There is this gay athiest at work...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:04 am

poptart wrote:This Jesus was witnessed by many following his resurrection.

That same Jesus who was witnessed by "many" in a bum's piss stain under an overpass?

THAT Jesus?

Uhm, yeah, that's "evidence."

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:06 am

battery chucka' one wrote:The author, if I remember correctly, began research for all this as a skeptic.

He was skeptical about the whole "fool and his money soon parted" bit.

I bought it.

He's a skeptic no more.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:03 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Lee Strobel

Checked out websites with interviews with him.

Unfortunately for your case, he's a dyed-in-the-wool apologist for intelligent design, including heavy reliance on Michael Behe's completely discredited "irreducible complexity" argument. I read one interview in which he goes on and on about how simple organic molecules and amino acids could not have formed on Earth - because it turns out that Urey & Miller's experment was based upon flawed understanding of Earth's primitive atmosphere. The problem with Strobel's argument is that another researcher, Jack Szostak, is having greater success proving that primitive molecules of life COULD have arisen from inorganic molecules as scientists hypothesized...using the conditions we now believe to be correct for early Earth.

Whenever I read or hear about someone claiming that science has "evidence" for God, I make a point of checking to see if they pull out intelligent design, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells...all discredited. Behe's arguments have been upended time and again, and Wells (who is a devout Moonie) has been shown to be a liar, merely moving his travelling roadshow of lies and deception to the next podium and hoping that the scientifically uneducated (and otherwise predisposed to believing his lies) groups in the audience don't catch on to how he's been debunked time and again.

Long story short - I know biology. If I see that someone cites flawed arguments or discredited crap (like ID) from biology to support their case, it damages their credibility to the point that I disregard their arguments OUTSIDE of biology.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:18 pm

First things first, Mike, I think you have too wild of a hair about being anti ID. It's to the point, for you, that you will immediately discount anything anybody has to say on the topic of God as soon as hearing they ever even thought that ID had any validity. Sad.

Second, so MVScal doesn't think the book is a giant piece of ID propaganda, here's the table of contents (along with the esteemed experts Strobel consulted on each topic):

Part 1: Examining the record

1. The Eyewitness Evidence-Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted-Dr. Craig Blomberg

2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence-Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand Up to Scrutiny-Dr. Craig Blomberg

3. The Documentary Evidence-Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved for Us-Dr. Bruce Metzger

4. The Corroborating Evidence-Is There Credible Evidence fo Jesus Outside His Biographies?-Dr. Edwin Yamauchi

5. The Scientific Evidence-Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies-Dr. John McRay

6. The Rebuttal Evidence-Is the Jesus of History the Same as the Jesus of Faith?-Dr. Gregory Boyd

Part 2: Analyzing Jesus

7. The Identiyt Evidence-Was Jesus Really Convinced that He was the Son of God?-Dr. Ben Witherington III

8. The Psychological Evicence-Was Jesus Crazy when He Claimed to be the Son of God?-Dr. Gary Collins

9. The Profile Evidence-Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God?-Dr. D.A. Carson

10. The Fingerprint Evidence-Did Jesus...and Jesus Alone...Match the Identity of the Messiah?-Louis Lapides, M. Div., Th. M.

Part 3: Researching the Resurrection

11. The Medical Evidence-Was Jesus' Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax_Dr. Alexander Metherell

12. The Evidence of the Missing Body-Was Jesus' Body Really Absent from His Tomb?-Dr. William Lane Craig

13. The Evidence of Appearances-Was Jesus Seen Alive after His Death on the Cross?-Dr. Gary Habermas

14. The Circumstantial Evidence-Are there any Supporting Facts that Point to the Resurrection-Dr. J.P. Moreland

Conclusion: The Verdict of History-What Does the Evidence Establish and what does it Mean Today?
--------

Again, MVScal, it's up to you. The offer is on the table to send you this book. You can read and, if you wish, tear it to shreds, piece by piece, on this very board. But, will you, as an 'open minded skeptic in search of evidence' accept it and read the book? All you have to do is PM me your address and you'll get it within the week. The choice is yours.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:49 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Lee Strobel
Checked out websites with interviews with him.

Unfortunately for your case, he's a dyed-in-the-wool apologist for intelligent design, including heavy reliance on Michael Behe's completely discredited "irreducible complexity" argument. I read one interview in which he goes on and on about how simple organic molecules and amino acids could not have formed on Earth - because it turns out that Urey & Miller's experment was based upon flawed understanding of Earth's primitive atmosphere. The problem with Strobel's argument is that another researcher, Jack Szostak, is having greater success proving that primitive molecules of life COULD have arisen from inorganic molecules as scientists hypothesized...using the conditions we now believe to be correct for early Earth.

Whenever I read or hear about someone claiming that science has "evidence" for God, I make a point of checking to see if they pull out intelligent design, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells...all discredited. Behe's arguments have been upended time and again, and Wells (who is a devout Moonie) has been shown to be a liar, merely moving his travelling roadshow of lies and deception to the next podium and hoping that the scientifically uneducated (and otherwise predisposed to believing his lies) groups in the audience don't catch on to how he's been debunked time and again.

Long story short - I know biology. If I see that someone cites flawed arguments or discredited crap (like ID) from biology to support their case, it damages their credibility to the point that I disregard their arguments OUTSIDE of biology.

You can't have it both ways, bro. If this is not God's handiwork then why would Jesus need to come and die for your sins? And expanding on that even more...what is sin and where did it come from?

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:57 pm

rozy wrote:You can't have it both ways, bro. If this is not God's handiwork then why would Jesus need to come and die for your sins? And expanding on that even more...what is sin and where did it come from?

Evolution, natural selection, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, the nature of sin and redemption, etc. Science deals with the natural world only. Sin is not, has never been, nor will it ever be, an acceptable branch of study for science.

IMNSHO, all scientists, including biologists do is figure out how the Big Kahuna's stuff works. It is no more a "dig" on Christianity to accept macroevolution than accepting atomic theory, heliocentric theory, or germ theory is.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:38 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
rozy wrote:You can't have it both ways, bro. If this is not God's handiwork then why would Jesus need to come and die for your sins? And expanding on that even more...what is sin and where did it come from?
Evolution, natural selection, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, the nature of sin and redemption, etc. Science deals with the natural world only. Sin is not, has never been, nor will it ever be, an acceptable branch of study for science.

IMNSHO, all scientists, including biologists do is figure out how the Big Kahuna's stuff works. It is no more a "dig" on Christianity to accept macroevolution than accepting atomic theory, heliocentric theory, or germ theory is.

So is ID discredited crap or not? And no, I did not miss the O in the IMNSHO, but am curious as to how, in that same O, ID is discredited crap but is the Big Kahuna's stuff anyhoo. Are you saying, after all this time, that this Intelligent Big Kahuna actually did Design all this....stuff?

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:40 pm

mvscal wrote:What is he/she/it?

The shit troll formerly known as Innocent Bystander?

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:59 pm

mvscal wrote:
rozy wrote:So is ID discredited crap or not? And no, I did not miss the O in the IMNSHO, but am curious as to how, in that same O, ID is discredited crap but is the Big Kahuna's stuff anyhoo. Are you saying, after all this time, that this Intelligent Big Kahuna actually did Design all this....stuff?
What he's saying is that ID is not science. It's Creationism wearing Groucho Marx glasses trying to pass itself of as science.

I understand the semantics just as he will understand exactly what I am saying. If ID is discredited crap then how can SCIENCE explain how all of the IDer's stuff works? Is that not a fair question based on the previous posts?

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:40 pm

mvscal wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Again, MVScal, it's up to you. The offer is on the table to send you this book. You can read and, if you wish, tear it to shreds, piece by piece, on this very board. But, will you, as an 'open minded skeptic in search of evidence' accept it and read the book? All you have to do is PM me your address and you'll get it within the week. The choice is yours.
Save yourself the postage. Jesus has nothing to do with God, tard. He was a Jewish heretic who got nailed to a cross by the Romans for shit disturbing. The End.

If you chose to accept him as a role model, by all means do so. You could easily do worse, but don't waste my time with this ressurection bullshit. He didn't die for Mankind's sins. He died because of them. He redeemed nothing. Despite having 1.1 billion followers 2,000 years later, he changed nothing. Human nature is not in the least bit different now than it was 2,000 years ago.

As for God, he/she/it is/was a being allegedly capable of creating the universe and everything in it. Since we are allegedly created in his image, then it must be possible to quantify this being in empiricial terms. Where is he/she/it? What is he/she/it? How did he/she/it come into being? Pseudo-mystical mumbo jumbo is not an acceptable answer to these questions.

Oh, I'm very sorry, but He has EVERYTHING to do with God. All that is God was and is embodied in Christ. Understanding Christ and His legacy is a perfect way to understand God. By all means, knowing about Him would indeed provide you with evidence that would lead you to acceptance of a divinity (provided you look at the evidence objectively and logically, that is).

My offer to send you this book still stands. Just send me your address via PM and I'll get it right off. You could have it by Thursday.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:41 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:

1. The Eyewitness Evidence-Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted-Dr. Craig Blomberg

2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence-Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand Up to Scrutiny-Dr. Craig Blomberg

3. The Documentary Evidence-Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved for Us-Dr. Bruce Metzger

4. The Corroborating Evidence-Is There Credible Evidence fo Jesus Outside His Biographies?-Dr. Edwin Yamauchi

5. The Scientific Evidence-Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies-Dr. John McRay

6. The Rebuttal Evidence-Is the Jesus of History the Same as the Jesus of Faith?-Dr. Gregory Boyd

Part 2: Analyzing Jesus

7. The Identiyt Evidence-Was Jesus Really Convinced that He was the Son of God?-Dr. Ben Witherington III

8. The Psychological Evicence-Was Jesus Crazy when He Claimed to be the Son of God?-Dr. Gary Collins

9. The Profile Evidence-Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God?-Dr. D.A. Carson

10. The Fingerprint Evidence-Did Jesus...and Jesus Alone...Match the Identity of the Messiah?-Louis Lapides, M. Div., Th. M.

Part 3: Researching the Resurrection

11. The Medical Evidence-Was Jesus' Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax_Dr. Alexander Metherell

12. The Evidence of the Missing Body-Was Jesus' Body Really Absent from His Tomb?-Dr. William Lane Craig

13. The Evidence of Appearances-Was Jesus Seen Alive after His Death on the Cross?-Dr. Gary Habermas

14. The Circumstantial Evidence-Are there any Supporting Facts that Point to the Resurrection-Dr. J.P. Moreland

can you provide me any writings from anyone (other than authors in the Bible) that would verify that Jesus existed at all.....

TIA

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:47 pm

Felix wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:

1. The Eyewitness Evidence-Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted-Dr. Craig Blomberg

2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence-Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand Up to Scrutiny-Dr. Craig Blomberg

3. The Documentary Evidence-Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved for Us-Dr. Bruce Metzger

4. The Corroborating Evidence-Is There Credible Evidence fo Jesus Outside His Biographies?-Dr. Edwin Yamauchi

5. The Scientific Evidence-Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies-Dr. John McRay

6. The Rebuttal Evidence-Is the Jesus of History the Same as the Jesus of Faith?-Dr. Gregory Boyd

Part 2: Analyzing Jesus

7. The Identity Evidence-Was Jesus Really Convinced that He was the Son of God?-Dr. Ben Witherington III

8. The Psychological Evicence-Was Jesus Crazy when He Claimed to be the Son of God?-Dr. Gary Collins

9. The Profile Evidence-Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God?-Dr. D.A. Carson

10. The Fingerprint Evidence-Did Jesus...and Jesus Alone...Match the Identity of the Messiah?-Louis Lapides, M. Div., Th. M.

Part 3: Researching the Resurrection

11. The Medical Evidence-Was Jesus' Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax_Dr. Alexander Metherell

12. The Evidence of the Missing Body-Was Jesus' Body Really Absent from His Tomb?-Dr. William Lane Craig

13. The Evidence of Appearances-Was Jesus Seen Alive after His Death on the Cross?-Dr. Gary Habermas

14. The Circumstantial Evidence-Are there any Supporting Facts that Point to the Resurrection-Dr. J.P. Moreland
can you provide me any writings from anyone (other than authors in the Bible) that would verify that Jesus existed at all.....

TIA

Yes. Tacitus and Josephus both wrote of him, if I remember correctly. They discuss it in this book. You're welcome.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:57 pm

The Josephus work was called Testimonium Flavanium.

Tacitus' was written in AD 115. It states:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquitite otrtures on a class hated for their abominiations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. -Annals 15.44

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:09 pm

yeah I've read those....anyone else?

have you ever heard of the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Horus "lived" about 1,000 years before Jesus and the parallels of their lives is truly amazing....

read the link then let me know what you think.....

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:25 pm

Felix wrote:yeah I've read those....anyone else?

have you ever heard of the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Horus "lived" about 1,000 years before Jesus and the parallels of their lives is truly amazing....

read the link then let me know what you think.....

Not horribly shocking when taking into account the worldwide rise of the ashtoreth and baal worship in the form of virgin mother (mary) and child (jesus). All of Christ's life was fortold. Of course it's beneficial for 'interested' parties to desire that we assume Christ's story was a copy. No real shock there, actually. Don't you think?

p.s. Jesus' mom's name wasn't Miriam. That's my mom's name. hahaha

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:39 pm

More about the worship of 'mary'.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:45 pm

rozy wrote:
mvscal wrote:
rozy wrote:So is ID discredited crap or not? And no, I did not miss the O in the IMNSHO, but am curious as to how, in that same O, ID is discredited crap but is the Big Kahuna's stuff anyhoo. Are you saying, after all this time, that this Intelligent Big Kahuna actually did Design all this....stuff?
What he's saying is that ID is not science. It's Creationism wearing Groucho Marx glasses trying to pass itself of as science.
I understand the semantics just as he will understand exactly what I am saying. If ID is discredited crap then how can SCIENCE explain how all of the IDer's stuff works? Is that not a fair question based on the previous posts?

Science does and has. Behe's arguments about how things "must" have been designed are horsehit and explainable through NATURAL mechanisms. Wells just flat-out lies about what science hasn't "proven."

ID is 100% horseshit because it deliberately lies about what science has said/done/claimed.

The thrust of its argument is that "if it looks designed...it MUST have been!" Then it proceeds to ignore or distort scientific findings and statements of scientists in the pathetic attempt to prop up its contention.

I may believe that there is a Big Kahuna, but I do not believe that science has ANY evidence that supernatural intervention was required for the world to be here. That's why mvscal and Dr. Dawkins can frustrate so many Christians.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:50 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
rozy wrote:
mvscal wrote: What he's saying is that ID is not science. It's Creationism wearing Groucho Marx glasses trying to pass itself of as science.
I understand the semantics just as he will understand exactly what I am saying. If ID is discredited crap then how can SCIENCE explain how all of the IDer's stuff works? Is that not a fair question based on the previous posts?
Science does and has. Behe's arguments about how things "must" have been designed are horsehit and explainable through NATURAL mechanisms. Wells just flat-out lies about what science hasn't "proven."

ID is 100% horseshit because it deliberately lies about what science has said/done/claimed.

The thrust of its argument is that "if it looks designed...it MUST have been!" Then it proceeds to ignore or distort scientific findings and statements of scientists in the pathetic attempt to prop up its contention.

I may believe that there is a Big Kahuna, but I do not believe that science has ANY evidence that supernatural intervention was required for the world to be here. That's why mvscal and Dr. Dawkins can frustrate so many Christians.

Then WHY are we here, Michael? How do YOU say it all came about?

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:59 pm

Mike, you're still playing an extremely poor game of semantics based on a title and some people who use that title but I do see the point you're trying to make. Which is cool since I got the answer I was looking for.

L8

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:05 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
rozy wrote: I understand the semantics just as he will understand exactly what I am saying. If ID is discredited crap then how can SCIENCE explain how all of the IDer's stuff works? Is that not a fair question based on the previous posts?
Science does and has. Behe's arguments about how things "must" have been designed are horsehit and explainable through NATURAL mechanisms. Wells just flat-out lies about what science hasn't "proven."

ID is 100% horseshit because it deliberately lies about what science has said/done/claimed.

The thrust of its argument is that "if it looks designed...it MUST have been!" Then it proceeds to ignore or distort scientific findings and statements of scientists in the pathetic attempt to prop up its contention.

I may believe that there is a Big Kahuna, but I do not believe that science has ANY evidence that supernatural intervention was required for the world to be here. That's why mvscal and Dr. Dawkins can frustrate so many Christians.
Then WHY are we here, Michael? How do YOU say it all came about?

Read, moron. And read carefully without YOUR blinders on. He answers the question of how (without getting into specifics). The WHY will always be a matter of faith. How could science possibly answer the WHY question? Why would it need to? What would be the need for faith..........? Good grief...

battery chucka' one · Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:22 pm

rozy wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Science does and has. Behe's arguments about how things "must" have been designed are horsehit and explainable through NATURAL mechanisms. Wells just flat-out lies about what science hasn't "proven."

ID is 100% horseshit because it deliberately lies about what science has said/done/claimed.

The thrust of its argument is that "if it looks designed...it MUST have been!" Then it proceeds to ignore or distort scientific findings and statements of scientists in the pathetic attempt to prop up its contention.

I may believe that there is a Big Kahuna, but I do not believe that science has ANY evidence that supernatural intervention was required for the world to be here. That's why mvscal and Dr. Dawkins can frustrate so many Christians.
Then WHY are we here, Michael? How do YOU say it all came about?
Read, moron. And read carefully without YOUR blinders on. He answers the question of how (without getting into specifics). The WHY will always be a matter of faith. How could science possibly answer the WHY question? Why would it need to? What would be the need for faith..........? Good grief...

Question: Why is the world here?
Christian Answer: Because God created it.

Question: How did the world come about?
Christian Answer: God spoke it into existence.

He never answered these questions, Rose. He merely challenged and discounted some explanations that have been put forth. I suggest one whose 'faith' is as dubious as yours should perhaps be a little more tight lipped with regards to such matters. Don't you agree, Rose?

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:40 am

battery chucka' one wrote:He merely challenged and discounted some explanations that have been put forth.

Explanations which creationists and IDers base on faith, not science. Good God, you are dense.

dumbfuck one wrote:I suggest one whose 'faith' is as dubious as yours should perhaps be a little more tight lipped with regards to such matters.

That's nice. Call the guy out on his faith simply because he can understand someone else's POV? You do understand that acknowledging another POV doesn't mean one necessarily agrees with that POV, right?

As to your comment earlier about my alleged racism ... from which part of your lobotomized brain did you pull that? Talk about going bbqjones. At least he's funny. You're just a monumental idiot.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:14 pm

rozy wrote:The WHY will always be a matter of faith. How could science possibly answer the WHY question? Why would it need to? What would be the need for faith..........? Good grief...

Bingo.

It is not the place of science to figure out the moral "why" of anything.

And, unfortunately for those who would like to use science to "prove" God's existence, science won't/can't do that. I only picked on intelligent design because it involves a field with which I have great familiarity (biology). I didn't examine arguments involving physics because I don't have a background in that field and may not be able to meaningfully analyze the "proofs" that cite physics.

My basic thoughts are that Christians that attempt to use science to help "prove" God's existence to non-believers are making a HUGE mistake - all the non-believer has to do is dismantle the inevitable faults in the scientific arguments (as has been done with ID). Placing so much stock in scientific "proof" does not help the Christian argument. It in fact does the opposite.

Another faulty line of "proof" entails the martyrdom of Christ's followers. It really doesn't matter in the slightest (from a "proof" standpoint) that those who knew Jesus died horrible deaths and proclaimed his divinity to the end. History has plenty of examples of cults in which folks sacrificed themselves in the name of their (IMO goofy) religion. Heaven's Gate, anyone?

It's a matter of faith. The point of faith is that requires no evidence. Leave it at that.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:18 pm

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:He merely challenged and discounted some explanations that have been put forth.
Explanations which creationists and IDers base on faith, not science. Good God, you are dense.

dumbfuck one wrote:I suggest one whose 'faith' is as dubious as yours should perhaps be a little more tight lipped with regards to such matters.
That's nice. Call the guy out on his faith simply because he can understand someone else's POV? You do understand that acknowledging another POV doesn't mean one necessarily agrees with that POV, right?

As to your comment earlier about my alleged racism ... from which part of your lobotomized brain did you pull that? Talk about going bbqjones. At least he's funny. You're just a monumental idiot.

Sure thing, bigot.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:23 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
rozy wrote:The WHY will always be a matter of faith. How could science possibly answer the WHY question? Why would it need to? What would be the need for faith..........? Good grief...
Bingo.

It is not the place of science to figure out the moral "why" of anything.

And, unfortunately for those who would like to use science to "prove" God's existence, science won't/can't do that. I only picked on intelligent design because it involves a field with which I have great familiarity (biology). I didn't examine arguments involving physics because I don't have a background in that field and may not be able to meaningfully analyze the "proofs" that cite physics.

My basic thoughts are that Christians that attempt to use science to help "prove" God's existence to non-believers are making a HUGE mistake - all the non-believer has to do is dismantle the inevitable faults in the scientific arguments (as has been done with ID). Placing so much stock in scientific "proof" does not help the Christian argument. It in fact does the opposite.

Another faulty line of "proof" entails the martyrdom of Christ's followers. It really doesn't matter in the slightest (from a "proof" standpoint) that those who knew Jesus died horrible deaths and proclaimed his divinity to the end. History has plenty of examples of cults in which folks sacrificed themselves in the name of their (IMO goofy) religion. Heaven's Gate, anyone?

It's a matter of faith. The point of faith is that requires no evidence. Leave it at that.

The use of science as evidence OF God is partially response to those who use it as a primary reason as to why there is no God. Nobody will ever prove nor disprove God. ID is a way to answer evolutionists who desire to disprove God. You can't use the Bible if people don't believe it. You can't use history because of the laundry list of dense people who don't even believe that a historical figure such as Jesus Christ even existed. I won't even go into the closed mindedness of people who use the philosophy arguments to 'disprove' God. Therefore, what are you left with that is tangible? You use science. Does 'proving' God run counter to the argument of Faith? Yes. Does evidence do the same? No.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:23 pm

battery chucka' one wrote: ID is a way to answer evolutionists who desire to disprove God.

Of course, they deny that up and down. ID proponents claim that they are a legitimate scientific endeavor, wholly independent of any Christain or theistic goals. Which is 100% horseshit (and was publicly shown and declared as such in the Dover trial).

I agree that it's damned unfortunate that highly-respected scientists like Richard Dawkins insist on using their scientific credentials to attack religion in general (and often, Christianity in specific). Dawkins is obnoxious and likes to perpetuate the perception that science must naturally be the "enemy" of religion. Thankfully, other highly-respected scientists, like Ken Miller, argue otherwise (and Miller has debated Dawkins...with the "winner" being pretty much decided by one's own views...).

Religious folk should not try to place their eggs in the ID basket, since ID is, top to bottom, fraudulent.

battery chucka' one wrote:You can't use the Bible if people don't believe it. You can't use history because of the laundry list of dense people who don't even believe that a historical figure such as Jesus Christ even existed.

People want proof, or least a compelling argument of some sort. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians all claim to be right and have been willing to die for their belief. They can't ALL be right, so it's hardly reasonable for someone "shopping" for a faith to know who can "prove" their point best and therefore help them pick the one that is most likely "correct."

battery chucka' one wrote: what are you left with that is tangible? You use science.

Bad idea. Rule #1 is teaching basic science is that science deals only with the NATURAL world, not the supernatural.

Secondly, it is fundamentally wrong-headed for Christians to participate in the deliberate misrepresentation of science and statements of scientists in order to achieve their aims. Lying (which ID proponents do) is against the tenets of Christianity. Hopping into bed with ID sullies the integrity of Christians who are understandably frustrated at times in trying to "prove" their case. Seeking aid from proven liars is not the way to do it.

battery chucka' one wrote: Does 'proving' God run counter to the argument of Faith? Yes.

Then don't do it.

battery chucka' one wrote:Does evidence do the same? No.

Attempting to use "evidence" IS trying to "prove" your case. It's a bad path to take, compounded with bad "evidence."

Faith requires no "evidence" or "proof."

Personally, I love the fact that it drives our atheist physics teacher nuts that 3/4 of our science department (myself included) are open, practicing Christians.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:20 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote: ID is a way to answer evolutionists who desire to disprove God.
Of course, they deny that up and down. ID proponents claim that they are a legitimate scientific endeavor, wholly independent of any Christain or theistic goals. Which is 100% horseshit (and was publicly shown and declared as such in the Dover trial).

I agree that it's damned unfortunate that highly-respected scientists like Richard Dawkins insist on using their scientific credentials to attack religion in general (and often, Christianity in specific). Dawkins is obnoxious and likes to perpetuate the perception that science must naturally be the "enemy" of religion. Thankfully, other highly-respected scientists, like Ken Miller, argue otherwise (and Miller has debated Dawkins...with the "winner" being pretty much decided by one's own views...).

Religious folk should not try to place their eggs in the ID basket, since ID is, top to bottom, fraudulent.

battery chucka' one wrote:You can't use the Bible if people don't believe it. You can't use history because of the laundry list of dense people who don't even believe that a historical figure such as Jesus Christ even existed.
People want proof, or least a compelling argument of some sort. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians all claim to be right and have been willing to die for their belief. They can't ALL be right, so it's hardly reasonable for someone "shopping" for a faith to know who can "prove" their point best and therefore help them pick the one that is most likely "correct."

battery chucka' one wrote: what are you left with that is tangible? You use science.
Bad idea. Rule #1 is teaching basic science is that science deals only with the NATURAL world, not the supernatural.

Secondly, it is fundamentally wrong-headed for Christians to participate in the deliberate misrepresentation of science and statements of scientists in order to achieve their aims. Lying (which ID proponents do) is against the tenets of Christianity. Hopping into bed with ID sullies the integrity of Christians who are understandably frustrated at times in trying to "prove" their case. Seeking aid from proven liars is not the way to do it.

battery chucka' one wrote: Does 'proving' God run counter to the argument of Faith? Yes.
Then don't do it.

battery chucka' one wrote:Does evidence do the same? No.
Attempting to use "evidence" IS trying to "prove" your case. It's a bad path to take, compounded with bad "evidence."

Faith requires no "evidence" or "proof."

Personally, I love the fact that it drives our atheist physics teacher nuts that 3/4 of our science department (myself included) are open, practicing Christians.

I don't think that presentation of evidence will ever prove anything, much the same way that we can never actually prove anything in the court of law. The only way to 'prove' God is for Him to actually come out and stand in front of you (which He already did...and then, many didn't believe).

My former minister (he's former because we moved, not because of anything he did) said that ID is a direct response to the teaching of evolution in schools and an attempt to get teachers to at least mention that 'some think the world was created by a superior being'. Again, if we can teach evolution in public schools, then why not teach that God created the earth? Why can't both be presented as 'theoretical' and let the students decide from there?

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:23 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Again, if we can teach evolution in public schools, then why not teach that God created the earth?

We do, just not in science class, thank God.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:47 pm

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Again, if we can teach evolution in public schools, then why not teach that God created the earth?
We do, just not in science class, thank God.

Shouldn't you be in sensitivity training, right now?

If the topic of discussion in a science class is one of theory, such as the origins of the earth, then why not present it as such and also say that God is a theory. It doesn't have to be about religion, but just mention at least of a 'higher power' being one idea. Then, we leave it at that.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:03 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:If the topic of discussion in a science class is one of theory, such as the origins of the earth, then why not present it as such and also say that God is a theory. It doesn't have to be about religion, but just mention at least of a 'higher power' being one idea. Then, we leave it at that.

In science the word theory means "a hypothesis that has been strongly supported with experiments and/or observations."

A hypothesis, in science is a "possible explanation for a set of observations, worded in a way that is testable."

The words "theory" and "hypothesis" in science (and science class) have much different, specific meanings than the common usage. The ID proponents know this full well and try to conflate the common and scientific meanings in order to slip their religion into science class (and got caught in Dover, PA).

Saying that God created the universe is neither a scientific hypothesis, nor can it therefore be a scientific theory.

There should be absolutely no mention of God as a force of life/creation in a science class. Ever. If you want to discuss what some people believe with regards to divine forces, go to a social studies classroom. If some bureaucrat made me discuss Genesis, I'd make a frigging point of bringing in EVERY religious account of creation, from Greek, to Roman, to Egyptian, to a bunch of Native American accounts, to the freaking Flying Spaghetti monster. They all have the same amount of scientific credibility (or lack thereof) and if I were forced to include one, I'd include them all. If someone wants to make a mockery of a science class by including discussion of the Judeo-Christian God as a "plausible theory," then lets go whole hog and make the whole class a frigging farce.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:22 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:If the topic of discussion in a science class is one of theory, such as the origins of the earth, then why not present it as such and also say that God is a theory. It doesn't have to be about religion, but just mention at least of a 'higher power' being one idea. Then, we leave it at that.
In science the word theory means "a hypothesis that has been strongly supported with experiments and/or observations."

A hypothesis, in science is a "possible explanation for a set of observations, worded in a way that is testable."

The words "theory" and "hypothesis" in science (and science class) have much different, specific meanings than the common usage. The ID proponents know this full well and try to conflate the common and scientific meanings in order to slip their religion into science class (and got caught in Dover, PA).

Saying that God created the universe is neither a scientific hypothesis, nor can it therefore be a scientific theory.

There should be absolutely no mention of God as a force of life/creation in a science class. Ever.

But then why even speculate about the origins of the earth? The idea of evolution (ape to man) flies in the face of the whole survival of the fittest argument (since apes are more adept to survival in the wild than humans ever were). Doesn't that make it 'un-scientific'? Why even mention it in a state funded science class? Why should it be in a biology class to begin with? Don't such ideas belong in college level anthropology classes?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:21 pm

The idea of evolution (ape to man) flies in the face of the whole survival of the fittest argument (since apes are more adept to survival in the wild than humans ever were). Doesn't that make it 'un-scientific'?

I'm starting to believe in a prankster God. No one could be so clueless without Divine Inspiration. Prankster God is laughing all the way to the wall that he throws this shit on to see if it sticks.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:24 pm

PSUFAN wrote:No one could be so clueless without Divine Inspiration.

Exactly. I'd say it's a bad troll job, but that would be an insult to horrid troll jobs.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:26 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
The idea of evolution (ape to man) flies in the face of the whole survival of the fittest argument (since apes are more adept to survival in the wild than humans ever were). Doesn't that make it 'un-scientific'?
I'm starting to believe in a prankster God. No one could be so clueless without Divine Inspiration. Prankster God is laughing all the way to the wall that he throws this shit on to see if it sticks.

Okay. Here's the way I was taught evolution (by a pro-evolution teacher, mind you):

A species (such as simians, apes, etc.) exists. They walk on four legs. They climb trees. Etc.

Are you following, PSU?

One day, a baby is born. It is a mutation and walks on two legs, more upright. This is evolution as this baby's descendants will become homo-sapean. This mutation was caused by nature.

Are you following? Does this sound agreeable to you, thus far, PSU?

battery chucka' one · Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:34 pm

PSU, we're waiting for your answer? Would you please respond as to whether this assessment is acceptable to you, thus far? Thank you.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:29 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:But then why even speculate about the origins of the earth?

It's a valid scientific question, one that can be completely divorced from any religious/theological trappings.

battery chucka' one wrote:The idea of evolution (ape to man) flies in the face of the whole survival of the fittest argument (since apes are more adept to survival in the wild than humans ever were).

"Ape to man" is NOT what evolution claims. Very common misconception.

Any post now I had expected the "if we came from apes, why are there still apes?" question. If I'm dealing with a fundie, I like to reply: 'If we came from dust, why is there still dust?" Just as goofy a question.

Apes and humans had a common ancestor at one point. That's it.

Your grasp of natural selection is not great. Apes have an advantage in certain environments. Proto-humans had other advantages in a different environment. Mutation may be random, but the forces of selection are not. Obviously our ancestors gradually accumulated enough advantageous traits over time through natural selection, since it's pretty danged obvious that we currently dominate the planet (although a naked, unarmed human would still get its ass kicked by a chimp, our nearest relative). Evolution does not make "better" critters...just ones best adapted for a particular environment (one of our species's advantages is the ability to radically alter the environment to help suit us...other species can do it to, we're just the best...so far).

battery chucka' one wrote:Why even mention it in a state funded science class? Why should it be in a biology class to begin with?

Humans, biologically speaking, are no different from any other species on the planet. The same forces of physics, chemistry, and biology (including natural selection) that act upon trees, fish, slugs, lizards, chimps...apply to us as well. We are just one species among many. THAT is why it is brought up in a science class and a biology class.

battery chucka' one wrote:Don't such ideas belong in college level anthropology classes?

The specific proposed lineages of proto-humans and human relatives ARE part of anthro classes. I don't cover them only because I don't have the time. I spend most of my application of natural selection in class on antibiotic resistance in bacteria, viral mutations, pesticide resistance in insects. If I have some time in AP Bio, I do discuss whale evolution and I have a great DVD from HHMI that discusses evo devo in more detail.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:16 am

One day, a baby is born. It is a mutation and walks on two legs, more upright. This is evolution as this baby's descendants will become homo-sapean. This mutation was caused by nature.

Are you following? Does this sound agreeable to you, thus far, PSU?

Not very agreeable, actually. As Mike said above, there are a great variety of factors that attend upon natual selection - not just a genetic trip wire alone.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:29 am

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Another faulty line of "proof" entails the martyrdom of Christ's followers. It really doesn't matter in the slightest (from a "proof" standpoint) that those who knew Jesus died horrible deaths and proclaimed his divinity to the end. History has plenty of examples of cults in which folks sacrificed themselves in the name of their (IMO goofy) religion. Heaven's Gate, anyone?

It's not proof.
It is evidence, however.

The difference between Christ's followers (who went to horrific deaths for their insistence that he was risen) and other dead cult fools is that Christ's followers interacted with him following his resurrection -- or not.

Hence, if they went to their torturous deaths in vain, they knew they were being tortured to death for a lie.

But at any rate, I generally agree with your position in this thread, Mike.

Ultimately the Holy Spirit moves a man's heart to recognize, as Peter did in Matthew 16:16, that Jesus is the Christ.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:44 am

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: It's a matter of faith. The point of faith is that (it) requires no evidence. Leave it at that.

Faith does require some evidence, imo. Some event, some awakening, some divine inspiration as it were, needs to occur within a believers heart, mind, and soul. And as 'tart said, this is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You can't just wake up one day and say "today, I'm going to have faith". You have to seek it, then perhaps it will be granted to you.

And Lab Rat? For someone who professes to be a practicing Christian, you sure do argue most vocifeously against anyone who displays such faith, and you seem to want to do anything but "leave it at that". It's like a self-asskicking that contradicts itself.

What's up with that?

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:01 am

War Wagon wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote: It's a matter of faith. The point of faith is that (it) requires no evidence. Leave it at that.
Faith does require some evidence, imo. Some event, some awakening, some divine inspiration as it were, needs to occur within a believers heart, mind, and soul. And as 'tart said, this is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You can't just wake up one day and say "today, I'm going to have faith". You have to seek it, then perhaps it will be granted to you.

And Lab Rat? For someone who professes to be a practicing Christian, you sure do argue most vocifeously against anyone who displays such faith, and you seem to want to do anything but "leave it at that". It's like a self-asskicking that contradicts itself.

What's up with that?

I agree that faith requires some evidence. The evidence leads you to the faith. At that time, we are given the choice. Accept or deny that to which we've been lead. If we accept, then it more becomes clear. If we deny, then we end up denying all that led us to that choice. All the personal evidence becomes moot.

Mike, while I have no problems with, as my wife calls it, 'microevolution' (bacteria, insects, minor evolution within a species, such as when children of immigrants grow a foot taller than their parents due to changes in diet and environment), what I have issues with is when people make huge leaps and, all of a sudden, cats evolved from dogs (just a crazy example but, let's be honest, if one was going to be the more evolved, it would be cats). Evolution doesn't just 'happen'. Survival of the fittest doesn't just 'happen'. It has a reason. Why would humans ever be considered in any way more physically evolved than a primate? Like you said, a chimp could tear a human being asunder. Except with mice and other tiny creatures, I believe that four legs always beats two when it comes to the second option of the whole 'fight or flight'. The first wild predator that came along would kill the two legged creature. I understand that probably, as my teacher referred to the mutant, 'upright ape' would be both two and four legged but still, why would two EVER be better (and therefore be considered 'evolved')? Also, though two could probably still procreate with the flock, four would always win the rivalry for mates. Just doesn't make much sense to me. Way too much to 'just happen', in my opinion.

I hope I was clear with this one. Perhaps you can clear up anywhere that I might have erred.

Finally, with regards to the 'age of the earth', Genesis 1:2 allows for it to be very much older than some give it credit:

And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deeep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The 4004 BC date of creation is just the earliest that one Archbishop Ussher was able to find available material in the form of history. This date was written in some early versions of the KJ Bible. However, it is NOT to imply that it is the date of creation; merely the first written history this chronologist could find.