The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
A parent should love their child no matter what, it is their job to look after their child. Or do you agree with that mother that Riley spoke of?

God does love His children and the fact that you and I are alive is a testament that He is looking after us. Still though, we need to repair our end of the relationship.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I'm just saying no matter how smart Einstein was, if he was born as a cavemen its not going to do him any good. If he doesn't know anything, being intelligent means nothing.

Hmm...food for thought. I should chew on this for a while. Thanks.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Religion ask for more faith than science by a long-shot.

In most cases, I agree.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Science at leasts has laws that have been tested time and time again. Science observes the evidence at makes a descision based on it. Religion just asks for faith based on stories.

Not necessarily. What I'm trying to impress is that one can get the proofs they need in God in the same way one can get scientific proofs. The difference is scientific proof can be demonstrated to others where with God it's not as simple as a 'magic show' of chemical reactions.

Also, if one believes God is the creator of science, then all scientists are devoting study to His works. If there were conflict between science and Christianity, we'd have no scientists who were Christians.

Okay, so, faith based stories are not enough. I can understand and respect that since I'm a skeptic myself and did not believe without proof. It is then my hope that you'll have enough interest to take the initiative to go get that proof. If you're wrong (which you will not be) then so what...but if you're right...

Again, always willing to help.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Science is a process, not a belief system.

Rather...it's not 'supposed' to be a belief system, but when you're lacking in evidence, what then is left? Belief. This is why evolution does not fit in with the rest of the science book.

Repeatedly claiming that evidence is lacking does not make it true. There's more than enough evolutionary evidence to draw reasonable inferences. It is not an airtight case, as we obvioulsy can't go back in time to witness each step, but that doesn't make it the equivalent of faith either, since it is a conclusion based on evidence, held contingently and constantly subjected to attempts at falsification.

The other aspect of evolution that makes it science instead of faith is that it has real world uses. The entire field of genetic engineering branched off from it and utilizes the same types of techniques to manipulate genetic codes that we observed in nature. Our understanding of evolutionary biology has given us medical advances as well. These would not exist had we all simply accepted Biblcal creationism from faith.

Every single class of genetic mutation that would be necessary to get from a "simple" single cell organism to a "complex" large multi-cellular organism has been directly observed. It is not necessary to observe each instance to draw a conclusion, any more than it would be necessary to observe every single instance of gravity to draw a conclusion.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
But you didn't answer the question. How would discrediting evolution prove Biblical creationism?

It doesn't.

I'm glad you at least recognize that much. Most creationists don't seem to realize that if they do actually succeed in falsifying general evolutionary theory, that would not add any credence whatsoever to Biblical creationism.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by spamandham]

First, I want to say this is a fascinating conversation, and I'm really enjoying reading it.

Spam, would you be able to qualify this point:

Our understanding of evolutionary biology has given us medical advances as well. These would not exist had we all simply accepted Biblcal creationism from faith.

I can't think of any medical advances through evolutionary biology off the top of my head that creationism (rather, disbelief in evolution) wouldn't have permitted to exist. I could just not be thinking of the most obvious things, but I was hoping you'd be able to flesh out that statement a little bit.

Originally posted by saint4God
God does love His children and the fact that you and I are alive is a testament that He is looking after us. Still though, we need to repair our end of the relationship.

You and I are alive, but think of all the millions of of people who die each day around the world. So I am responsible for how people have acted in the past? I can only control what I do, and so I think it's on his end of the relationship.

Also, if one believes God is the creator of science, then all scientists are devoting study to His works. If there were conflict between science and Christianity, we'd have no scientists who were Christians.

This is simliar to what I said before in a different thread:

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
True Science and True Religion cannot conflict because they both describe reality.

We know not true science and religion, only our interpretations of them.

Okay, so, faith based stories are not enough. I can understand and respect that since I'm a skeptic myself and did not believe without proof. It is then my hope that you'll have enough interest to take the initiative to go get that proof. If you're wrong (which you will not be) then so what...but if you're right...

I will continue to be open-minded and searching, but I have a question that may help. When is the last time ever God was supposedly seen/heard by someone(I mean in the Bible of course)?

I salute you Saint, as this is one of the only intelligent conversations I have had with a Creationist/Christian on either subject. I usually can't go one post without getting a "God did it", "because it says so in the bible".
One of the worst was Expert999(or Rufio999 ), but that will stop now.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by junglejake
I can't think of any medical advances through evolutionary biology off the top of my head that creationism (rather, disbelief in evolution) wouldn't have permitted to exist.

It isn't that creationism would prohibit them per se, it's that they would not have been found because we wouldn't have been looking.

Creationism is the modern day version of an earth-centered universe. If you accept it, then faith prohibits you from attempting to falsify it, and you do not reap the rewards of those attempts at falsification. Faith only permits you to look for that which strengthens faith.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
I can't think of any medical advances through evolutionary biology off the top of my head that creationism (rather, disbelief in evolution) wouldn't have permitted to exist.

It isn't that creationism would prohibit them per se, it's that they would not have been found because we wouldn't have been looking.

That's actually what I meant. I rewrote that sentance several times trying to get the wording right, and completely failed anyway That's what I mean, though, where has evolution looked and discovered that non-evolution believer would have missed?

Originally posted by spamandham
Repeatedly claiming that evidence is lacking does not make it true.

Neither does insisting it's true make it true. Pehaps you can address some very interesting points Mattison brings up in these links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Creationist Confusion

www.abovetopsecret.com...
evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by spamandham
held contingently and constantly subjected to attempts at falsification.

Science is not the chivalrous motivation you may think it is. Any doubts on that and you should try doing research for a university. It's all about the:



Now, me representing my beliefs, tell me what my motivation is. What I have falsified?

Originally posted by spamandham
The entire field of genetic engineering branched off from it and utilizes the same types of techniques to manipulate genetic codes that we observed in nature.

I know, it was my concentration and research work .

Originally posted by spamandham
Every single class of genetic mutation that would be necessary to get from a "simple" single cell organism to a "complex" large multi-cellular organism has been directly observed.

It has? Well that should settle the argument right here and now. Where is this information?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
You and I are alive, but think of all the millions of of people who die each day around the world. So I am responsible for how people have acted in the past? I can only control what I do, and so I think it's on his end of the relationship.

I think you answered the first part with the second part. You're right, you're responsible for what you do...so what is it you've done to turn away from God? If you say "nothing" then the first one is not recognizing that you've hurt him through your thoughts and actions. I don't know what it is specifically, you'd have to tell me. I can indicate "that's it" or "no, that wouldn't be it" based on experience and study if that would help.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I will continue to be open-minded and searching, but I have a question that may help. When is the last time ever God was supposedly seen/heard by someone(I mean in the Bible of course)?

Open-mindedness is good, searching even better. I'll do whatever I can to help on that search, just let me know what you need. Last one in the Bible to see/hear God...I believe it was the apostle John, when he had his revelation of Jesus.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I salute you Saint, as this is one of the only intelligent conversations I have had with a Creationist/Christian on either subject. I usually can't go one post without getting a "God did it", "because it says so in the bible".
One of the worst was Expert999(or Rufio999

), but that will stop now.

Thank you. I think it's important to explore these topics, though have high respect those who can accept on faith alone. The feeling is likewise, a lot of people get wrapped up in negative emotion and agendas.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Repeatedly claiming that evidence is lacking does not make it true.

Neither does insisting it's true make it true. Pehaps you can address some very interesting points Mattison brings up in these links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Creationist Confusion

www.abovetopsecret.com...
evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

You and I have already gone around the axle on evolution and I'm weary of answering the same questions over and over. Do your own research and then come back and explain why none of the evidence is valid.

Until you do, it will be assumed to remain valid.

You can start here: Evidence of macro-evolution

Originally posted by spamandham
You can start here: Evidence of macro-evolution

talkorigins.org has already been addressed. It's in the threads I cited. Next please.


[edit on 6-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
talkorigins.org has already been addressed. It's in the threads I cited. Next please.

Referencing a thread that references talkorigins is hardly the same as refuting the 29 evidences of macro-evolution in the link I provided.

But if you don't wish to take on the challenge forthright, I really don't care. The evidence remains despite your global assertion that it isn't there.

Originally posted by spamandham

Referencing a thread that references talkorigins is hardly the same as refuting the 29 evidences of macro-evolution in the link I provided.

But if you don't wish to take on the challenge forthright, I really don't care. The evidence remains despite your global assertion that it isn't there.

Come now, this isn't a fair attack considering you just blew off my request for examples to justify your statement about medical developments made through evolutionary research that wouldn't have been discovered had evolution not been studied.

If I have time despite the debate tourney going on, I'll go through your points and address them. I haven't read them yet, so I may conceide points to you, I dunno yet. Needless to say, I will read through it, even if I don't comment, because I'm curious and haven't heard of the 29 evidences for macro evolution.

Originally posted by junglejake
Come now, this isn't a fair attack considering you just blew off my request for examples to justify your statement about medical developments made through evolutionary research that wouldn't have been discovered had evolution not been studied.

There's no way to know what would have happened, all we can really say is what has happened. The point was that like all legitimate science, evolution has had practical spinoffs.

What are the practical spinoffs of creationism?

Ok, then what are some examples of medical development that were spurred on by evolutionary research? You made a distinction between genetic and evolutionary research, so I'm curious what specific developments you were referring to.

...gene therapy, genetic algorithms for neural networks, whole new fields of sociology and economics based on evolutionary principles. This is not a comprehensive list, and I'm not claiming none of this would have happened without evolutionary research, but it can't be denied benefits have been gained through such research.

So what fruit have we harvested from "creation science"?

Originally posted by spamandham
whole new fields of sociology and economics based on evolutionary principles.

Say what now?

So what fruit have we harvested from "creation science"?

I never said we had. If anything, though, creation science is forcing evolutionists and abiogenessists to solidify their theories and add more meat to them. By creation science (which is more anti-evolutionary science, generally) pointing to all the holes in evolutionary research, evolutionary research can prosper and develop into a more solid set of theories. It never hurts to point out holes in a scientific concept, it causes scientists to address them and seek answers, rather than turning a blind eye to that which is difficult, if not impossible, to explain. It is a natural human tendancy to take the path of least resistance (in my line of work, I see it all the time, turning a blind eye to the things that could be problems and focusing on the solid areas), and pointing out flaws can help people subvert this tendancy.

Originally posted by junglejake
I never said we had. If anything, though, creation science is forcing evolutionists and abiogenessists to solidify their theories and add more meat to them.

Creation science is contributing nothing. Creation scientists are summarily dismissed as incredulous crackpots by those involved in evolutionary science.

Evolutionary science has identified its own holes and is working toward a better understanding.

There is a place for competing theories in science, but the problem with creation "scientists" is they keep rehashing the same arguments over and over that have been discredited decades ago.

As a result they rightfully have 0 credibility in the scientific community. The leaders in the field of "creation science" are mostly decades out of date (Gish/Gentry), have deceptive credentials ("Dr." Kent Hovind, "Dr." Carl Baugh) , are outright frauds (the late Ron Wyatt) or are theologists using scientific sounding jargon within the context of deceptive arguments (Ken Ham).

There are creationists who are also respectable and brilliant individuals in their own right, but who are acting outside their fields of expertise such as Walt Brown, who in his book In the Beginning makes such claims as "living bacteria have been found in meteorites" (which is patently false).

There are those like Dr. Raymond Damadian who is a brilliant man no doubt, but who adheres to creationism for theological reasons.

Originally posted by saint4God
I think you answered the first part with the second part. You're right, you're responsible for what you do...so what is it you've done to turn away from God? If you say "nothing" then the first one is not recognizing that you've hurt him through your thoughts and actions. I don't know what it is specifically, you'd have to tell me. I can indicate "that's it" or "no, that wouldn't be it" based on experience and study if that would help.

I think you mean thoughts and inaction. I don't think I can do anymore than saying I will instantly believe and be loyal, on ANY PROOF AT ALL. I think my trouble always comes back to my need for proof. Faith is one thing, Blind Faith is another.

Open-mindedness is good, searching even better. I'll do whatever I can to help on that search, just let me know what you need. Last one in the Bible to see/hear God...I believe it was the apostle John, when he had his revelation of Jesus.

Maybe John caused God to be angry and never speak again. Do you know what he said?

Thank you. I think it's important to explore these topics, though have high respect those who can accept on faith alone. The feeling is likewise, a lot of people get wrapped up in negative emotion and agendas.

On the topic of accepting on faith alone, see my above comment. I don't think that is the best way to go about things, in my opinion

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I think you mean thoughts and inaction. I don't think I can do anymore than saying I will instantly believe and be loyal, on ANY PROOF AT ALL.

Wohoo! You my brother, are on the right track. And might I say a lot smarter in approach than I was when I had the question. I'd like to know more, so if interested in U2U'ing me, we can talk about details and histories.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I think my trouble always comes back to my need for proof. Faith is one thing, Blind Faith is another.

I know I know, working on it...time please. Patience too. You'll get it. Do you believe you'll get it?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Maybe John caused God to be angry and never speak again. Do you know what he said?

Nah, God said (paraphrase) "Close the book, we're done writing for now" to John. The rest of it is personal. No really, it's a personal aspect that one can communicate directly with God. Now, before calling me nutz, please consider that I hadn't had any communication that has any contradiction with the Word whatsoever....which is pretty wild if you think about it. To get additional information without contradictory info. These revalidations punch holes in the 'man wrote the Bible on his own and is bunk' claims.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
On the topic of accepting on faith alone, see my above comment. I don't think that is the best way to go about things, in my opinion

Understood and I think that's okay. The Bible doesn't say "believe just because" it says "seek and you'll find". It's a very important phrase, for even in the seeking is new discoveries and though sometimes time consuming, each moment is an investment in future return.


[edit on 7-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Wohoo! You my brother, are on the right track.

And might I say a lot smarter in approach than I was when I had the question. I'd like to know more, so if interested in U2U'ing me, we can talk about details and histories.

I will u2u you sometime after this post.

Originally posted by saint4God
I know I know, working on it...time please. Patience too. You'll get it. Do you believe you'll get it?

I think the proof of our origin is out there somewhere. However I do not think we will find it in my lifetime and therefore I would have to say no.Do not get me wrong though I am not trying to be pesimistic, just trying to be honest

Originally posted by saint4God
Nah, God said (paraphrase) "Close the book, we're done writing for now" to John. The rest of it is personal. No really, it's a personal aspect that one can communicate directly with God. Now, before calling me nutz, please consider that I hadn't had any communication that has any contradiction with the Word whatsoever....which is pretty wild if you think about it. To get additional information without contradictory info. These revalidations punch holes in the 'man wrote the Bible on his own and is bunk' claims.

Maybe they do not contradict the Word whatsoever because you do not let them? Just as someone expecting to see a UFO will see what they want to see. Im not saying your interpretations are wrong; Could you tell me how you communicated?

Man did write the Bible that is true, and about 10 pages ago didn't some-one bring up the fact that almost every chapter was not written by the person its about/first hand accounts. There is always gossip among people, and most people believed everything the heard. This does not make it bunk.