Atheism

[Disco08]

:spin

 

[Djevv]

Nonsense is harsh. It comes down to a degree of plausibility.

Do we agree with L Ron that alien souls inhabitied the earth after being sent here in DC 10 like space craft? Most don't, the reason being it is very implausible (space craft like 1950's planes, data only one science fiction writer knows, etc).

Do we agree that Mormons got the next books of the bible? Given their secrecy over sourcing, and complete lack of evidence to justify their claims (Jesus in the US for example), again this is deemed implausible by most.

On Christianity however, we know there was a migration of jews. I'm pretty sure records have been found of jews in babylon as the bible states. More and more evidence is showing that a guy called Jesus was around at the time. Of course the issues like the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, mana from heaven, water into wine, resurrection, etc require faith, but it still remains is it plausable? I personally don't believe these parts of the tale, but they are plausible given there is some historical record correlating to the events in the Bible.

Great post there T74!

 

[Djevv]

I'm going to assume it was. He's the only former atheist, former committee member of the Australian Skeptics and current professor at Cambridge that has converted from atheism to Christianity.

Here's a couple of interesting quotes from him:

almost all the Christians who actually understand the theory of evolution and what it says, find that there is no clash between the Biblical account and the account due to natural selection. The clash is made up of atheists on one side, and Christians who hold a particular interpretation of the Biblical account on the other..... Darwinists, both secular and Christian, believe that man has evolved by a continuous chain of reproduction, over millions of years, from far simpler creatures. On the other side are the Christians who have faith that the account of the creation of the world and of man given in the book of Genesis is, literally true. Since this account cannot be reconciled with that of evolution, they maintain in all sincerity that evolution is false.

Here now, is the evidence that man is descended by a continuous chain of reproduction from simpler organisms. First, the fossil record shows an ever-increasing complexity of organisms as time goes on, including some intermediate forms, and most recently bipedal, man-like creatures. Then there are similarities between species, suggesting common ancestry. For example, the forelimb - the upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand and fingers - can be matched bone for bone in creatures as diverse as the horse, porpoise, bat, rat, mole and man. Given the widely differing uses of the forelimb across all these species, it is implausible to argue that similar functions have necessitated such close similarities. Next is the existence of organs such as the appendix, without which humans survive perfectly well, but which is vital in animals of close structure to man's. What else could this imply than a common ancestor followed by divergence?

More evidence for common ancestry comes from embryology: the embryos of lizards, birds and mammals are at stages indistinguishable from each other, showing a similarity in those genes expressed at this early stage of an individual's life.

Finally, there is molecular evidence for evolution. Insulin, for example, has the same function in differing animal species, including man, but slightly different amino acid structures across species. A family tree can be reconstructed based on these differences. Moreover, the DNA of man is very close, link by link, to that of even very simple creatures, and the similarity grows as the complexity of the creature grows, mirroring the fossil record.

Evolution explains all these facts through a single principle. Rejecting evolution, they become merely an unrelated collection of observations crying out for explanation.

.......bad theology has led to bad science in the creation scientists' material interpretation of Genesis and their consequent torturing of the scientific facts to construct crazy scientific theories like the 6000 year old earth, that they believe, in genuine sincerity.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm

Very enjoyable read there Disco. Interestingly here is another Christian scientist that says the TOE and Christianity are not in conflict.

I thought Plantinga had some excellent thoughts on Evolution. He called Evolution the Great Evolutionary Myth. Myth in the sense that it it is something that we as a society use to understand ourselves I hasten to add . He divided it up into a number of different sections and assigned a different probability to each:
1. Ancient Earth Thesis (The Earth is old)
2. Progress Thesis (faunal succession)
3. The Common Ancestry Thesis (All species are related)
4. Darwinism (the explanation of this is only natural selection + mutation + genetic drift etc)
5. Naturalistic Origins Thesis (abiogenesis)

When you look at evolution like this you can immediately see that some things are well founded and some are not so well understood. 1 and 2 are probably beyond question IMO. 3 seems likely but some of the big jumps are hard to actually tie down. 4 and 5 are plausible to an extent but there is no real proof. Neither is there any real reason to say that God could not have been involved in this whole process.

After a lot of thought about this I decided that it is not really important for a Christian to take a strong position on this. So I remain an evolutionary agnostic.

 

[Djevv]

If by "spin" you mean we look at the evidence you provide, assess it - including whether or not it is even relevant to the question does God exist, - and usually dismiss it as being unscientific, biased and of poor quality.

By the way, most of examples you give are arguments, not evidence. And as Evo points out they are mostly arguments that have been lost a long time ago - yet Christians persist with them.

Well knock me down, skeptics think the Christian arguments are 'refuted' and 'debunked' or 'not convincing' :hihi.

I wonder can if I make this plainer: I'm talking about the evidence behind the arguments.

 

[tigertime2]

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/creation-vs-evolution-video.htm

Another great video

 

[Disco08]

When you look at evolution like this you can immediately see that some things are well founded and some are not so well understood. 1 and 2 are probably beyond question IMO. 3 seems likely but some of the big jumps are hard to actually tie down. 4 and 5 are plausible to an extent but there is no real proof. Neither is there any real reason to say that God could not have been involved in this whole process.

If God designed it this way, it does raise the question of why The Bible would make no mention of evolution whatsoever.

 

[Tiger74]

If God designed it this way, it does raise the question of why The Bible would make no mention of evolution whatsoever.

more interesting hearing about god forcing dads to kill their kids. evolution is slow and boring

 

[Djevv]

How many witnesses exactly?

At least 500, many of whom were still alive at the time of writing (53 -57 AD according to WIKI) authored by Paul according to scholarly consensus (again WIKI)

1 Cor 15: 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

 

[AngryAnt]

Anthony Garrett is a great example of an intelligent Christian who can easily reconcile science and faith. How? He believes in a creator but recognises that creation science is bad science. He accepts that the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000 years old? Why? Because he sees the story of Genesis in the Bible as a metaphor, not to be taken literally.

Well knock me down, skeptics think the Christian arguments are 'refuted' and 'debunked' or 'not convincing' hihi.

I wonder can if I make this plainer: I'm talking about the evidence behind the arguments.

Some don't have evidence as they are philosophical arguments - actually most of the "evidence" you posit is only philosophical argument.

Feel free to post the "evidence" behind these arguments if you like. Here they are again.

The cosmological argument (where did we come from?)
The teleological argument (why all the order?)
The argument from morality (what is man?)
The fine-tuning argument (the anthropic principle?)

 

[tigertime2]

The little bettle and the former evolutionist

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism-video.htm

 

[Six Pack]

I've been banging on about the bible as metaphor or symbolism for 100s of pages. Problem is the variety of Christian we have in here wont have a bar of it.

Shame really

 

[Disco08]

At least 500, many of whom were still alive at the time of writing (53 -57 AD according to WIKI) authored by Paul according to scholarly consensus (again WIKI)

1 Cor 15: 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

How many of them wrote something, or made a painting or sculpture or any record at all of Him during his time on earth?

 

[tigertime2]

???

If you are really interested in discussing this matter it would be nice to engage in real discourse.

DNA of clay?

This video explains it better than I could -

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/dna-and-computers-video.htm

 

[Disco08]

The little bettle and the former evolutionist

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism-video.htm

Another whipping boy of the YEC's.

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2008/03/reducibly-complex-bombardier-beetles.html

 

[tigertime2]

Ex Darwinian scientist raises questions about natural selection and the Origin of Life

http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life-video.htm

 

[Disco08]

Are you going to post all your favourite links to Creationist propoganda sites tigertime?

This fellow seems to have chosen to renounce evolution on the back of the book Evolution, A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton. This book has been thoroughly replied to by experts in numerous places.

Here's the conclusion from one, and the link if you're interested in more detail:

Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

You can find quite a few other appraisals on this book without too much effort.

This video explains it better than I could -

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/dna-and-computers-video.htm

Please, we're taking lessons on DNA from Christian lawyers now?

"Where does information come from? Can it arise randomly by chance out of some primordial goop? Or does information code have to be programmed?"

This guy really needs to do a bit more research.

 

[tigertime2]

What we do know is that science is evolving what is true today may not be held true tomorrow.

As far as my Christian faith is concerned, it explains the purpose of life for me. Where I come from, what i am doing here and where I am going.

One thing is certain when we die we will all know the truth and the only reason I post on here is because of my concern for your immortal souls. We can disagree on many things and that is Ok. My prayer for you all is that God will reveal himself to you and that your heart would be open to his love.

You can mock me, disagree with me but I will still pray for you all.

 

[Tiger74]

What we do know is that science is evolving what is true today may not be held true tomorrow.

As far as my Christian faith is concerned, it explains the purpose of life for me. Where I come from, what i am doing here and where I am going.

One thing is certain when we die we will all know the truth and the only reason I post on here is because of my concern for your immortal souls. We can disagree on many things and that is Ok. My prayer for you all is that God will reveal himself to you and that your heart would be open to his love.

You can mock me, disagree with me but I will still pray for you all.

actually, this is wrong.

Everyone knew what was expected of them, knew what to do, knew what was coming, and then Jesus came along and changed all the rules you have to live by.

What happens if God decides to send another son or daughter down, and changes the time table and the rules again?

 

[Six Pack]

the only reason I post on here is because of my concern for your immortal souls. disagre

What is a 'soul?'

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Another whipping boy of the YEC's.

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2008/03/reducibly-complex-bombardier-beetles.html

T. Ryan Gregory's blog. A good source of accurate information. Nothing like some accurate information to silence the creationists...however the same tired arguments continue to be rehashed and do the rounds. I guess that is the danger of limiting your 'research' to creationist propaganda websites.