Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Dron_Cah]

I think this conversation is an excellent example that proves this quote:
“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice." -Mother Angelica

There are several points I would love to discuss here, but frankly, this thread is going at a break-neck pace and most of my comments would be ill-timed at this point.

I would like to lend my support to Yorick's rebuttal that no one has established the Bible as contradictory, or that 50% of Christians consider it to be bollocks.
That being said I would also like to stress that the argument should not be science OR faith, because the two are not mutually exclusive. To maintain that they are would be a huge slap in the face to many of the theistic scientists who developed those theories.

And Stratos, not to call you out, but if miracles happened to the majority of people rather than the rarities, wouldn't that take away their miraculous properties? So the 1 to hundreds ratio regarding miracles doesn't seem to be a very powerful argument, imo.
And couldn't the "rhyme and reason" they strike at just be one we can't discern, as of yet?

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Originally Posted by Dron_Cah I think this conversation is an excellent example that proves this quote: “For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice." -Mother Angelica There are several points I would love to discuss here, but frankly, this thread is going at a break-neck pace and most of my comments would be ill-timed at this point. I would like to lend my support to Yorick's rebuttal that no one has established the Bible as contradictory, or that 50% of Christians consider it to be bollocks. That being said I would also like to stress that the argument should not be science OR faith, because the two are not mutually exclusive. To maintain that they are would be a huge slap in the face to many of the theistic scientists who developed those theories.

Wow, well said!

[Lavindathar]

Originally Posted by Yorick And yet I'm an Aussie married to a Brit.

That was why I mentioned it

If you were actually American Hugh, I wouldn't say anything in case I offended

And I like the quote "People blinded by faith are merely ignorant and naieve".

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Stratos There is a small problem here; it is the experiencer that sits with all the relevant data. The data is rarely transferable to the critic or sceptic, often being subjecti in nature, yet he is expected to provide an alternative explanation. As such, the argumentation will always be biased in favour of the one making miracelous claims. The sceptic might be able to disprove the claim but it's unlikely; he has not to go by in his investigation. It might be wrong of him here to claim the experiencer is lying, but fairly OK to remain sceptic.

That's only partially true. If the skeptic claims the experience wasn't really "miraculous", then the burden of an alternative explanation falls to the one doubting the claim. And the explanation needs to be something more substantial than "coincidence or chance". Because then the skeptic is admitting that he/she cannot explain the cause of the event any more than the believer. They just attribute it to different sources.

Originally Posted by Stratos Any of the fancy tricks God does in the OT. Or simply an religiois experience that I would peg on God.

I'm hoping for something a little more specific. Take your time and think about what would honostly make you reconsider the existence of God.

Originally Posted by Stratos Thank you for telling us this story. I think you've told it before on TheOasisForums.

I've told it several times in different forums, including this one during my previous tenure.

Originally Posted by Stratos If miracles exist, they strike randomly, without rhyme or reason. For every one person who survive miracelously, there is a hundred stories of those that didn't.

The fact that hundreds don't survive is what makes the experience of one miraculous.

[Bungleau]

Interestingly, I just came across this article on Wired

To summarize...

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life By Alexis Madrigal A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life. It's not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that can almost be called life. Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe.

There's a lot more in the article, and while it doesn't pretend to imply the creation of human life, it does point towards a step on lower levels.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Cerek What do you have faith in if you believe most all gods are myths? To whom or what do you attribute the miracles you have witnessed?

I've already answered this, but may give another hint.

First, Why do you ask?

[Lavindathar]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca First, Why do you ask?

Most people ask questions when they want to know the answer.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Lavindathar Most people ask questions when they want to know the answer.

I disagree. Human motivation is varied and can often be unexpected.

For example, I have no interest in pedantic debate on the topic and if that's is the questioner's motive, I simply and respectfully won't answer. My faith is so strong and certain, debate like that is simply a waste of time when other more important work can be done.

Besides, I already provided the answer. To find it point in the shortest direction across the universe.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Bungleau Interestingly, I just came across this article on Wired To summarize... There's a lot more in the article, and while it doesn't pretend to imply the creation of human life, it does point towards a step on lower levels.

I'm guessing you read the whole article, at least I hope. I only scanned it briefly. But my question is, is it still in theoretical phases? Meaning is it mostly still on paper/computer models what have you? And if a human scientist can "create" a living cell in a lab, how does it prove/support "evolution"?

[Bungleau]

I did read it, albeit not much more in depth than you. It is beyond mathematical models, as they're working on developing cells that will replicate. They've got some that will do it when prompted, apparently, but not of their own volition. They indicate that it's another step down the path as they build more complex models.

I'm not certain that it works for or against either creationism or evolution at this point. Evolution can come across with this study, or you could also view it as a preliminary form of creationism... life being created by an outside force.

That's actually one of my own thoughts about God, the Divine, or however you'd like to say it. Imagine if you will that God is something like a gamer, playing a version of BG2, but one where he doesn't have to direct all the players. The misfortune that befalls some people may be a needed part of a larger plan, and while tragic in one sense, it works for something else.

Unfortunately, without knowing the game, it's nigh on impossible for those *in* the game to understand the game... they simply play, doing what they do.

My own thoughts, to be sure, and undoubtedly not well thought out at this point. However, I'm about to head out for the next several hours for dinner with my brother and his better half, and won't be able to expand on them for a bit.