Who's game?

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks, and its nice to see you back as well mate.

As for rules, I did'nt know we had rules. Anyhew, maybe if there are it is time to start breaking them. You know I am not a follower of the status quo. After all, my mentor will not allow it. 😉

As for our talks together, you inspired within me a willingness to question my once dogmatic stance on ev ...[text shortened]... order to protect my belief about God.

As for bbarr, just ignore him. He's just jealous.

Your "mentor" has quite a lot of rules he told you to follow, if you mean God.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your "mentor" has quite a lot of rules he told you to follow, if you mean God.

I was referring to Christ who was God in the flesh!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But for me, one question remains. What evidence could there be which'd make you question God's existence, hypothetically speaking?[/b]

I believe I answered this on page 2 on this thread...or at least I adressed it. It was the post about the sower and the seed. Perhaps it was not what you were looking for.

In addition to what I said previously, I have "evidences" for my faith. These include truth that I see in scripture such as its wisdom and teachings. However, these things have nothing to do with science and, as a result, probably are not of interest to you. Also there is the account in Genesis which is remarkably accurate in terms of the order in which creation happened whether there be a God or not in the mix. In addition, there is the historical aspect of the Bible that Biblical archealogists can agree with. Granted, not all of them agree with everything in the Bible, however, enough is agreed upon to base their science upon it. I think there is something to be said for any holy text to be used in such a manner. Then you have the accuracy of Biblical prophesy to account for. When reading some of it like Isaiah 53 I don't see how anyone could think of it as vague. It just boggles my mind to see how people can't see, so to speak.

Originally posted by whodey
I believe I answered this on page 2 on this thread...or at least I adressed it. It was the post about the sower and the seed. Perhaps it was not what you were looking for.

In addition to what I said previously, I have "evidences" for my faith. These include truth that I see in scripture such as its wisdom and teachings. However, these things have nothi ...[text shortened]... uld think of it as vague. It just boggles my mind to see how people can't see, so to speak.

I appreciate your answer, but you are still justifying, not telling me what would cause you to stop believing in God.


As for the order of creation, I've likewise tackled that from a psychological point of view also; literally big things first, small things later, man last. It would make no sense to create animals before the earth, would it?!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I appreciate your answer, but you are still justifying, not telling me what would cause you to stop believing in God.


As for the order of creation, I've likewise tackled that from a psychological point of view also; literally big things first, small things later, man last. It would make no sense to create animals before the earth, would it?!

I was only giving you "evidences" as to why I believe what I believe as you have evidences as to why you believe what you believe. I am not sure it is as easy as giving one single peice of evidence to counter such beliefs as it is the whole body of evidence at hand. Therefore, perhaps it would behoove us to go over the entire weight of evidence that we both cling to that makes us believe what we believe? I suppose we could adress one issue at a time if you are up to it.

We can begin with Genesis if you like. You are a man of science so lets examine the scriptures together in relation to science. Genesis is the object of ridicule for many within science so lets start with creation. Convince me that the Genesis account could not have happened.

Originally posted by whodey
I was referring to Christ who was God in the flesh!!

Right. Same person, yes?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Right. Same person, yes?

😉

Originally posted by whodey
We can begin with Genesis if you like. You are a man of science so lets examine the scriptures together in relation to science. Genesis is the object of ridicule for many within science so lets start with creation. Convince me that the Genesis account could not have happened.

Okay.

Well, I'll start with saying I probably cannot convince you. People can, and have, bent things around to try and reconcile things. If you are willing to bend things far enough it is entirely possible to make any two set of contradictory beliefs fit together.

But, well the most obvious one for me would be the creation of plants before the sun. The sun is about 6 billion years old (from spectral analysis), plants only about 3.5 billion years old (even then we've actually talking cyanobacteria, which few would regard as plants (biologists certainly don't, the only way that they resemble plants is that they are photoautotrophic, and are suggested to be the pre-cursors of chloroplasts, but I think that's stretching it)). Some people say "well, if the earth was shrouded in mists then they wouldn't have seen the sun". Sounds logical initially. But where is the evidence for that position? There is none! Furthermore, a majority of the water in the air would have had to have condensed out for there to be water for the cyanobacteria to live in!

So, now the opposite question. What evidence do we have that these organisms evolved. Well, we have fossil stromatolites in australia dated at 3.5 bya. That is definitive evidence that these bacteria existed. We have chemical evidence, from looking at rocks produced at the time. Their chemical composition and isotope ratios confirm the presence of low concentrations of oxygen. Oxygen is not something which spontaneously forms in the universe (the chem doesn't allow it readily), it has to be made by photosynthetic organisms. We have cladistic analyses which put these organisms at the root of the tree of life, using DNA or protein sequences. We have the fact that the solutes in your body cells have the same composition as sea water (albeit at 1/3 concentration). Why would God do that? What is logical, for an omnipotent being, about using sea water?

Given the multiple convergent lines of independently verified data, I'd say naturalistic processes beat creationism by knock out.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay.

Well, I'll start with saying I probably cannot convince you. People can, and have, bent things around to try and reconcile things. If you are willing to bend things far enough it is entirely possible to make any two set of contradictory beliefs fit together.

But, well the most obvious one for me would be the creation of plants before the s ependently verified data, I'd say naturalistic processes beat creationism by knock out.

Thanks for the info. However, I have been looking at web sites about the age of the sun and there is a consessus that it is about 4.5 billion years old. Where did you get 6 billion from? Also I looked up the earliest life forms on earth and found a web site that said it started in the Archean era which lasted from 4 billion to 2.5 billion years ago. The web site said that shomatolite fossils were found as evidence of this and that in the entire world only 3 were found and only in Canada. However, as to date no earlier fossils have been discovered. Do you agree with this information? If not, is there a web site showing your information?

You know I am a fan of Dr. Gerald Schroeder and he wrote a book called Genesis and the Big Bang. In the book he writes,

"At the command of the Creator, the Earth itself brought forth grass and herbs as the first life described in Genesis. The appearance of life in the biblical record is marked by the absence of a singularity significant word; barah, meaning "created". The potential for this greening of the Earth appears to have already existed within the Earth. As Nahmanides states when commenting on the origins of plant life, "God decreed that there be among the potentials of the earth a force which causes vegatative growth and bears seed." All that was needed was the Creator's suggestion to activate this potential. On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. Here, in Genesis 1:10, it is described as the substance that fills the seas. Prior to this time, the term referred to the primordial substance from which all matter of the universe was to be formed. Because it was only on the fourth day that luminaries appeared in the firmament of heaven (Gen 1:14), the presence of plant life on the third day seems out of order. Light is one of the prerequisites for photosynthetic growth of plants. Resolution of this seeming conflict is found in the use of the word luminaries rather than light in Genesis 1:14. Prior to the appearance of abundant plant life, the Earth's atmosphere was probably clouded with vapors of the primeval atmosphere. This would be in accord with information relayed from Soviet and US spacecraft investigating the cloudy atomosphere of Venus. There was light on the third day, in the sense that the atmospheric vapors transmitted radient energy. The atmosphere, however, was transucent, not transparent. Therefore, individual luminaries were not distinguishable. It was this diffuse light that provided energy for the initial plant life. Nahmanides states that the firmament, formed on the second day (Gen 1:6), initially intercepted the light that existed form day one. He was not willing to comment concerning the composition of the firmament, because he considered it as one of the deep mysteries of the Bible. The early plant life actually helped clear the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis, which removed CO2 and Nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere and incorporated them into cellular material. As these biologically driven reactions proceeded, the sun, moon, and stars, already visible in the firmament, became visible on Earth as individual sources of light. That Genesis 1:14-18 is describing this event from an earthly veiwpoint is made clear by the reference to the moon as a great luminary (Gen 1:16). The Earth is the only celestial body close enough to the moon to see the moon as a great luminary."

If you are wondering who Nahamides is he was an ancient Jewish rabbi who live from 1194-1270 CE. In this Schroeder adresses how plant life could have appeared before the existence of the sun as the Bible suggests. I am sure you do not agree but I thought his explanation to be thought provoking and logical. Also, much of what he teaches is backed up by these Jewish rabbis who interpreted Genesis in the Torah and who all lived well before the advent of modern science.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks for the info. However, I have been looking at web sites about the age of the sun and there is a consessus that it is about 4.5 billion years old. Where did you get 6 billion from? Also I looked up the earliest life forms on earth and found a web site that said it started in the Archean era which lasted from 4 billion to 2.5 billion years ago. The w ...[text shortened]... rpreted Genesis in the Torah and who all lived well before the advent of modern science.

Thought provoking and logical though it may be, it is entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The scientific account has LOTS of evidence, on the other hand.

I get my figures mainly from a course I did on it a few years ago, although they are relatively easily checked. The 4.5 byo figure for earth represents a lower bound, and is from Zhang (1998), "The age and accretion of the earth", which I have cited here numerous times. I still await KellyJay's explanation of why it is wrong.

The simple fact is that plants as anyone would know them did not appear until relatively recently. Terrestrial plants are only 400 million years old; 10% the age of the earth. Angiosperms (flowering plants) arose only 100 - 120 million years ago. The sun, however, is about 6 billion years old - more than an order of magnitude of difference.

Schroeder's idea of plants fixing atmospheric N is patently wrong. Cyanobacteria, yes, plants, no. Things like Trifolium repens (clover) is only able to do it in association with bacteria. As I say, no scientist would classify bacteria as plants. It would be the equivalent of calling a lion an oak tree.

Now, I'm sure Dr Schroeder can meld that round in his mind, and it is possible; however, my mind would be nearly at breaking point. The contrary position, the position backed by actual evidence, seems far more likely to me.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thought provoking and logical though it may be, it is entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The scientific account has LOTS of evidence, on the other hand.

I get my figures mainly from a course I did on it a few years ago, although they are relatively easily checked. The 4.5 byo figure for earth represents a lower bound, and is fr ...[text shortened]... trary position, the position backed by actual evidence, seems far more likely to me.

OK, I will look into it further. Is there anything else amiss in the Genesis story or is that the only thing amiss in your estimation?

Originally posted by whodey
OK, I will look into it further. Is there anything else amiss in the Genesis story or is that the only thing amiss in your estimation?

I think we discussed the whole creation of the earth before the sun, or the creation of birds before land animals. As I remember, the apologists position is to say that we couldn't see the sun because of mists (although that argument makes little sense considering there were no people around to see, and presumably God knew all about the creation of the sun before the earth), and, in a taxonomic flip which defies belief or logic, apologists classify insects as birds. All quite without any evidence whatsosever.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Please, tell me about the atheist equivalent to the Christian Coalition. How come I don't hear about this Athiest Alliance in the news? What laws do we pass? Do we have any laws with blatantly atheist names equivalent to the Judeo-Christian originated law against Sodomy that was recently declared unconstitutional?

You said: "Christians are obnoxiously and aggessively politcal." Since I know several Christians who are neither of those things, your statement is literally false. If you had said "SOME Christians are obnoxiously and aggessively political", your statement would have been literally true.

Where I live, there are two organizations that give poor people food every day for free: The Salvation Army and the Jesus Center. I receive free counseling at the Shalom Center at a church. Please name ONE atheist group that gives away food every day to poor people.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
You said: "Christians are obnoxiously and aggessively politcal." Since I know several Christians who are neither of those things, your statement is literally false. If you had said "SOME Christians are obnoxiously and aggessively political", your statement would have been literally true.

Where I live, there are two organizations that give poor p ...[text shortened]... r at a church. Please name ONE atheist group that gives away food every day to poor people.

You're right; I generalized. SOME Christians are...MORE Christians are pbnoxiously political in the USA than non Christians simply because there are more Christians. Because in a democracy numbers are what matter, they get results, which is why they are a problem.

Because Christians are obnoxiously political, when they do charity, they often make it into a religious statement. Atheists who perform charity don't do it in the name of atheism. We just do it.

Often, because of our low numbers, we cannot form our own organizations but rather help out the ones that are out there. That's simple numbers though.

I can very easily find secular charities, but you're asking for organizations which are clearly labelled ATHEIST. I am unable to do that.

I spent a summer giving full body massage to men (and occasionally women) dying of AIDS. They suffer greatly and people are afraid to touch them. It sucks. I needed practice and wanted to help out.

I didn't ask them to abandon their religion as they walked in to the massage room. I didn't post pictures of Darwin and illustrations of deer-like whale ancestors in the room. No posters saying ATHEISM IS GOOD. I just did it because I had some time on my hands and wanted to help out.

Maybe if 70% of my community was openly atheist we'd have atheist organizations. But it's the Christians with those numbers.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You're right; I generalized. SOME Christians are...MORE Christians are pbnoxiously political in the USA than non Christians simply because there are more Christians. Because in a democracy numbers are what matter, they get results, which is why they are a problem.

Because Christians are obnoxiously political, when they do charity, they often make ...[text shortened]... ly atheist we'd have atheist organizations. But it's the Christians with those numbers.

I sincerely commend you on your humanitarian activities.

I know many wonderful, kind, charitable people, and some of them are theists and some of them aren't. And even if someone could somehow show that Christians are "more charatible" than non-Christians, that would be irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is true.

It seems to me that you sometimes undermine your often cogent and persuasive arguments against Christianity by gratuitous personal attacks like "Christians are obnoxiously political...", etc.

If the thread is actually about "obnoxious Christians", then please weigh in on the matter. But if that's not the topic of the thread, then you just come across as being angry and nasty.