Science isn’t always the answer.

[RetiredGySgt]

Scientists can't specifically explain where and how life began.

Yes they can. There are many competing, viable explanations. What you mean to say is that they cant be very sure any of them are exactly right or complete. Which certainly isn't a knock on science. That's a compliment. Scientists admit what they don't know.

In other words they guessed.

 

[ding]

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

 

[Likkmee]

An atheist blog spot. I'm so impressed with your research.

Haha..now this is irony. You don't seem too impressed with the research of the entire global scientific community, either. But reading a creationist blog full of laughable lies? Now THAT'S impressive!

The entire global scientific community is not refuting the Bible. You atheists are.

The other day some theist said science agreed we all came from the same place. The guy assumed that meant science agrees with Adam and Eve. Of course that’s not true.

So yes there are scientific Christians but they leave logic and reason at the door when the enter church. They can’t scientifically explain the Jesus stories.

i think it’s called cognitive dissonance

Scientists can't specifically explain where and how life began. They don't agree on many things. We're all in search of the "how", but Christians do have a starting point because we have the Bible.

These assholes can't even agree on where a virus began.Nor can they cure athletes foot.

 

[barn sour]

I ask, "Do you believe in God? Is your Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ?" They may lie

Of course they will, as the petty christians will ostracize them otherwise. For many people, they have to grow up and get away from oppressive religious communities to be able to be honest.

Imagine you go to their church. The popular families who all hang out together are judging everyone else. If they don’t like you you feel like an outsider in their social club. They don’t mind you being a member because you pay your dues but they dont give a shit about you and if you quit they’ll say it’s because you aren’t a real Christian.

Personally, I wouldn't attend that church. In fact, that very reason is why many believers have stopped attending church. They're attending small home churches or fellowships that don't have a hierarchy. Churches are just filled with people after all, and lots of them are there to put on a show and look like they're holy. They're called man-pleasers in the Bible, and the world is full of them.

 

[barn sour]

Yep even satan knows He exists.

^^

The never-petty sunday brunch WASP way of saying that even satan is better than atheists

No, you atheists are being blinded by satan, and you still have a chance to trust in the Lord. Satan doesn't. He is evil and you are just blind. Big difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words they guessed.

Yes! But not all guesses are equal. The competing hypotheses for the Theory of Abiogenesis are educated guesses meant to explain the fact that is abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you atheists are being blinded by satan,

These magical chants and evocations aren't compelling to me. Just as you would not be compelled by a gypsy curse, or a voodoo doll. At least tell me you get that.

 

[barn sour]

No, you atheists are being blinded by satan,

These magical chants and evocations aren't compelling to me. Just as you would not be compelled by a gypsy curse, or a voodoo doll. At least tell me you get that.

Actually I'm a firm believer in voodoo dolls.

I figured this was a discussion board where we were all free to share our thoughts. I like talking about these things, but have no interest in forcing anyone to agree with me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually I'm a firm believer in voodoo dolls

No you aren't. And that is a dodge.

I figured this was a discussion board where we were all free to share our thoughts.

It is.

 

[barn sour]

In other words they guessed.

Yes! But not all guesses are equal. The competing hypotheses for the Theory of Abiogenesis are educated guesses meant to explain the fact that is abiogenesis.

Educated guesses? Those educated guesses are guesses, nonetheless. I commend men for attempting to figure out the universe and all it's intricacies, but they have a long way to go, and NOTHING they have found denies the existence of God. Nothing they have found explains the breath of life.

 

[barn sour]

Actually I'm a firm believer in voodoo dolls

No you aren't. And that is a dodge.

I figured this was a discussion board where we were all free to share our thoughts.

It is.

No, your claiming I'm giving "magical chants" is a bunch of crap, so your comment didn't deserve a response. Instead, I tried to make light of your crap. See how nice I am?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Educated guesses? Those educated guesses are guesses, nonetheless

And not all guesses are equal. Scientific ideas are testable and typically well-informed by evidence. For example, "Is Abiogenesis true?" is so well-answered in the affirmative, that we can safely call it a fact. Just as much as we can call star formation a fact. These are just names for the process between not having the thing (no life, no star) and having the thing thing (life, or a star).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

your claiming I'm giving "magical chants" is a bunch of crap,

No, that's exactly what you sound like to me. "Even satan..."...ah yes, the fallen angel. Magical hooha. Give me a break.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words they guessed.

Yes! But not all guesses are equal. The competing hypotheses for the Theory of Abiogenesis are educated guesses meant to explain the fact that is abiogenesis.

Look, a GUESS is a GUESS. I don't care how you frame it to absolutely believe science is to have FAITH their guess are right. Same as believing in God requires faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look, a GUESS is a GUESS

But not all guesses are equal. And the comical part is that you certainly do not live as though they are. But you say this gibberish because we are talking about evolution, and about other things that conflict with your religious dogma. The age of the earth, etc.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

BLUF: The answer to this question is a matter of Christology.

Who decides if Christians who call themselves Christians are "real'' Christians? You have identified that "not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christian". You decides?

Are you bearing false witness or just being judgemental as some Christians are not meeting an arbitrary standard you have established?

(COMMENT)

The notion of Christianity is rather awkwardly defined by its membership of any one particular sect; as a matter of acceptance.

​

◈ The whole body of titles attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are summed up in this word, which has semantically subsumed all other titles that indicate the identity of Jesus (Lord, Son of God, and so on) and has imposed itself in the designation of the one called Jesus Christ. This is so true that in Antioch, the “disciples of the way” of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Later, Ignatius of Antioch invented the neologism “Christianity" (Ad Magn. 10. 3, SC 10 bis, 105).​

◈ Christian dogma: the Son of the Father in the Trinity, the Son of man, the Servant, the Lamb of God. They deal with his “mysteries”​

(Incarnation*, Passion*, Resurrection).​

See: Page 285: Encyclopedia of Christian Theology (Volume 1 • A-F) ​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[forkup]

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

I didn't realise that not knowing something required evidence. It's also completely irrelevant

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

The burden of proof is on the person who has the hypothesis, in this case, God created the universe. Not the person you have to convince. If you find a way to falsify (test) your hypothesis the burden would shift to me. And no, logical constructs do not count. Since it only accepts one starting premise and makes several simply unsupported assertions along the way. What you are doing is a trick people who believe in God employ constantly. Trying to shift the burden of proof. It's an appeal to ignorance.

Again I do NOT assert God doesn't exist. I assert that I have no reason to assume he does. Even IF you could convince me your hypothesis has merit, you would still be in exactly the same place of having to actually prove it.

Maybe this illustrates it. I believe in life outside Earth. I'm willing to accept some of this life has developed intelligence along the way. Unless we find evidence of this, whatever this evidence might be the assertion that we know life, let alone intelligent life exist outside Earth is false. It's not the responsibility of those who don't believe either of those things to disprove that aliens don't exist, it's the responsibility of those who do to prove that they do.

 

[forkup]

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life.

We know a lot about it actually.

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

Ah, to their OWN lives. So thieves and child molesters have the right and responsibility to please themselves....making themselves their own god. There is nothing ethical about humanism. Each man sets his own standard of ethics. Yeah, that's working real well in this world today, isn't it?

Nope, see we live in a humanist society, meaning the society as a whole decides what is the correct standard of ethics. Most of us are raised in the knowledge that our actions have consequences on the world around us this means a thief and child molester is usually aware of their actions being bad. Taking responsibility for your actions also means that bad actions have bad consequences.

I also want to point out that you believe in a book that condones slavery, rape, incest, the death penalty for things like adultery, homosexuality, and disrespecting your parents. The reason you ( I assume) don't condone those things anymore is because SOCIETY, not the Bible has recognized them as harmful.

 

[Hollie]

In other words they guessed.

Yes! But not all guesses are equal. The competing hypotheses for the Theory of Abiogenesis are educated guesses meant to explain the fact that is abiogenesis.

Educated guesses? Those educated guesses are guesses, nonetheless. I commend men for attempting to figure out the universe and all it's intricacies, but they have a long way to go, and NOTHING they have found denies the existence of God. Nothing they have found explains the breath of life.

You're not understanding the definition of a hypothesis as defined in science.

God and Evolution

www.talkorigins.org

Scientific method: The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct.

Nothing science has found denies the existence of Bigfoot. Therefore, lets presume Bigfoot exists. As to science not finding the breath of life, how is that an argument for the gods? Even if the gods sparked life on the planet billions of years ago, biological evolution across those billions of years is still firmly supported. Nothing about billions of years of evolution speaks to extant, involved gods.

If the Genesis fable were true, what, exactly, can be studied about genesis? How does anyone reconcile 2,000 year old fables describing a 6,000 year old planet vs. "rock hard" evidence of a planet that is 3.7+/- billion years old?

Within the gods environment, Genesis is not about to change into anything more specific. We know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment of knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is not going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short chapters. There is no indication that we can ever know anything more about the most significant event in human history and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution, the natural world and humanity's place in the natural world are going to be more and more supported and defined.

 

[LittleNipper]

You're wrong!

Oh no!

I don't hold to governmental indoctrinated education

Of course you do. There was barely a secular country in the world until America came along. You are holding onto government indoctrination from the year 1700.

Governments didn't discover the fact of evolution, either. That's two strikes. Not me, not the government.

But here is your big chance to shine. Don't be shy, my man. Let all the crazy out. Do that thing where you claim scientists are all incompetent, or are liars, or are both.

Shows you how much you know about education of the United States. Before the mid 1920's education was the responsibility of the community. Even up through early very early 1960's the PTA was quite strong. This all ended with the decision to remove Bible reading and prayer from all public educational commencement exercises. The McGuffey Readers and the Bible were once considered a vital part of a well rounded education. And up to about the early 1960's American Education was second to none. So parents and not the government ran the education system in the US for a long time. It was a 1946 decision that placed education in the hands of the government. The religious and traditional fervor of the 1950's kept socialism, atheism, and communism at bay. However, with the tide turning towards secular humanism and the removal of philosophical views of GOD, the educational system of the US fell into hard times. Only the resurgence of home schooling and private Christian Institutions demonstrated that education could be more thought provoking and not limited to purely SECULAR IDEOLOGY. And so Creationism, Intellectualism, Philosophy, and even Evolution is taught in Christian Schools and not limited to the dictates of GOVERNMENT SPONSORED/MANIPULATED/CONTROLLED public/social education. It is interesting to note that while Christian's will allow for controversial thought, there seems no place for disagreement by parents, teachers, and the community with governmental education. And so, while Halloween Parties, Christmas Programs, Easter Treats were once the norm up through the early 1960's, even the fun of that time made way for the mundane of supposed "progressive" social thinking... And now the F word is quite pervasive among such "sophisticated intellectuals" as yourself, where 4 letter words are now the only way people seem to be able to express themselves... So much for your form of "education".