An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith In Creation

reply to post by edmc^2


Normally I do like to finish a thread before responding, but it's clear where things are going when people start contradicting themselves.

First you say...

Originally posted by edmc^2
he was always there and is beyond time and space IS a valid logic answer!!!

It's logical and valid as the concept of INFINITY.

BTW - do you accept the concept that space and time are infinite?

If not then I'm sorry to say but you've passed the plateau of logic and went to realm of fantasy - i.e. evolution

Then you come back later to contradict your own "logic" with...

Originally posted by edmc^2
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

What does the evidence show?

Here:

"Evidence of a beginning"

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

The concept of infinity is usually represented by the figure of a sideways '8'. Do you know the significance of that symbol? To illustrate the concept of infinity has no beginning and no end. If you believe in a beginning (big bang/creation), then by your own words "you've passed the plateau of logic and went to realm of fantasy".

As for Job... seems reasonable that he saw roughly the same moon, sun, and stars that we do today (albeit at a slightly different angle due to earth's axis shifting over time). None of them appear to be hanging by ropes, supported by pillars, or any other means of visible support; so he could have simply rationalized the earth was "hanging on nothing" just like everything else he observed in the sky.

As for the OP.... I get it. An orthopedic surgeon is mystified by the complexity of the human body and, since she can't wrap her head around it, she feels the need to attribute it to "divine creation" to help her make sense of it all. She's not the first to use the "divine" scapegoat to explain away things she doesn't understand, and she certainly won't be the last. In the end she's still just a confused person trying to inject a greater personal sense of "meaning" into her life. If it helps her sleep better at night, then more power to her, but her faith-based opinion is no more important or persuasive than anyone else who accepts things blindly with no empirical evidence.

Originally posted by edmc^2

I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity but just to show you what your fellow evolutionist believe what evolution is really about.

Fascinating interview and facts.

The moment you link to a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron 'Way of the Master' video, is the moment you've lost all credibility you may of had and lost any argument on evolution you may have been engaged in (even more than the person that linked the Ben Stein video earlier on in the thread!).

How can I prove this? with the mighty crocoduck!



If you can't see just how dishonest Comfort's line of questioning is, how manipulative and selective he is in his questioning, then you're perfect fodder for him and his buisness...

reply to post by edmc^2

OK - not sure if you've seen this video already but many of your fellow evolutionist see evolution as a form of belief.

And BTW I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity but just to show you what your fellow evolutionist believe what evolution is really about.

Fascinating interview and facts.

If you really believe that Ray Comfort's film can be taken at face value and isn't a 40 minute exercise in quote-mining, then he should have no qualms about releasing the unedited interviews... right? Except that Ray has ignored all calls to do so. What's he so afraid of that he left it on the cutting room floor rather than include an honest portrayal of the facts in his film?

reply to post by edmc^2


LOL! Ray Comfort has no clue to what evolution really is, IMO he's just about the biggest dumba#s I've ever heard.
If you want to discuss theology one must be a form of theologian. I think sometimes atheists and other non-religious people seriously underestimate the power of irrationality.

NOT... AronRa.
Here is a better interview with REAL facts.


There is nothing in any of Ray Comfort works that support Intelligent Design and making claims that it does is simply a dishonest misrepresentation.

God rest ye dumb creationists, let nothing you dismay, Don't take the slightest notice of what scientists will say, 'Cos if you close your eyes real tight the facts will go away. O tidings of Ray Comfort and joy. Dr Adequate

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by edmc^2

I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity but just to show you what your fellow evolutionist believe what evolution is really about.

Fascinating interview and facts.

The moment you link to a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron 'Way of the Master' video, is the moment you've lost all credibility you may of had and lost any argument on evolution you may have been engaged in (even more than the person that linked the Ben Stein video earlier on in the thread!).

How can I prove this? with the mighty crocoduck!

If you can't see just how dishonest Comfort's line of questioning is, how manipulative and selective he is in his questioning, then you're perfect fodder for him and his buisness...

The moment you link to a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron 'Way of the Master' video, is the moment you've lost all credibility you may of had and lost any argument on evolution you may have been engaged in (even more than the person that linked the Ben Stein video earlier on in the thread!).

Obviously you did not read nor paid attention to what I said when I posted the video.

Here it is again:


"And BTW I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity."

"note: might need to stop the vid around the 25 min mark if you don't want to listen to Ray preach. Just look at the first part of the interview that's all i'm saying."

In any case - I didn't know I had credibility among evolutionist. Usually the moment I post something questioning the validity of evolution theory I get attacked right away and told of having no credibility at all.

But to me I don't really care what other people say if I'm credible or not because the most important thing is the message.

If a person starts attacking the messenger instead of the message then I know the message is correct and has credibility.

In the case of the vid from Mr. Comfort, it's quite revealing how the interviewee responded to the questions.

How they view evolution as a form of belief which is contrary to the position of Flyingfish, that is, "evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

But if you believe that I:

can't see just how dishonest Comfort's line of questioning is, how manipulative and selective he is in his questioning, then you're perfect fodder for him and his buisness...

Well the topic of the question was very clear, there was no hidden or trick question. I think it was an honest question and the response they gave was an honest reply.

Also I believe the people interviewed were not gullible and can reply in any way shape or form they want or not even reply if they think they were being tricked or being manipulated. I mean come on Prezbo369, can a professor like Prof. PZ Myers and the other noted scientist be tricked by poor old "uneducated in science" like Ray Comfort? You're giving him that much credit if you think he was able to manipulate such brilliant scientists! So from my perspective I think the interview was honest and the reply was heartfelt.

But the point is (however you feel about it) eveolution IS still a belief system. Believing on something that happened millions of years ago without solid verifiable evidence - one kind of species changing into a totally different kind of species (as laid out in the Darwinian evolution theory).


But let me ask you the same question - do you believe in evolution?

Not a trick question, just a simple and honest question.

What say you Prezbo?

reply to post by flyingfish



Like I said - the vid was for the interview only not what Mr. Comfort had to say.

What's so hard to understand about that.

That is, contrary to what you said, other proponents of evolution believe in evolution.

Not as you as you stated:

"evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

reply to post by iterationzero


Same question iterationzero.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

not a trick question

reply to post by redmage


Thanks Redmage for addressing the post but I think you're confused when you said:

The concept of infinity is usually represented by the figure of a sideways '8'. Do you know the significance of that symbol? To illustrate the concept of infinity has no beginning and no end. If you believe in a beginning (big bang/creation), then by your own words "you've passed the plateau of logic and went to realm of fantasy".

The INFINITY concept that I mentioned was related to the existence of God, that is He always existed. In other words if you can accept the concept of INFINITY why not an ALWAYS EXISTING God - Creator of the Universe?

Why not?

As for the universe (OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE) - obviously it had a beginning but SPACE and TIME on the other hand are INFINITE - they have no END nor Beginning just like God.

I hope I made this clear enough for you.

As for Job

... seems reasonable that he saw roughly the same moon, sun, and stars that we do today (albeit at a slightly different angle due to earth's axis shifting over time). None of them appear to be hanging by ropes, supported by pillars, or any other means of visible support; so he could have simply rationalized the earth was "hanging on nothing" just like everything else he observed in the sky.

So are you saying then that Job was way smarter than the Egyptians or the Greeks or the other intellectuals of the past?

If so how could this be since many, especially critics of the bible view the Bible as a mere novel written by goat and sheep herders? How could the writers posses such knowledge, an advanced one at that?

Any idea?

reply to post by edmc^2


Semantics much...

So, now you go from calling evolution a "belief systeme" to something you believe in.
Again..I know, you know, and everyone reading this knows, your trying to confuse the word "belief" as applied to evolution in science with a faith.

You're really easily fooled by simple things, humans for the most part, are not objective and are capable of believing almost anything. In order to differentiate fantasy from what is reality, science insists on evidence. The fact that people are prone to irrational beliefs is the reason we have science.

Evidence...far and away the best method of making sense of reality.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Semantics much...

So, now you go from calling evolution a "belief systeme" to something you believe in.
Again..I know, you know, and everyone reading this knows, your trying to confuse the word "belief" as applied to evolution in science with a faith.

You're really easily fooled by simple things, humans for the most part, are not objective and are capable of believing almost anything. In order to differentiate fantasy from what is reality, science insists on evidence. The fact that people are prone to irrational beliefs is the reason we have science.

Evidence...far and away the best method of making sense of reality.

So, now you go from calling evolution a "belief systeme" to something you believe in. Again..I know, you know, and everyone reading this knows, your trying to confuse the word "belief" as applied to evolution in science with a faith.

Nope I didn't just go calling evolution a "belief system" it's a fact that evolution theory is a BELIEF SYSTEM.

And since you mentioned FAITH, do you have faith in what scientists are telling you about evolution?


BTW - how many evolutionist in here?

I noticed it's just me and Blue_Jay against what 6 evolutionists?

Where's the legion?

reply to post by edmc^2

Since you're wanting to play semantic games, I'll just answer your question with a quote from one of your fellow theists:

I don’t “believe in” evolution any more than I “believe” that germs cause disease and matter is composed of atoms. I accept these theories because they are the best-evidenced explanations of natural phenomena that we currently have.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Since you're wanting to play semantic games, I'll just answer your question with a quote from one of your fellow theists:

I don’t “believe in” evolution any more than I “believe” that germs cause disease and matter is composed of atoms. I accept these theories because they are the best-evidenced explanations of natural phenomena that we currently have.

Huh??? What's the quote to me?

Nothing. Remember what I said?

Pay attention please.

Here it is again:

"And BTW I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity."

"note: might need to stop the vid around the 25 min mark if you don't want to listen to Ray preach. Just look at the first part of the interview that's all i'm saying."

Try as you may, you can't tie me in with Mr. Ray Comfort. To fundamentalist yes.

You know why?

I'll let you figure that one out maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

You on the other hand can't seem to figure out whether to believe or not to believe evolution.

Whether if its a lie or a joke or a fact. All you can do is understand but not believe.

What a conundrum.



[edit:

Why is it so hard to get a simple clear cut answer from evolution proponents?

Do you believe in evolution or not?

BTW - your qoute is from a EVOLUTION THEIST not a THEIST.

And No such thing as evolution theist but an evolutionist who try to make a fool of himself.

It's a joke if there's really one.


lollol:

Nice try.

reply to post by edmc^2

BTW - your qoute is from a EVOLUTION THEIST not a THEIST.

And No such thing as evolution theist but an evolutionist who try to make a fool of himself.

It's a joke if there's really one.

I agree, your reply is a fantastic joke. It's called the No True Scotsman joke and the punchline is your claim that there's "no such thing as evolution theist".

reply to post by edmc^2


Hello edmic^2

I'm not sure if your purposely constructing flawed arguments or not, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and help you out with some tools.
HERE is an easy to navigate site to help you avoid reasoning flaws in your arguments.

Your welcome

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Hello edmic^2

I'm not sure if your purposely constructing flawed arguments or not, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and help you out with some tools.
HERE is an easy to navigate site to help you avoid reasoning flaws in your arguments.

Your welcome

You mean like this argument of yours?

"evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

Meaning...

Evolution is NOT something you believe in because it's not reality, it's something you understand because it's the ONLY way to avoid reality.

For example - a fish turning into a lizard must be based on pure understanding that something impossible as a fish turning into a lizard will happen and did happen.


Just like amphibian evolving into a reptile, reptile into a bird, bird into mammal, mammal into human inspite of the lack of observable evidence.

Since evolution IS NOT testable nor observable over time...

thus...

"evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

...and it's the ONLY way to suspend reality logic and common sense.

...to understand (ahem..to have faith) that such thing IS true.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

BTW - your qoute is from a EVOLUTION THEIST not a THEIST.

And No such thing as evolution theist but an evolutionist who try to make a fool of himself.

It's a joke if there's really one.

I agree, your reply is a fantastic joke. It's called the No True Scotsman joke and the punchline is your claim that there's "no such thing as evolution theist".

EDIT:


You mean this silly joke?



A theist who happen to believe in evolution or an evolutionist who happen to believe in God?

If so that person is a fantastic joke.

But if you do believe that such a person exist then the joke is on you.

As for fallacy, how's this one?

"evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand"

BTW - Do you believe evolution?

Do you believe in evolution?

What say you iterationzero?

Is there no fallacy to this statement?

"evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand"

If so, if you don't believe evolution then what's the point of understanding it?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Obviously you did not read nor paid attention to what I said when I posted the video.

That's rich, considering...

"And BTW I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity."

Nobody is saying you do have any affiliation with Ray Comfort or his version of Christianity.

So please read carefully and paid attention to what I said when I replied to your comment, or don't bother replying at all.

In any case - I didn't know I had credibility among evolutionist.

Nobody is saying you do........so

please read carefully and paid attention to what I said when I replied to your comment, or don't bother replying at all.

Usually the moment I post something questioning the validity of evolution theory I get attacked right away and told of having no credibility at all.

Considering the methods you use when you are 'questioning the validity of evolution theory' and the dishonest tactics of debate your engage in, it's very understandable tbh...

But to me I don't really care what other people say if I'm credible or not because the most important thing is the message.

How do you expect anyone to listen to you (and therefore receive 'the message'), if they think you have no credibility?.....

In the case of the vid from Mr. Comfort, it's quite revealing how the interviewee responded to the questions.

What's very revealing how is the semantic games he plays in his questioning, are very very similar to the ones you employ. Very revealing...

How they view evolution as a form of belief which is contrary to the position of Flyingfish, that is, "evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

Case in point, you continue to badger people with this line of questioning in the hope of snaring someone with a 'AHA!' moment if they admit/confess to holding a 'belief system'. It's dishonest semantics at its very worst and will only work with the naive and/or confused.

If evolution is a 'belief system', then what isn't a 'belief system'?

Are atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics) and quantum field theory also belief systems?

Also I believe the people interviewed were not gullible and can reply in any way shape or form they want or not even reply if they think they were being tricked or being manipulated. I mean come on Prezbo369, can a professor like Prof. PZ Myers and the other noted scientist be tricked by poor old "uneducated in science" like Ray Comfort? You're giving him that much credit if you think he was able to manipulate such brilliant scientists!

They're scientists, not debaters. They don't walk around attempting to stump people every day like Ray Comfort does, and they don't make a very healthy living from it, unlike Mr Comfort and friends....

But the point is (however you feel about it) eveolution IS still a belief system. Believing on something that happened millions of years ago without solid verifiable evidence - one kind of species changing into a totally different kind of species (as laid out in the Darwinian evolution theory).

You may not notice this, but the above paragraph says more about you and your worldview than could possibly have been intended.

But let me ask you the same question - do you believe in evolution?

I accept it, just like I accept all other well established scientific theories.............

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by edmc^2

Obviously you did not read nor paid attention to what I said when I posted the video.

That's rich, considering...

"And BTW I have no affiliation with Ray Comfort nor promoting him or his version of Christianity."

Nobody is saying you do have any affiliation with Ray Comfort or his version of Christianity.

So please read carefully and paid attention to what I said when I replied to your comment, or don't bother replying at all.

In any case - I didn't know I had credibility among evolutionist.

Nobody is saying you do........so

please read carefully and paid attention to what I said when I replied to your comment, or don't bother replying at all.

Usually the moment I post something questioning the validity of evolution theory I get attacked right away and told of having no credibility at all.

Considering the methods you use when you are 'questioning the validity of evolution theory' and the dishonest tactics of debate your engage in, it's very understandable tbh...

But to me I don't really care what other people say if I'm credible or not because the most important thing is the message.

How do you expect anyone to listen to you (and therefore receive 'the message'), if they think you have no credibility?.....

In the case of the vid from Mr. Comfort, it's quite revealing how the interviewee responded to the questions.

What's very revealing how is the semantic games he plays in his questioning, are very very similar to the ones you employ. Very revealing...

How they view evolution as a form of belief which is contrary to the position of Flyingfish, that is, "evolution is NOT something you believe in, it's something you understand".

Case in point, you continue to badger people with this line of questioning in the hope of snaring someone with a 'AHA!' moment if they admit/confess to holding a 'belief system'. It's dishonest semantics at its very worst and will only work with the naive and/or confused.

If evolution is a 'belief system', then what isn't a 'belief system'?

Are atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics) and quantum field theory also belief systems?

Also I believe the people interviewed were not gullible and can reply in any way shape or form they want or not even reply if they think they were being tricked or being manipulated. I mean come on Prezbo369, can a professor like Prof. PZ Myers and the other noted scientist be tricked by poor old "uneducated in science" like Ray Comfort? You're giving him that much credit if you think he was able to manipulate such brilliant scientists!

They're scientists, not debaters. They don't walk around attempting to stump people every day like Ray Comfort does, and they don't make a very healthy living from it, unlike Mr Comfort and friends....

But the point is (however you feel about it) eveolution IS still a belief system. Believing on something that happened millions of years ago without solid verifiable evidence - one kind of species changing into a totally different kind of species (as laid out in the Darwinian evolution theory).

You may not notice this, but the above paragraph says more about you and your worldview than could possibly have been intended.

But let me ask you the same question - do you believe in evolution?

I accept it, just like I accept all other well established scientific theories.............

Of course I payed attention to what you said.

Bottom line is what's the point of understanding something WITHOUT believing in it?

Or whats the point of believing without understanding?

The two come hand and hand.

If one understand evolution and accepts it as a fact then that person must obviously believe that it IS a fact.

There's no other way to put it.

It's not a gotcha 'AHA' moment, it's just stating the fact.

It's either you BELIEVE in it or NOT or as you put it - ACCEPT or NOT but it always will boil down to believing in it or not.

to believe is to accept - that's all I'm saying.

paid/payed - hah!

reply to post by edmc^2

I've answered your question to my satisfaction. I've answered your question to the satisfaction of theists who understand evolution. You seem to be the only one that isn't satisfied by my response, because it doesn't engage you in the semantic equivocation game you wish to play. How is it that theists and atheists alike can accept the way I've answered my question, but you cannot? Is it because I'm pointedly deciding not to play your semantic game? Or as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

A belief system is defined as "a system of beliefs". A belief is defined as "mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence". People accept scientific theories because of their supporting empirical evidence, not "regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence". How is acceptance of a scientific theory equivalent to belief in this context? Or, as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

Further expansion of the definition of belief system suggests that the "beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these". So which facet of acceptance of evolution (or any other scientific theory) based on its supporting empirical evidence would be classified as "religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these"? Or as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I've answered your question to my satisfaction. I've answered your question to the satisfaction of theists who understand evolution. You seem to be the only one that isn't satisfied by my response, because it doesn't engage you in the semantic equivocation game you wish to play. How is it that theists and atheists alike can accept the way I've answered my question, but you cannot? Is it because I'm pointedly deciding not to play your semantic game? Or as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

A belief system is defined as "a system of beliefs". A belief is defined as "mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence". People accept scientific theories because of their supporting empirical evidence, not "regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence". How is acceptance of a scientific theory equivalent to belief in this context? Or, as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

Further expansion of the definition of belief system suggests that the "beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these". So which facet of acceptance of evolution (or any other scientific theory) based on its supporting empirical evidence would be classified as "religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these"? Or as you would say...

What say you edmc^2?

What say meh?

Well fact is fact.

If you ACCEPT that SOMETHING or ANYTHING is a fact then logically you believe that it is. Otherwise why accept it?

What's so hard to understand about that fact?

No play of words in there or use of semantics - just plain old matter of fact and has nothing to do with philosophy or religious ideology.

As for the Theist/Atheist accepting evolution, it's like water and oil, can't mix as far as I'm concerned.

But for anyone who says it can, then it's a fools gold. For how can a person say that God used evolution to make make man what he is today and at the same time ACCEPTS Jesus as his savior?

For what reason did Jesus died and for what reason MUST we ACCEPT him as our SAVIOR?

SIN!

What does evolution say about SIN, part of the plan? Nuts!

So it's preposterous for someone to claim he ACCEPTS Jesus as his savior and at the same time ACCEPT that man came through evolution, that is:

From fish to amphibian, to reptile to bird to mammal to human.

Furthermore Jesus himself said:

“. . .“Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”” (Matthew 19:4-6)

What say you iterationzero, still believe that there's such a thing as Evolution Theist?

I don't - says meh!