverMK2
mind highlighting the certain parts of the articles you want us to looks at?

I have no idea of your knowledge of the topics. However, the contents page of wiki page should be able to point you in the right direction if you don't want to read the whole articles.

And I've had a look at the website you posted. Just reading their science page and it is the standard "the bible really does say scientific things!" by taking quotes from various verses and bending them around a bit.

However, I will go back and read the bit regarding prophesies in a second and see what they say. Just wanted to see what they were saying about the bible and science first

Look at this through the eyes of a creationist:

On the earth, particles randomly aligned to create a cell. If all the matter necessary for minimum complexity life were in the exact same spot, the chances of them aligning correctly are less than 1 in 10e24 I believe. That is IF all the right particles are in the same place. So it is even more unlikely than that.

Not to mention, logically, how can you explain that the world has existed for infinite years? Nothing can reach infinity, yet for the world to have ever existed it must have been around for infinite years. Right? The universe would have died from heat death or it wouldn't have any energy left.

Suppose that the universe was once nothingness. Suppose there was this "Big Bang", how in the world could it turn nothingness into something? How? It doesn't even make sense. Nothing could have caused the bang.


I don't even have words to describe how unlikely that is. It is an impossibility that the world always existed. It seems impossible to have the world come from nothing. It is almost impossible that a bare-minimum complexity cell could be created randomly.

What I really love is Creationists who tell other Christians they are going to hell because they are not creationists. (Personal experience, that.) I wonder why it is that one isn't allowed to believe in Science and God at the same time?

Dude....fundamental mistake is that for any chance occurence to occur, it will happen at the end of all chances.

It didn't. It happened a lot earlier. And happen it did. Hence life on earth. Evolution never said we didn't get lucky.

Okay, then please give me a link to how the universe came from an explosion in nothingness?

Logically, you can't get 3 apples from nothing, you can't get 0+0 = 5000. It is impossible.

The Bringer wrote:Not to mention, logically, how can you explain that the world has existed for infinite years? Nothing can reach infinity, yet for the world to have ever existed it must have been around for infinite years. Right? The universe would have died from heat death or it wouldn't have any energy left.

erm... since the universe is thought to be only 13.75 billion years old thats considerably less than infinate, also the heat death will take about 10^23 more years to happen.

The Bringer wrote:Suppose that the universe was once nothingness. Suppose there was this "Big Bang", how in the world could it turn nothingness into something? How? It doesn't even make sense. Nothing could have caused the bang.

Yeah so this invisible guy in the sky who lets his enemy throw fossils all over the place makes more sense i guess is what your saying.

When did we get onto how old the universe is? This is what annoys me about arguing with creationists before they admit any fact they move onto the next argument and blank anything previously said.



I love the assumption that if there is a god that he is a moron, that he wouldent allow the universe to naturally evolve after the big bang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Bringer wrote:Okay, then please give me a link to how the universe came from an explosion in nothingness?

Logically, you can't get 3 apples from nothing, you can't get 0+0 = 5000. It is impossible.

where did god come from then?

Seems like this has gotten OT since the OP wanted to know what IS a Christian. Not a discussion about evolution vs. creation.

So I will try to bring it back. In my opinion, I would say a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ, strives to learn of Him and His teaching, as well as tries to live by those teachings.

Now there is a lot of different interpretations of those teachings, which causes a lot of the confusion we have seen in history and still see today with the different religions across the world who all proclaim they are Christian.

Ultimately, though, this does not change the fact that to be a Christian is to strive to achieve the above definition.

Here is my other thought, to be truly Christian you have to actually achieve the above definition, not just strive for it. Unfortunately this is almost impossible since there is so much variation in the interpretations of His teachings.

Erm....nobody said there was nothingness before the Big Bang.

There was something else...but not nothingness. Trouble with that of course, is finding the proof. Most would have been olbiterated in the explosion/expansion, but chances it's still there. We just need to know how to look.

See, this Universe, the one we're in, could have started expanding into a pre-existing Universe, where a chemical reaction went poof, and brought this one into being.

Simple thing is, Science, unlike Religion is more than willing to say 'right now, we don't know. But that's a bloody question and I shall certainly try to find out!'

And the other thing. If nothing can come from nothing, where did God come from?

Pael wrote:Seems like this has gotten OT since the OP wanted to know what IS a Christian. Not a discussion about evolution vs. creation.

So I will try to bring it back. In my opinion, I would say a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ, strives to learn of Him and His teaching, as well as tries to live by those teachings.

Now there is a lot of different interpretations of those teachings, which causes a lot of the confusion we have seen in history and still see today with the different religions across the world who all proclaim they are Christian.

Ultimately, though, this does not change the fact that to be a Christian is to strive to achieve the above definition.

Here is my other thought, to be truly Christian you have to actually achieve the above definition, not just strive for it. Unfortunately this is almost impossible since there is so much variation in the interpretations of His teachings.

This is my view exactly

Mr Mystery wrote:Erm....nobody said there was nothingness before the Big Bang.

There was something else...but not nothingness. Trouble with that of course, is finding the proof. Most would have been olbiterated in the explosion/expansion, but chances it's still there. We just need to know how to look.

See, this Universe, the one we're in, could have started expanding into a pre-existing Universe, where a chemical reaction went poof, and brought this one into being.

Simple thing is, Science, unlike Religion is more than willing to say 'right now, we don't know. But that's a bloody question and I shall certainly try to find out!'

And the other thing. If nothing can come from nothing, where did God come from?

The thought is that it was a dense hot black body, evidence of this is found in background radiation

Other problem with creationism....I'm yet to be linked to evidence 'refuting' evolution which is not only peer reviewed, but hosted anywhere but a Creationist website.

This naturally throws doubt over it's veracity.

The Bringer wrote:Okay, then please give me a link to how the universe came from an explosion in nothingness?

Logically, you can't get 3 apples from nothing, you can't get 0+0 = 5000. It is impossible.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm

And regards the formation of complex molecules from simple ones... you don't need a 1 in x^y chance of forming an entire complex molecule (the basic mistake and misleading premise that most people tout as the reason why life had to be created by divine intervention). You need 2 simple molecules to combine to form a slightly more complex one, and so on and so on until eventually a complex molecule (such as RNA/DNA/etc) is formed.

And since there are many trillions of reactions happening almost constantly in even the smallest sample of chemical sludge that contained the ingredients of life, it is very likely that life would form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Or more specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Okay, lets stop the discussion right here on the validity of Christianity or Evolution.


This is the second thing a Christian would say to an Evolutionist,

"Suppose you are right, suppose I'm right. Which would you rather do, live life for the pleasures of the world and then die and not exist, or would you rather live for God, in hope of his eternal everlasting kingdom."

100 years is a short life. I was 10 just a moment ago, I could remember my birthday. Suddenly I'm a lot older, what happened to all that time? I'd rather live for God than for the world, if for nothing else, the promise of God in the Bible.

That is all I will say.