╌>

In defiance of science

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  5 years ago  •  173 comments


In defiance of science
Who still claims, despite graphic ultrasound evidence that a growing human being in a womb is a baby, that because we don’t really know, we can dispose of it? Underlying this defiance of science is the claim for a purely material, evolutionary origin of life without any creative design. Based on speculation, it depends heavily on ignoring things like irreducible complexity.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



For years, the left has claimed to be the party of science, while casting religious conservatives as ignorant, superstitious louts. But evidence is mounting that it's the other way around, and has been for some time.

After all, who are the ones claiming that we should ignore biology and redefine a man as a woman if he feels like it?

Who still claims, despite graphic ultrasound evidence that a growing human being in a womb is a baby, that because we don't really know, we can dispose of it?

What is the best example of a Creator as demonstrated in science?

Underlying this defiance of science is the claim for a purely material, evolutionary origin of life without any creative design. Based on speculation, it depends heavily on ignoring things like irreducible complexity.

That's when something could not logically have developed piecemeal but had to have come into being with its complex machinery intact. Anything less would actually reduce a creature's viability and survivability. Think of an underdeveloped wing, without feathers. Until fully able to assist in flight, the wing would be a burdensome appendage that could hobble a creature fighting off predators. For better examples, check out Michael J. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity in his groundbreaking 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

The sheer beauty and complexity of the universe indicated to Albert Einstein and other great scientists like Isaac Newton evidence of intelligent design, i.e., a Creator God who is outside our conception of time and space. Without a Creator, the Big Bang makes no sense whatever.

To believe that life itself came from nothing, you have to believe that random chance and time somehow magically create fantastically complex things like the human cell. It's like insisting that a Mercedes Benz convertible could turn up on the moon just by chance and enough billions of years.

Beginning with the union of egg and sperm, a human cell rapidly reproduces into millions and then billions of cells. Within two weeks, the cells differentiate in order to become everything from the retina to an earlobe. It all happens via DNA, which remains a mystery as to how it works.

In his remarkable book, More than Meets the Eye, Richard A. Swenson, M.D. presents a tsunami of facts about the human body and brain that leaves one open-mouthed in wonder. That is, unless you are unimpressed by analogies like this, concerning the constant destruction and reformation of the 10 to 100 trillion cells in the body:

"If your body were a house, and the house were the size of Texas, imagine knocking down the walls in a million rooms every second and hastily rebuilding them again with new materials." (Emphasis mine)

If that's not enough, consider the body's use of its two to four pounds of calcium. Nearly 99 percent is stored in the bones and teeth, but the rest is used in blood clotting, nerve transmission, muscle contraction and heart function. Here's the neat part. When the body needs some calcium for one of these applications, it draws from the "exceptionally large total surface area of the tiny mineral crystals within the bone, equal to one hundred acres."  Meanwhile, marrow in those bones, of which the body has about 200 to go along with 600 muscles, creates a trillion blood cells daily that travel through 60,000 miles of blood vessels.

As for the brain, it holds 10 to the 14th power bits of information with a storage capacity 1,000 times that of a Cray-2 supercomputer. This means it can hold information equivalent to 25 million books, enough to fill a bookshelf 500 miles long.

Ah, but how to use all that? The brain apparently performs a "thousand trillion computations per second," according to Dr. Swenson, who notes that, "it makes you wonder why balancing the checkbook is so hard." Checkbook? Ah, yes. Those are the things that people pull out when they're in the supermarket line ahead of you when you're in a hurry.

What might help us have more patience with our fellow human beings is the growing body of knowledge of how we are "fearfully and wonderfully made," in David's words in Psalm 139.

I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.

Yes, there are violators on both sides, but I've found that it's the left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

There's nothing on the right comparable to the black-hooded thugs of Antifa, for instance, or the white-coated "scientists" who characterize anyone questioning manmade climate change as "deniers" who should be barred from public forums.

When we see people with whom we deeply disagree, it tempers our anger to ponder that they, like us, were created by a God who loves people in spite of our rebellious pride and wants only the best for us.



Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times and OneNewsNow. This column first appeared on the Times' website.



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

“To believe that life itself came from nothing, you have to believe that random chance and time somehow magically create fantastically complex things like the human cell. It's like insisting that a Mercedes Benz convertible could turn up on the moon just by chance and enough billions of years.

Beginning with the union of egg and sperm, a human cell rapidly reproduces into millions and then billions of cells. Within two weeks, the cells differentiate in order to become everything from the retina to an earlobe. It all happens via DNA, which remains a mystery as to how it works.

In his remarkable book, More than Meets the Eye, Richard A. Swenson, M.D. presents a tsunami of facts about the human body and brain that leaves one open-mouthed in wonder. That is, unless you are unimpressed by analogies like this, concerning the constant destruction and reformation of the 10 to 100 trillion cells in the body:

"If your body were a house, and the house were the size of Texas, imagine knocking down the walls in a million rooms every second and hastily rebuilding them again with new materials." (Emphasis mine)

If that's not enough, consider the body's use of its two to four pounds of calcium. Nearly 99 percent is stored in the bones and teeth, but the rest is used in blood clotting, nerve transmission, muscle contraction and heart function. Here's the neat part. When the body needs some calcium for one of these applications, it draws from the "exceptionally large total surface area of the tiny mineral crystals within the bone, equal to one hundred acres."  Meanwhile, marrow in those bones, of which the body has about 200 to go along with 600 muscles, creates a trillion blood cells daily that travel through 60,000 miles of blood vessels.

As for the brain, it holds 10 to the 14th power bits of information with a storage capacity 1,000 times that of a Cray-2 supercomputer. This means it can hold information equivalent to 25 million books, enough to fill a bookshelf 500 miles long.

Ah, but how to use all that? The brain apparently performs a "thousand trillion computations per second," according to Dr. Swenson, who notes that, "it makes you wonder why balancing the checkbook is so hard." Checkbook? Ah, yes. Those are the things that people pull out when they're in the supermarket line ahead of you when you're in a hurry.

What might help us have more patience with our fellow human beings is the growing body of knowledge of how we are "fearfully and wonderfully made," in David's words in Psalm 139.

I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    5 years ago
Based on speculation, it depends heavily on ignoring things like  irreducible complexity .

It is funny (and sad) that some will literally follow any half-baked pseudoscience if it provides an excuse for religious beliefs.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2    5 years ago

“I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.

Yes, there are violators on both sides, but I've found that it's the left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

There's nothing on the right comparable to the black-hooded thugs of Antifa, for instance, or the white-coated "scientists" who characterize anyone questioning manmade climate change as "deniers" who should be barred from public forums.” https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/19/defiance-science/

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    5 years ago
I've found that it's the left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

Honest discussion does not involve stating disinformation.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    5 years ago

Bring on the censors and try to get the two sites that carried the article labeled pseudoscience r questionable so you can have a couple more sources that believe as I do screened from your sight here.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    5 years ago

It is not disinformation.  It’s the truth. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.2    5 years ago

Censorship??   Are we not making comments on the ridiculous article you just seeded?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.3    5 years ago
It is not disinformation.  It’s the truth. 

Yeah, and the Earth is 6,000 years old, flat and used to host human beings playing with pet dinosaurs.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    5 years ago

I missed that in the seeded article...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.4    5 years ago

We are but we would not be if the so called pro science consensus crowd had its way here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.7    5 years ago
We are but we would not be if the so called pro science consensus crowd had its way here.  

That is wrong.   I have seeded articles which promote nonsense (e.g. from AiG) to expose and challenge the crap that is being taught to the next generation.   So even if you were not here, as long as people promote nonsense there will be those publishing and challenging said nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    5 years ago
The sheer beauty and complexity of the universe indicated to Albert Einstein and other great scientists like Isaac Newton evidence of intelligent design, i.e., a Creator God who is outside our conception of time and space. 

Actually, Einstein was an agnostic atheist.   Newton, however, was indeed a theist (as were most everyone in his day).

Without a Creator, the Big Bang makes no sense whatever.

Some people block facts.   If one blocks relevant facts it is largely impossible to make sense of things.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
3.1  tomwcraig  replied to  TᵢG @3    5 years ago

What do Einstein's or Newton's religious beliefs have to do with disproving the point that the author is making that the fact that the existence of two VERY intelligent people is evidence of a Creator God?

You just blocked a fact by trying to point to the fallacy that someone's beliefs make the point of using that someone's existence as evidence of a God completely wrong.  It's like saying that Communism's atheist beliefs make it so that there is no Evil and that all actions are inherently neutral despite the untold millions killed in the name of Communism for just not being in step with the rulers.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1    5 years ago

Good points....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1    5 years ago
What do Einstein's or Newton's religious beliefs have to do with disproving the point that the author is making that the fact that the existence of two VERY intelligent people is evidence of a Creator God?

The existence of two very intelligent people is evidence of a creator???   Where do you see that claim?    I think you need to rephrase.

You just blocked a fact by trying to point to the fallacy that someone's beliefs make the point of using that someone's existence as evidence of a God completely wrong. 

What?   I made no such claim.

It's like saying that Communism's atheist beliefs make it so that there is no Evil and that all actions are inherently neutral despite the untold millions killed in the name of Communism for just not being in step with the rulers.

I do not know where you are getting this, but that is not the point I made.


I can address a part of your question ...

What do Einstein's or Newton's religious beliefs have to do with ...

The author mentions Einstein and Newton as two extremely intelligent individuals who see the beauty and awesome complexity of reality.

So why is this significant?   Countless billions of people see this.   Who has claimed that there is not an abundance of what we consider to be beauty and complexity in reality?

Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with science (realistically).   And to disabuse anyone of thinking otherwise I noted that while Newton was religious (as were most everyone in his day), Einstein was in fact an agnostic atheist.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    5 years ago
To believe that life itself came from nothing, ...

Who has stipulated that life came from nothing?   

... you have to believe that random chance and time somehow magically create fantastically complex things like the human cell. It's like insisting that a Mercedes Benz convertible could turn up on the moon just by chance and enough billions of years.

Again, if one refuses to listen to explanations then one will continually drown in incredulity.   The information is available, those who do not avail themselves are willfully ignorant.   Worse, however, are those who work hard at being willfully ignorant (like the author Robert Knight).

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4    5 years ago

4'
Irreducible Complexity Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >

In defiance of science

The left, which claims to be committed to science, is not

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1    5 years ago

The watches in the link above were the picture I seeded with the article before someone changed it on their own. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1    5 years ago

Irreducible complexity has been refuted and shown to be nothing but an argument from incredulity.  It is not a scientific theory, it is an excuse for religious beliefs.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    5 years ago

Did the intolerant people in the pro science consensus gang really expect to prevent the expression of religious  belief? Or to stifle the expression that there may well be an intelligent designer behind our and the universe origins? 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.1.4  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago
Did the intolerant people in the pro science consensus gang really expect to prevent the expression of religious  belief?

Who is preventing you from seeding delusional bullshit?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago

Those who recognize the value of actual science refute the nonsense of intelligent design because it is not science.   It offers no falsifiable theories and provides nothing to advance science.   ID is simply an argument from incredulity.   

The problem with ID, therefore, is that it pretends to be science.   That pretense is challenged (correctly).    In fact, one of the leading effective challengers of ID is Dr Kenneth Miller .   

Dr. Miller is Catholic .   He produced the single most effective criticism of ID that I have seen.   Do you think this Catholic man is out to stifle the expression of religious belief?

This is what happens when one ignores information that does not match preconceived notions (confirmation bias).   The end result is a distorted understanding of reality.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago
Did the intolerant people in the pro science consensus gang really expect to prevent the expression of religious  belief?

What does religious belief have to do with science, or scientific facts and evidence? I thought you wanted to discuss science in the article, did you not?

Or to stifle the expression that there may well be an intelligent designer behind our and the universe origins? 

Express such nonsense all you want. That doesn't mean whatever you express will not be and should not be challenged. Or did you think your "religious expression," in a supposed science article no less, is beyond scrutiny or challenge?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.6    5 years ago
That doesn't mean whatever you express will not be and should not be challenged.

It seems to conservatives, simply rejecting their beliefs is "censorship!". Anyone who wants to can look up and listen to flat earthers share their beliefs, or half-wit YEC's and their hilarious explanations for how with magic fossils can be made to look super old or that we've all just been tricked by a sneaky demon named Satan. No one is stopping them from making their claims, yet when you laugh at them and tell them they're stupid idiots for believing such fantasy made up bull shit, they act as if they're being denied their right to express themselves and attempt to stop anyone else from expressing their disbelief.

As for " Irreducible complexity", it's just another sad explanation that completely ignores facts on its way to making conclusions based on nothing. It should be called "Irreducible simplicity" because only those with very simple minds are fooled by it.

Basically, the argument that organisms are so complex they could not have evolved, claiming if any one part was missing the whole system breaks down, has been debunked many times now. I appreciate how Brown University biologist Ken Miller sums up the ID communities attempts at pushing their pseudoscience.

" So, what are we left with?  Nothing more than a vain attempt to pretend that ID’s collapse in the Dover case was the result of misrepresentation and deception.  For Mr. Luskin and his employers at the Discovery Institute, the generation of sound and fury continues, but in scientific terms, their continuing noise signifies nothing more than the utter emptiness of their failed ideas ."

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.1.8  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.7    5 years ago
No one is stopping them from making their claims, yet when you laugh at them and tell them they're stupid idiots for believing such fantasy made up bull shit, they act as if they're being denied their right to express themselves and attempt to stop anyone else from expressing their disbelief.

It's all that persecution, don't you know. As if stupidity were a protected class and intelligent people aren't supposed to point out the inanity of young earth bullshit.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @4.1.8    5 years ago
As if stupidity were a protected class and intelligent people aren't supposed to point out the inanity of young earth bullshit.

It reminded me of how some conservatives have gotten all angry at some supposedly "liberal" public schools where they have teams for soccer or football but there's no score kept and no losers, just winners, regardless of how the kids played. They sneer and ridicule the idea of a "participation trophy". Yet, when it comes to science, they seem eager to claim their "participation trophy's" even though they are giving totally ignorant and wrong answers to most of the basic scientific truths such as the age of the universe and the proven process of evolution. They get angry and petulant at the idea that someone who has actually done the work and studies biology tells them they got an "F" on their science test and demand the teacher give them an "A" instead and claim they are being persecuted by all these scientists telling them they're wrong.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    5 years ago

The photo you used was not the one from the original article, which it has to be due to copyright law. That is why it was changed. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
4.1.12  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.11    5 years ago

Here's another:

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.12    5 years ago

I corrected that one also Pat, thanks for pointing it out.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.13    5 years ago

... always pushing the envelope.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @4.1.14    5 years ago

That one wasn’t mine but thanks for playing.  As to the original pic here it was that of the original version of the seeded article from its original source.  The seeded source was the same identical article reprinted by my preferred site.  The Washington Times and One News Now both carry the Mr. Knight article.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    5 years ago
In his remarkable book, More than Meets the Eye, Richard A. Swenson, M.D. presents a tsunami of facts about the human body and brain that leaves one open-mouthed in wonder. 

Life forms such as human beings are truly incredible.   No doubt about it.   And much of how we work remains to be discovered.   Plenty of answered questions but plenty more that remain unanswered.   

The author is making an argument from incredulity.   Quite common problem.   It is the core of 'Intelligent Design'.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @5    5 years ago

Feel free to accept the quackery that all we are in all our complexities came to be by random chance.  I categorically and completely reject and deny that ridiculous non thinking nonsense.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    5 years ago
Feel free to accept the quackery that all we are in all our complexities came to be by random chance.

There is no claim that we are a result of random chance.   Given I already know that you do not understand biochemical evolution and will reject anything anyone has to offer by way of explanation there is no point giving you (yet again) an explanation as to why you are so wrong.

I categorically and completely reject and deny that ridiculous non thinking nonsense.  

I know.   Your choice.   

article-0-1A2B262D00000578-818_636x382.j

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    5 years ago

Still waiting for that Mercedes convertible to show up on the surface of the moon? Or a watch like one in the deleted photo to randomly come together by itself from the sum of its parts?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.2    5 years ago
Still waiting for that Mercedes convertible to show up on the surface of the moon?

Another misconception you have of evolution is that you think it is results oriented.   Evolution is not a sentient entity that establishes an objective (e.g. to evolve a Mercedes convertible on the moon) and then proceeds to evolve same.    It is the opposite.   Evolution is a process whereby variations in gene frequencies in a population that is subjected to reproductive challenges by the environment results in future generations with different genetics.   Those with the genetics best suited for reproduction in the current environment are those whose genes are passed on.

This is what happens when one refuses to learn and instead mounts an aggressive campaign based on ignorance.   The misunderstanding of science perpetuates and the ignorance becomes a religious-like belief.   Not good.   I am against that and those who promote that kind of thinking and the misinformation they publish.   Accordingly, I will challenge what they write when I can to expose the utter nonsense they spout.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    5 years ago
Feel free to accept the quackery that all we are in all our complexities came to be by random chance.  I categorically and completely reject and deny that ridiculous non thinking nonsense.  

Feel free to prove that "god did it" as you imply and/or believe! While you're at it, feel free to prove there's a god. You know, actual proof or evidence-what actual science goes by and relies on! 

Still waiting for that Mercedes convertible to show up on the surface of the moon? Or a watch like one in the deleted photo to randomly come together by itself from the sum of its parts?

Still waiting for you to prove there's a god, or that said god did anything as you so often claimed there is.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
6  JumpDrive    5 years ago
...it depends heavily on ignoring things like irreducible complexity.

ALL of the main examples of 'irreducible complexity' have been reduced, and therefore debunked. People haven't bothered with every one of them because it takes 10 times as much effort to refute BS as it takes to create it.

 ...you have to believe that random chance and time somehow magically create fantastically complex things like the human cell

Evolution is not random. It has the unique property that a mutation that serves a purpose survives and is built upon. Anti-evolutionists often use the example of a tornado going through a junkyard assembling a plane. What they miss is that if something useful is created this way, it will almost certainly be destroyed by the next tornado. Life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago; lots of time for useful building to occur.

As for the brain, it holds 10 to the 14th power bits of information with a storage capacity 1,000 times that of a Cray-2...

The rest of the seed is a look at how complex humans are. You can buy a cell phone with 256 times as much memory as the Cray-2. So, if your computation is correct, 4 phones can hold as much information as person. The expectation is that by 2050 we will have computers of equal complexity to human brains.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JumpDrive @6    5 years ago

Are they going to randomly create themselves or will they have an intelligent designer?  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.1  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago

Who created the intelligent designer?

And if it were so intelligent, why are its creations so imperfect? And don't tell me it's because of original sin that too much rain makes tomatoes crack, for example.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago

Intelligent design (literally speaking) takes place when a sentient entity establishes an objective and uses its intelligence (and skills) to achieve said objective.   Human beings do this all the time.  Cell phones are designed and produced by human beings.

Human beings, however, are not the result of design but rather a process of evolution - undirected variations where the genetics best suited for successful reproduction determine the genetics of the next generation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    5 years ago
Human beings, however, are not the result of design but rather a process of evolution - undirected variations where the genetics best suited for successful reproduction determine the genetics of the next generation.

And unlike god/s or other religious claims, we actually have evidence of evolution.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
6.1.4  JumpDrive  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago
Are they going to randomly create themselves or will they have an intelligent designer?

Irrelevant, electronics do not occur naturally. Organic compounds do form naturally, driven by energy supplied by the sun and other sources. Scientists have recently found that α-hydroxy acids, like glycolic and lactic acid self-assemble when dried at moderate temperatures followed by rehydration. These are important cell components.

The number of things that have been ceded by religion to science is huge, constantly increasing, and the ceding is unidirectional. There has never been a case of finding out how something works or came about where it turned out to be supernatural.

The last refuge of theologians is "Why is there something rather than nothing." It's looking more and more like quantum field theory will explain that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  katrix @6.1.1    5 years ago

The real intelligent designer has always existed and always will.  We were created perfect, man and woman in His image. The first humans did indeed sin and until the 2nd coming when we and then the earth will be made perfect again, have to live with the imperfections sin and evil have created here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.3    5 years ago
... we actually have evidence of evolution.

In fact, substantial credible and cross-disciplinary evidence :   

Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory. Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges. 
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.5    5 years ago
The real intelligent designer has always existed and always will.

Unsubstantiated claim.

We were created perfect, man and woman in His image.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The first humans did indeed sin and until the 2nd coming when we and then the earth will be made perfect again, have to live with the imperfections sin and evil have created here.  

Unsubstantiated claim.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.8  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.5    5 years ago
We were created perfect, man and woman in His image.

So God is a hermaphrodite? I never knew that before.

*snort*

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.9  katrix  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1.4    5 years ago
The last refuge of theologians is "Why is there something rather than nothing."

Yeah, but they manage to convince themselves that their god always existed ... yet they can't accept that matter always existed. It must be hard work to remain that ignorant.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.10  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.7    5 years ago

And apparently humans sinning caused God to have a temper tantrum and make plants and animals have diseases. Sounds like quite a foolish God - one with all the human flaws - one could almost posit that it was created by humans in their image, huh?

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.12  katrix  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.11    5 years ago

My mom believes that evolution is one of God's tools. If that's what it takes for people to reconcile their faith with science, so be it. But the religious people who deny science, even going so far as to believe humans have only been around for 6,000 years - surely the mental gyrations required to remain so willfully ignorant would be harder than just learning science.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.5    5 years ago

Until you can actually prove any of that, all you have is baseless claims and no credibility. And unlike you, scientific minded and rational individuals go by evidence. Not by empty claims based on nothing more than mere belief. That is what "pro science" means. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.11    5 years ago
It is however possible a higher being set evolution in motion.

Yes that is possible.   That, for example, is an hypothesis of Biologos (and many others).

So what is evidenced (in great detail) is the process of evolution wherein populations of living entities change over time (ultimately to the point of distinct species) based on genetic variations and the fitness of those variations to effectively be passed on to progeny.

But to XX this is pseudoscience .. a worldwide conspiracy of science designed to discredit religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.11    5 years ago

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, and there is nothing to discredit it. But there is no evidence to suggest, much less support, that evolution was "set in motion" by any deity or higher power.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.16    5 years ago
The existence of a higher being or aliens can neither be proven or disproved.

Thus nobody should claim that such an entity exists unless they can support it with evidence.   It is because people make this claim and make claims predicated on this claim that these kind of debates take place.    

Claims made are fair for challenges.   And because so many people believe these claims, the challenges to same are quite called for.   

( Note that there are not a bunch of debates on flat earth and alien abductions because most people do not live their lives predicated on these beliefs. )

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
6.1.18  JumpDrive  replied to  katrix @6.1.9    5 years ago
Yeah, but they manage to convince themselves that their god always existed

Even as a kid I found this confusing. They explain something they don't understand by positing something they can't understand. In what other case would it be acceptable to explain something in this way? Why does religion get special dispensation?

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.19  katrix  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1.18    5 years ago

Since it's all made up, they can invent any claims they want - such as God isn't subject to the laws of science. Of course, they love to say that God is so far removed from humanity that we can't possibly understand it - all while claiming to personally know what God thinks, what it wants, what its emotions are, and so on. As if they're some kind of false prophet. I mean, I can apply any attributes I want to a unicorn, since nobody can prove me wrong.

It's also amusing when they claim God is corporeal and male. But if you ask whether it has a penis, they tell you you're being obscene - when they're the ones insisting that it does. Or as was stated above, it's apparently a hermaphrodite.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.16    5 years ago

Science is not something to "believe" in, nor does it go by belief. It goes by evidence to support or refute it's findings, hypotheses, theories, ect. Belief does not factor in. As for higher beings, aliens, or such things, affirmative claims to those cannot be logically made, much less valid or substantiated without evidence. Otherwise, that is just mere belief. And belief does not equal fact. Some theists do not seem to understand that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.21  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.16    5 years ago

It does serve the purpose of getting a viewpoint expressed that the pro science consensus gang is doing its utmost to as the article suggests, censor and ban from being discussed. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.13    5 years ago

Show us the evidence and proof that there is and was no intelligent design behind any aspect of origins anywhere in the universe. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.21    5 years ago

Are you going to just keep repeating that in spite of what I have explained to you?  

The very fact that these articles are available to you shows that they are not censored or banned.   Your claim is demonstrably illogical.   Hello?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.22    5 years ago

The typical logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. One cannot prove a negative.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.25  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.22    5 years ago

Show us the evidence and proof that Zeus is not the one true God and that he created everything. And show us the evidence and proof that red spotted flying hippos don't exist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.22    5 years ago
Show us the evidence and proof that there is and was no intelligent design behind any aspect of origins anywhere in the universe. 

It is possible that all of reality was intelligently designed.   For example, an intelligent designer could have packaged up the singularity, issued the trigger, and then watched as its design unfolded over billions of years.   The unfolding of the design then would be what we call evolution.

It is possible.   

No evidence whatsoever that this is the case, but it is possible.

Note that you make the claim that this IS the case.   So you have the burden of proof.   So deliver your evidence of intelligent design.   Those of us who admit that an intelligent designer is possible have zero burden of proof.

Do you understand what I have explained?

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.27  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.21    5 years ago
It does serve the purpose of getting a viewpoint expressed that the pro science consensus gang is doing its utmost to as the article suggests, censor and ban from being discussed. 

Bullshit. Many of us have seeded articles from AIG and other bullshit sites, for the purpose of discussing them and how utterly ignorant they are.

You're not being censored and banned - why are you so dishonest as to keep making that claim when everyone can see it's not true, based on the number of religious BS seeds you post? Isn't lying a sin?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.21    5 years ago

You seem to think your viewpoint, such as it is, is just as valid, if not more so,as any scientific explanation. What you continuously fail to understand, willfully or otherwise, is that your viewpoints or claims are not valid, as they lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever. They're just emoty claoms based on nothing mire than mere belief. So dont be surprised when you get called out on that. Playing the victim about doesn't help your case either.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.29  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.22    5 years ago
Show us the evidence and proof that there is and was no intelligent design behind any aspect of origins anywhere in the universe. 

Really? Are you not listening? No one here is claiming there can't be an intelligent designer, they are simply stating the fact that those who use such fraud based pseudoscience as "irreducible complexity" in an attempt to prove there is an intelligent designer are either being extremely dishonest or don't actually understand a thing about biology.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The flawed theory of "irreducible complexity" was one poor attempt at providing proof by the ones making the claim for an intelligent designer. There have been many other flawed attempts throughout the years, made by those who are convinced there is an intelligent designer.

Now, I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't believe what they want. If you want to believe in an intelligent designer, or some alien origins, or a flying spaghetti monster, go ahead, that's your choice. But don't bother trying to convince others of your beliefs using fraudulent supposed "evidence" like irreducible complexity, and definitely expect others to annihilate the fraudulent "evidence" you present if you do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.28    5 years ago
Playing the victim about doesn't help your case either.

Basically:  "I should be able to express my beliefs without being challenged"

Given HA's beliefs are that evolution is pseudoscience (among other absurdities) he absolutely should expect to be challenged.

Given HA promotes falsehoods from the likes of AiG, DI, etc.  he and his sources will be challenged.   Rightly so.   There are already too many out there working overtime to try to instill this nonsense into gullible young minds.   It is repugnant, irresponsible and damaging to society.   Yeah, those who spread this crap should expect to be challenged.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.29    5 years ago
Are you not listening?

Exactly.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.32  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    5 years ago
It is repugnant, irresponsible and damaging to society.   Yeah, those who spread this crap should expect to be challenged.

Honestly, it's child abuse. Teaching children that they're born inherently evil, and that some evil boogeyman in the sky will torture them for eternity if they don't worship it ... that everyone who doesn't believe the same crap they do is bad ... that critical thinking is a sin ... ugh.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @6.1.32    5 years ago

I agree.   It is not just bad ideas.   During the formative years, what we learn physically shapes our brains.   In many cases this is a permanent effect.   So it is not merely bad notions that the child might outgrow with information and an adult mind.   These young brains are being shaped by their environment.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @6.1.27    5 years ago

I suspect he makes the claim because no one accepts his BS religious claims or because we dare challenge them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.35  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    5 years ago

You hit the nail on the head as usual TiG.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.36  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  katrix @6.1.32    5 years ago

I’m sure that Secular progressive long for the day that they can persecute believers for passing their beliefs on to their children

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6.1.37  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.36    5 years ago

The only thing the secular population, progressive or otherwise long for is the day the evangelicals and other religious extremists stop shove their bullshit in everyone's faces.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.36    5 years ago

Such paranoid delusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.36    5 years ago
I’m sure that Secular progressive long for the day that they can persecute believers for passing their beliefs on to their children

Secular advocates more likely long for the day when people do not simply accept as truth what others tell them but rather ask questions, scrutinize the evidence and ultimately think for themselves.

Critical thinking vs. blind acceptance.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.42  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago

I really doubt that.   It makes no sense.   Secular people, in my opinion, are concerned with following the evidence to where it leads rather than believing what is most comfortable.   What would be the motivation for judging? 

Crucially, without carrying out 'the will of God' how does judging by a secular thinking individual even make sense?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.43  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.37    5 years ago

Someone is trying to coerce you into becoming a believer? Would you silence the expression of free speech in order to not have to hear?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.44  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.43    5 years ago
Would you silence the expression of free speech in order to not have to hear?

No one should be forced to listen the religious smut. You are free to express yourself, and I'm free to not listen. I'm also free to tell everyone you're talking to that your talking points are full of shit and nothing but lies about the universe, that's my free speech. And when religious conservatives try to push their faith into legislation, forcing blue laws on everyone, trying to push religious morality into law like banning gay marriage, banning gay or transgender troops in the military, bans on sodomy, banning alcohol sales on Sunday, making laws that allow public employees to force everyone including those of other faiths or no faith to listen to public Christian prayers in our public schools on public school time.

So no, I will not "silence" any one else's free speech, but I'm certainly not going to stay silent when the free speech being expressed is nothing but lies, conjecture, fantasy and ignorance that begs to be intellectually challenged. If left unchallenged, those sheep who spend their lives in the shallow end of the intellectual pool will continually be fooled and sheared by these snake oil salesman, these religious charlatans in sheep's clothing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.44    5 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.46  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.44    5 years ago

isn't it amazing how offended some evangelicals can get by the mere presence of those in the LGBTQ community, yet fail to understand why non-evangelicals get pissed off when they start their religious jabbering.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.47  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.44    5 years ago

The drooling intolerance for a diversity of beliefs one doesn’t like is strong in this one.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.48  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @6.1.46    5 years ago

No one should get ticked off over hearing a belief and or an opinion they disagree with or don’t like.  Show off the supposed secular progressive co exist tolerance for a diversity of beliefs.   

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.49  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.48    5 years ago

go back to cut and paste comments. they make more sense.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.50  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @6.1.49    5 years ago

No, we will just wait for the next description by you about what people who think as you do will do to those of us who think somewhat like I do.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.51  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.50    5 years ago

unamerican religious cultists are such a small fraction of the religious community. nobody will miss them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7  Dismayed Patriot    5 years ago
"Based on speculation"

That pretty much sums up the argument for "ID" and its flawed claim of "irreducible complexity".

Is there any "God" or gods not based on speculation?

And if organisms are too complex to have evolved, and they must have required a designer, who designed the arguably far more complex designer? If the argument is that complexity requires a designer, then by that logic, their God would also require a designer, and that designer would require a more complex designer, and so on into infinity. The only answer I've ever seen has been that their God basically breaks all the rules of science even though they tried to use the rules of science to prove their Gods existence.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
8  Freefaller    5 years ago

Lol I was thinking of jumping in on this thread but you all have so utterly destroyed the seed and seeder without any sort of worthwhile rebuttal that there really is no need.  Good job everyone

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @8    5 years ago
I was thinking of jumping in on this thread

Go right ahead. Don't let us stop you.

but you all have so utterly destroyed the seed and seeder without any sort of worthwhile rebuttal that there really is no need.  Good job everyone

To be fair, it's not really difficult to do. And there is never any worthwhile rebuttal, if i can even be called that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    5 years ago

deleted [SP]

unknown quotes from an an unidentified source....

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.1    5 years ago

I see you have nothing but sweeping generalizations and finger pointing because rational people don't buy your BS as valid explanations for anything. The fact that you can't even address challenges or questions to your claims only proves that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.1    5 years ago
... shut down honest discussion ...

What you put forth is not discussion.   Claims are not discussion — especially when they are ridiculous (e.g. your chant that evolution is pseudoscience).   Further, countering a scientific point with the likes of ...

HA @6.1.5 The real intelligent designer has always existed and always will.  We were created perfect, man and woman in His image. The first humans did indeed sin and until the 2nd coming when we and then the earth will be made perfect again, have to live with the imperfections sin and evil have created here.  

... is not honest discussion.   It is proselytizing in lieu of a factual rebuttal.   It is, in effect, 'I am right because God says so, so there'.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    5 years ago

Actually it was a direct quote from the author of the Washington Times article seeded from One News Now.  He was right on and it is almost as if he was thinking of our secular progressives here when he wrote it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.3    5 years ago

it was a seeded article written by a Washington Times regular writer. Fortunately just because you presume to sit in Judgement over what is honestly held belief and opinion regarding origins theories doesn’t make your opinion so. You will just love my seed today on climate change alarmism.

XX, if you are going to claim that a seed is posted from a site, then you must list the site it came from. [ph]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.4    5 years ago

It doesn't address or refute anything I said and the fact that you support and quote his position makes you equally culpable. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.1    5 years ago

It was so unknown as it was a direct quote from this very seed above. jrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.5    5 years ago

 I did exactly that in 8.1.4.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    5 years ago

What might help us have more patience with our fellow human beings is the growing body of knowledge of how we are "fearfully and wonderfully made," in David's words in Psalm 139.

I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.

Yes, there are violators on both sides, but I've found that it's the left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

There's nothing on the right comparable to the black-hooded thugs of Antifa, for instance, or the white-coated "scientists" who characterize anyone questioning manmade climate change as "deniers" who should be barred from public forums. https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/robert-knight/2019/07/23/in-defiance-of-science

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
9  Dismayed Patriot    5 years ago

Speculation: noun - the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence

Faith: noun - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

I find those two words definitions interesting since they appear to be two sides of the same coin. Faith is really nothing but the strong desire for religious speculation to be true.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

...The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod passed a resolution at their convention affirming the belief that God created the Earth “in six natural days.”

At the 67th Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on Tuesday, the theologically conservative denomination adopted Resolution 5-09A, titled “To Confess the Biblical Six-Day Creation.”

“We confess that the duration of those natural days is proclaimed in God’s Word: ‘there was evening and there was morning, the first day,’” resolved the resolution.

The resolution also declared that the creation of Adam as the first human being was a “historical event” and rejected the claims of the theory of evolution.

The Rev. Adam Koontz, a member of Floor Committee 5 on Theology and Church Relations, explained the importance of the resolution to the convention attendees.

“The resolution [5-09A] is important because we need to affirm the reality of God’s creation, especially in a time and place when it’s especially challenging to say that God created people at all,” said Koontz, as quoted by blogs.lcms.org....https://www.christianpost.com/news/lutheran-church-passes-resolution-saying-god-created-world-6-natural-days.html

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10    5 years ago
... passed a resolution at their convention affirming the belief ...

They voted on what everyone is to believe .

Compare that to the scientific method where what is offered ( subject to informed acceptance or denial ) to be true (as best as one can tell) is based upon solid evidence, reason and perpetual scrutiny (with the intent to falsify).

' We resolve by majority vote that God created the Earth in six natural days. '

Wonderful.    jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

I wonder if Answers in Genesis voted on the belief that all carnivores were vegetarians until they disembarked from the ark?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10    5 years ago

Is that supposed to mean anything? It's nothing more than dogmatic rhetoric with nothing of substance to support it. They could have said "we believe Flying Zucchini People are haringers of god" and would be just as absurd and without merit as the rest of  that tripe. And willfully ignorant people might believe it too because some religious "authority" or leader said so. It's like some people choose not to think logically or rationally for themselves and instead want someone to think for them. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2    5 years ago

“The resolution restates the Synod’s historic position from A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (adopted 1932) and A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles (adopted 1973) that God created the world in “six natural days.”

The resolution defines “natural” according to Gen. 1:5: “There was evening and there was morning, the first day.”

The delegates discussed with great gusto the term “natural.” Some thought it lacked clarity; other delegates disliked the term since it does not occur in the original text from Genesis.

The body of delegates chose to retain the original wording and passed the resolution by a majority show of hands.

LCMS-Convention-Confessing-Creation-7-24Convention delegates queue to discuss Res. 5-09A on July 23, 2019. (LCMS/Erik M. Lunsford)

“The resolution [5-09A] is important because we need to affirm the reality of God’s creation, especially in a time and place when it’s especially challenging to say that God created people at all,” said the Rev. Adam Koontz, a member of Floor Committee 5 on Theology and Church Relations.

The resolution also encourages pastors to study reports from the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations, particularly Creation in Biblical Perspective (1970), Together with All Creatures: Caring for God’s Living Earth (2010) and All Things Hold Together in Christ: The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology (2015).

Finally, the resolution instructs pastors to focus on teaching the parishioners they serve, especially youth, about these issues. It asks pastors to equip their people to give a respectful Christian witness about the biblical teaching regarding creation and the intersection of faith and science.

https://blogs.lcms.org/2019/convention-confesses-god-created-the-world-in-six-natural-days/

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.1    5 years ago

They voted on the meaning of God's word.

This is not an unusual event.

Over history, God's word has been impacted by much creative writing, editing, voting and -indeed- edicts by political leaders.

Quite a few human beings have participated in producing God's word.   The process continues even today ...   Lotsa God's word is available.   Pick the one you like the best.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
10.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.1    5 years ago

Yes, a picture of four brain dead drooling fucks, a man who's asking himself "Am I in the line to the bathroom?" and one fellow seriously contemplating how dumb one has to be to believe this total and utter bullshit.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.1    5 years ago

Do you have some point to make? Because there certainly doesn't seem to be any, much less anything to refute my point. Nor TiG's or DP''s points either for that matter.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2.4    5 years ago

Most Methodists, Lutherans, and any number of other Protestant denominations could not care less as to what you, DP, or TiG think of our belief in the Genesis account of origins.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.5    5 years ago
... our belief in the Genesis account of origins ...

There is no single account.   Protestants vary considerably in how they interpret Genesis creation.   So not only is the Bible the result of patchwork contributions by many ancient men over thousands of years, the interpretation of such is all over the map.    

Gods word is —based on the evidence— the product of ordinary, errant ancient men with agendas and is interpreted in dramatically different ways by ordinary, errant human beings with agendas.

Ever observe YECs and OECs debate?  Their interpretation of Genesis creation is staggeringly different.   

How about allegorical beliefs vs the literal YEC or OEC?  No comparison.   Apparently nobody has a clue as to how to interpret the Bible but everyone thinks their interpretation is the real truth.

Theists typically hold that all other interpretations of the Bible are wrong except theirs (which is deemed the 'true' interpretation).   That should be the first clue that the various beliefs are human inventions and that the interpretation one holds as true is just another human invention.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.5    5 years ago

That's because many theists prefer dogma over actual science and facts. They can't even agree on which belief is the "true" belief. Neither does belief equal fact. It's the epitome of willfull ignorance and intellectual dishonesty/laziness.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.6    5 years ago

I don’t fall entirely within YEC or OEC  theory as to how Genesis one actually happened.  Several churches have and operate creation science and geoscience facilities labs and education centers looking into scientific answers to these origins and global flood issues.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.2.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2.7    5 years ago

One would think the author of the seeded article had people like some here in mind when he wrote this part of the article......                

“What might help us have more patience with our fellow human beings is the growing body of knowledge of how we are "fearfully and wonderfully made," in David's words in Psalm 139.

I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.

Yes, there are violators on both sides, but I've found that it's th. e left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

There's nothing on the right comparable to the black-hooded thugs of Antifa, for instance, or the white-coated "scientists" who characterize anyone questioning manmade climate change as "deniers" who should be barred from public forums.

When we see people with whom we deeply disagree, it tempers our anger to ponder that they, like us, were created by a God who loves people in spite of our rebellious pride and wants only the best for us.”

Feel free to step up in front of the mirror totally free of charge. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.8    5 years ago
I don’t fall entirely within YEC or OEC  theory as to how Genesis one actually happened.  Several churches have and operate creation science and geoscience facilities labs and education centers looking into scientific answers to these origins and global flood issues.  

And thus I will offer again:

TiG @10.2.6 Apparently nobody has a clue as to how to interpret the Bible but everyone thinks their interpretation is the real truth.

Best to not look to the Bible to explain reality.   Nowadays science offers the best, evidenced explanation for things such as the origin and evolution of the universe (including biological life).   YEC science is an oxymoron.  YECs are hopelessly lost in their dogma.  OECs tend to embrace the findings of science and come up with very creative ways of interpreting the Bible so that is appears to be consistent with science.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.9    5 years ago
One would think the author of the seeded article had people like some here in mind when he wrote this part of the article..

One would think yo0u could come up with something of relevance to add.

I thought about this while scanning social media, with all the insults, name calling and utter lack of appreciation for differences of opinion. The sheer level of vitriol is stunning.

Opinions are meaningless if there is nothing objective to support them. But you can have all the opinions you want, even if they are wrong!

but I've found that it's th. e left more often than not that's working overtime to shut down honest discussion and to deny scientific truth when it interferes with their brave new world of sexual anarchy, earth worship and socialist economics.

That statement is hilarious after you complain about the lack of appreciation in differences of opinion and vitriol. 

Feel free to step up in front of the mirror totally free of charge.

You first, as you're doing precisely what you complain about.

There's nothing on the right comparable to the black-hooded thugs of Antifa, for instance, or the white-coated "scientists" who characterize anyone questioning manmade climate change as "deniers" who should be barred from public forums.

What a nice Red Herring. Such a lovely shade of crimson.

When we see people with whom we deeply disagree, it tempers our anger to ponder that they, like us, were created by a God who loves people in spite of our rebellious pride and wants only the best for us.”

Spare us the sanctimonious platitudes!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
10.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.6    5 years ago
Apparently nobody has a clue as to how to interpret the Bible but everyone thinks their interpretation is the real truth.

Indeed, because the bible is so full of ambiguity it can be interpreted about a thousand different ways. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
10.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.2.1    5 years ago
other delegates disliked the term since it does not occur in the original text from Genesis.

Why is there more than one version of the bible? When did 'God' pass down these changes? I'm not trying to be rude, but it seems odd that we have one 'God' and about 10 different versions of the same bloody book. Why? If the bible is the word of 'God' as you claim, why exactly would ONE 'God' create so much confusion? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

It is entirely possible to believe what God said our origins are and then use science to explore our knowledge of how it happened and what has happened since.  I’m not about to call Jesus a liar in the things He said about Old Testament events in His teachings here.  To deny he is telling the truth when referring to creation, the fall of man, and the flood is to deny Him in all that He said.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11    5 years ago
It is entirely possible to believe what God said our origins are and then use science to explore our knowledge of how it happened and what has happened since.

That presumes the Bible to be the true word of God.   What if the Bible is nothing more than words of ancient men weaving tales to influence the masses?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    5 years ago

The Bible is the true word of God to humanity for those who will by grace through faith believe.  That is non negotiable come what may.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    5 years ago

That's nice. Prove it! Otherwise, your claim is a bereftly empty one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    5 years ago
The Bible is the true word of God to humanity for those who will by grace through faith believe.  That is non negotiable come what may.  

Another claim without a shred of supporting justification against the backdrop of plenty of evidence to illustrate it is not the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, ... supreme entity.   

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.3    5 years ago

So you have all the evidence that Judaism and Christianity and the God we believe in and the people who wrote all that we believe in that we believe He inspired are all part of a great lie that couldn’t possibly be true.  Is that what you are telling us?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.4    5 years ago
 Is that what you are telling us?  

No.   Not even close.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.6    5 years ago

An interpretation of a comment is necessarily based on what was written in the comment.

Read my comment, buy a vowel, try again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.8    5 years ago

Note what you just wrote.   It (as your prior comment) is devoid of anything specific and has no connection whatsoever to what is being discussed.   It is simply personal and derogatory.   

If you are confused about my position or you think I have something wrong, then (assuming it is topical) write a specific comment or question.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.10    5 years ago

Make a specific comment.  

If you think I have stated something that is incorrect then name it.    Make your case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.12    5 years ago

You disagree with everything I write yet will not stand up and make your case.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
11.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.6    5 years ago
My interpretation of his  commentary is more like anything is a possible ... except that which he deems not possible.

He didn't seem to even imply that God is not possible, he simply pointed out that HA has the same amount of evidence as any other person claiming their God is real, that is to say, none. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He did also point out that the document being interpreted contains contradictions and flaws, which believers can patch together with twisted logic and threads of faith, but that doesn't mean the incongruities don't exist. But pointing out flaws in the bible is not claiming God or Gods therefore cannot exist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.14    5 years ago
But pointing out flaws in the bible is not claiming God or Gods therefore cannot exist.

I agree.

However, I am happy to make the case that the God of the Bible is a logical contradiction as defined by the Bible and thus does not exist.

A sentient creator might exist, but it is not that as defined by the Bible.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.1.6    5 years ago

Which is everything that evangelical Protestants believe to be true.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.17    5 years ago

And those beliefs have no supporting evidence.   As I noted.

If you disagree, deliver the evidence.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.15    5 years ago

So some God might exist but just not the One that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in in one form or another.  That one in your mind is the one who couldn’t possibly be real?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.19    5 years ago

If a God is defined by a source, we can logically analyze the definition to see if it contains contradictions.   That which contradicts itself is self-refuting.   Contradictions are one way we can absolutely identify that something is false.   If an entity has a self-refuting definition —a contradiction— then that entity does not exist; just like gaseous ice or a married bachelor cannot exist.

With that established ...

The biblical definition of God has quite a few contradictions.  The most obvious contradiction is an omniscient entity who is surprised or disappointed.

If God knows everything then how could He not know that Adam & Eve would disobey Him?    How could He be surprised by their actions?   How could God be disappointed by the behavior of His creations and resort to starting all over via Noah's flood?   How could a mortal like Moses reason with God and effectively change God's mind?   How could God regret a decision such as making Saul King of Israel?

That should be enough examples (without bringing in the killer topic of free will).

To resolve the contradiction, God would need to be less than how He is defined by the Bible.   God would have to be less than omniscient.   He could know a great deal but simply cannot know everything because that contradicts being surprised, disappointed, reconsidering and regretful.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
11.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.20    5 years ago
God would need to be less than how He is defined by the Bible.

I'm willing to accept that a God could exist that some biblical prophets somehow perceived and based their writings on, but with the many contradictions in the bible it would seem unlikely the book itself was actually inspired by said God. I believe there could be kernels of truth, and in fact I believe there to be quite a bit of historical fact woven in with the historical fiction in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. None of it amounts to any actual evidence of the Hebrew God and with the contradictions found it would indicate the book to be very terrestrial in origin.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.21    5 years ago
I'm willing to accept that a God could exist that some biblical prophets somehow perceived and based their writings on ...

Same here.    Basically this is recognition that the Bible is errant and certainly not divine.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.19    5 years ago

What makes the monotheistic god real? Or the polytheistic ones too for that matter? Where is the evidence to support any claims of a god/s existence? Sure, a god might exist. But without evidence, there is no reason to assume one does. Neither is there any way to objectively define the attributes of said god/s. So any claim for a god or a description of any god is completely baseless and lacking merit.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    5 years ago

The Bible is the true word of God to humanity for those who will by grace through faith believe.  That is non negotiable come what may.  

No. The bible was written by humans, not 'God', and humans tend to write history to their own advantage. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.19    5 years ago

So some God might exist but just not the One that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in in one form or another.  That one in your mind is the one who couldn’t possibly be real?  

*IF* there is a 'God', there is only one, for all religions. It's humans that have perverted the message that one 'God' have passed along, to suit their own agenda. 

And as a Deist, I find the thought that 'God' said ANYTHING to humans, rather repulsive. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    5 years ago

That presumes the Bible to be the true word of God.   What if the Bible is nothing more than words of ancient men weaving tales to influence the masses?

That's ALL it is. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11    5 years ago
It is entirely possible to believe what God said our origins are and then use science to explore our knowledge of how it happened and what has happened since.

There is no science that supports religious based "origins," especially that of the YEC or Flat earth variety. Science even directly contradicts certain creationist notions.

I’m not about to call Jesus a liar in the things He said about Old Testament events in His teachings here.

Why not? If someone made outrageous claims without a shred of evidence or proof, no questions asked, you would simply accept said claims?

To deny he is telling the truth when referring to creation, the fall of man, and the flood is to deny Him in all that He said.

You're going under the assumption that nonsense is true to begin with. But it can't be considered true when evidence contradicts it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2    5 years ago

Those final words weren’t directed at those who either deny God exists or know He does but engage in misotheism.  They were directed at liberal cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible and Jesus words to believe and follow and which to discard and call God a liar because He’s not modern enough to suit their sensibilities. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.1    5 years ago

Some theists might say the same thing about you or your version of beliefs. You're no different than anyone else who claims knowledge of God or who pick and chooses what attributes of God or parts of the Bible suits them. It's just a different flavor of BS!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.2    5 years ago

That’s your facts free opinion.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.3    5 years ago

Oh really? So you don't consider anyone who has a different set of religious beliefs or practices than your to be wrong? If so, then it's likely they might view your own beliefs/practices as wrong too. Simple fact!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.5    5 years ago
Yet you have these people who sit around and pontificate about a God without a relational foundation from which to do so while offering their interpretation which is no better than anybody else’s if you believe them and yet they go on and on about it to what end other than to denigrate Christians. It’s done  with regularity around here and it’s unnecessary and they get away with it. personally I am tired of it.  

For starters, no one is forcing you to read this stuff. 

Approaching this from a rational standpoint clearly says that there is no 'God'. No proof, no evidence. Nothing but stories passed down in a book that is so full of ambiguity it's not funny. 

I have no problems with people believing whatever they want, worship Billy the Blessed Battle Goat for all I care. It's when the religious folks try to pass off their beliefs as fact that I have a problem. 

Also, not real thrilled when they show up on my porch preaching fire and brimstone. I think I finally got rid of them though, last time I told them that freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. The young lady stopped talking, shook my hand and walked away. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.5    5 years ago

How can you have a "relational foundation" with something that most likely doesn't exist, nor can you even prove (or have evidence of) existstance? All you have to go by is what some ancient men wrote down in a book, which itself has contradictionsome and logical inconsistencies. So that is what is available to discuss topics related to god. If you don't like it, then don't bother posting or reading comments. As for religious beliefs, they don't automatically deserve respect merely because theyre beliefs or ancient. Why should they?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.8    5 years ago

How is my post denigrating anyone's beliefs exactly? Unless one finds facts denigrating. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11.2.11  MrFrost  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.9    5 years ago
Yet they are tripping over their dicks constantly to censor it.

How? Be specific. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.10    5 years ago

Your question, if answered, requires specifics supported by a reasoned argument.   I hope you are not holding your breath.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.12    5 years ago

Not at all. The first time I tried that, I turned blue and passed out. So I learned my lesson, Lol

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.14    5 years ago

Apparently not, as I don't follow left or right wing nonsense. But what does that have to do with anything, especially with my posts?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.16    5 years ago

I'm aware of what goes on politcally. I simply don't align myself politically or take interest in typical political games, which effectively doesnt do anything. And your reply still doesn't address my posts nor refute anything I said. It seems more like a smokescreen than anything. But if you want to imagine something that's not there, then be my guest.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.9    5 years ago

Isn’t that the truth.  Well put.  They can’t stand that some disagree with them and even worse when we actually express what we believe that we can get past their “questionable, pseudoscience, conspiracy” calling board of censors.  The pro science consensus gang would rather censor others than simply ignore something they don’t like.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.18    5 years ago
… questionable, pseudoscience, conspiracy …

Anyone who declares that biochemical evolution is pseudoscience will be challenged.    And anyone who questions the near certainty that species are the result of biochemical evolution should do some very serious research and not simply dismiss anything that is inconvenient relative to religious beliefs.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.19    5 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @11.2.21    5 years ago

Exactly and MBFC is that thing you refer to that they trip over in order to censor viewpoints they don’t like.  

 
 

Who is online





86 visitors