Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood I can't believe were just a bunch of cells and electrical impulses. There has to be something more. But sorry, evolution can't give us that either. I wish someone would just answer one of my questions. A straight answer. None of this "oh, they've answered a million questions" stuff. Why do we have taste buds if we only eat to live? I'll let my man Yorick take it from here...

Variol, I think the problem you have with all this is that you demand absolute answers from science, and wont believe some of it until you do. That is an unreasonable demand, neither science nor anything else can give you such certainty. We can, however, be pretty certain about things. You look at things and draw the best conclusions based on that.

Do you require the same certainty in other aspects of life as well?

BTW, which question do you want an answer to?

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood I know you misunderstand me. I just find the "theory" of evolution and the big bang "theory" are taken as fact and there's no enough evidence to support it. So, I'm just asking that as long as that's what it is, lets call it that.

How much evidence is enough evidence? In one way, you could always claim that there isn't enough evidence. You can say that there sin't enough evidence, but how much of the evidence have you yourself studied to come to this conclusion? Keep in mind that the ToE is widely accepted by the scientific community, and particularely those in the life sciences. People more intelligent and far more educated in the field than any of us accept the theory.

Evolutionists have no problem whatsoever denouncing anything in the Bible, but heaven forbid someone should question their theories.

Everyone is free to question and criticize the theory. The problem is that many who do don't do it from a position of knowledge; they don't really understand what the theory actually says.

How would you feel if people startet to criticize the Bible with arguments like "How come the Bible says that smurfs exist? Smurfs don't exist!" You would have asked them to actually read the Bible and then come back, no?

Can we at least say that some supreme being had to have started something, however small, or big? Just until we know otherwise? Is that so bad? You don't have to kneel to Him; you don't have to worship Him; you have to care one lick about Him. In fact, I'm glad you don't! I'm glad you have the freedom to choose and I hope that never changes, 'cos once we find out for sure that creation is true, arn't we really just slaves to it?

God is not added to any scientific theory but that has nothing to do with scientists not being willing to kneel to God. Many scientists, perhaps even the majority, are theists.

I could tell you about plenty of miracles, but a non-believer will chalk them up to chance, coincidence, or whatever. So, I take my faith, weak though it may be and continue to drudge along, failing in my faith and sinning every day, such is my choice.

Perhaps, but the non-believe would probably ask you to analyze the miracle for systematically and try to rule out other explanations before he or she would accept it.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Yorick Namely that whether he knows much about what he's arguing AGAINST is not entirely relevant if we're all sharing our opinions. What matters more is that he knows about what he's arguing FOR. I mean how many people arguing against creationism have actually studied creation science? Most people even now still presume creationism is based on the genesis story and that's it.

I would say "evolutionists" know more about Creationism that the other way around, but that's beside the point.

Anyway, it's true that Creationism is more than just what is written in the Bible. However, if a Creationist adds something not in the Bible and then verify it, he hasn't verified the Bible, just the stuff he added.

Cheers!

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Jaradu Ditto with the talking snake, dude.

Brilliant

Originally Posted by Jaradu I'm perfectly willing to change or alter my beliefs in light of new evidence, whereas a religious person is rewarded for doing the opposite, calling it "faith", and getting a big pat on the back.

This is very true, from my personal experiences. How would the christian world react if someone discovered something, I don't know what, from years back which said that it was all a rouse? To take a brilliant example, say, a page from the bible saying 'To my darling Candy; All characters in this book are purely ficticious and any resemblance to characters living or dead is purely coincidental' (). Instantly, the pope would call it blasphemous, people would kick off about it, it'd be some form of hoax or something, and we'd all be home in time for cakes. Faith is adaptable, but not changeable. It can be tweaked. But to denounce it or change it radically is impossible - and refusing to do so would be, like Jaradu said, be called faith, and rewarded. Faith to something which, may well be wrong.

Originally Posted by Yorick The existence of diamonds, which require pressure to form from coal (water pressure?)

Sorry mate, that one is 100% feeble.

Originally Posted by Yorick 100's of archeological digs that confirm events in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles.

Just because Cloverfield was set in New York, does that mean in 2000 years people are going to believe it happened, just because Archeologists found the ruins of the statue of liberty? I could easily believe that Jesus existed, but if he did, he was a human. He was a con man. A fraud who convinced a lot of people. If only Derren Brown lived 2000 years ago. We'd have a totally different life of Derrenism. The stories of the bible were set in the world we live in, to make them more accessible for the reader, complete with what, at the time, we'd now call 'Pop Culture' references. Writers and novelists use them all the time.

Originally Posted by Yorick Literary - the Bible is the most verified work in human possession, with the new Testament having 25,000 manuscript copies dating back to 50-80 years after it was written. New finds such as Dead Sea Scrolls, being consistent with previously posessed works.

The amount of inconsistencies in the bible has already been addressed. But there's no point racking off more bible verses. Because we can all find one that contradicts what the last person will have posted.

Originally Posted by Yorick Physics - Einsteins theory of relativity. Time slows down in relation to increased speed. If 99.9% of matter was formed within the first two nanoseconds of the big bang, and it all moved out at unthinkably fast speeds, who is to say, billions of years of development occurred within a few days, relative to the speed it was traveling?

This, however, is a very interesting point. And gives me something to think on. It's the first time that someone in this thread has managed to do that! So well done

Originally Posted by Jaradu To differentiate between different meats and plants so that we can build up a mental database of what gives us a lot of energy, what's poisonous, what's tainted, etc.

The first thing I said to myself when I saw this was just "BAM". Perfect answer, friend"

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood Can we at least say that some supreme being had to have started something, however small, or big? Just until we know otherwise? Is that so bad? You don't have to kneel to Him; you don't have to worship Him; you have to care one lick about Him.

Not at all. I believe in science just as strongly as you believe in Christ, and I'd never ask you to denounce your faith until we prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Jaradu Sorry, it works the other way around. I believe there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter, and until you can prove otherwise, let's just assume it exists. I believe there is an elephant under my bed, and until you can prove otherwise, let's just assume it exists. I believe there is a magical space-daddy who made everything in the universe, and until you can prove otherwise, let's just assume he exists. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims, not the rest, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You sir, are the best thing in this thread

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I'm not asking anybody to believe anything. The "we" refers to believers, not non-believers.

And if you're down on "religion" because of something someone did at some point; well what can I say... we're all sinners and many people out there don't represent their religion very well to say the least. I can't blame non-believers for getting a hate on for all of it. I would ask that you judge people individually though and many of us do try and do what we have been called to do. Some do amazingly well at it. I struggle more than others, but I carry on and through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit, I carry on and it gets better (or I get better) maybe.

..and sorry Luvian, but you're incorrect about my knowledge. I know a lot about it, because I love it. Any show about space and the universe etc. I watch. ..drives my wife nuts!
Practical Guide to the Universe was on Discovery some time back. They're half hour segments, narrated by Tom Selleck. They kept running one after another. I finally got to bed at 4am. (If you ever want to feel insignificant, I highly recommend watching it)
That's why I can ask the questions I asked. And yes, I question the people who say "this is what happened", because in many cases, it's still only their best guess. Again, just call it what it is, until you're sure, 100%. If people choose to believe it anyway, that's great for them.

And dplax and Luvian, and anyone else for that matter: hold those people accountable. Question that teacher; ask that Priest if he's doing what Christ would have done: is this being a good samaritin?
Hold Yorick, Cerek and myself accountable and anyone else who professes their faith. I do it and I very much appreciate it when others do it to me. I goof up all the time, I falter in my faith. I'm sure I have not represented what I've been called to be in this thread. I'm sorry for that. I know I sometimes use the wrong words and don't proof-read what I have typed enough.

So, please don't judge me too harshly on my belief, unfounded though it may be. I know I'm a better person with it, than without it.

(anybody know why I can't see the flashing cursor anymore? did I hit a wrong button, or something?)

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood I'm not asking anybody to believe anything. The "we" refers to believers, not non-believers. And if you're down on "religion" because of something someone did at some point; well what can I say... we're all sinners and many people out there don't represent their religion very well to say the least.

I've never been 'up' on religion. Even though I studied it plenty through Catholic Primary School and Catholic High School, and Catholic College - religious studies being compulsory. That's RE from the ages of 4 to 18. I've never believed in it. As for something someone 'did', I remember when the little faith I had in God disappeared totally. It was a few years back; when my friend's 14 year old sister died of Leukemia. I was with the College Chaplain on the day it happened. I remember him trying to justify it in some nonsensical way and I just couldn't accept a word of it. To try and say that a god who could let a 14 year old die, after years of struggle, was disrespectful to her memory, and just an image of an awful, malevolent lord, if such a being exsists.

[Dragonshadow]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir I've never been 'up' on religion. Even though I studied it plenty through Catholic Primary School and Catholic High School, and Catholic College - religious studies being compulsory. That's RE from the ages of 4 to 18. I've never believed in it. As for something someone 'did', I remember when the little faith I had in God disappeared totally. It was a few years back; when my friend's 14 year old sister died of Leukemia. I was with the College Chaplain on the day it happened. I remember him trying to justify it in some nonsensical way and I just couldn't accept a word of it. To try and say that a god who could let a 14 year old die, after years of struggle, was disrespectful to her memory, and just an image of an awful, malevolent lord, if such a being exsists.

I went to a Christian primary school, and a secondary run by a devout Catholic. I never really beleived in God, but kept the mind frame of "he could exist". Similarly, what little faith I may have had, I lost when my gran died and a well meaning Christian friend said "God planned it all out, including her death. He has greater plans for her". To me, that was like saying God killed her. I wondered, if God planned my gran dying, did he plan my grandad's painful death? Did he plan her misery through memory loss? Did he plan my family's years of pain watching my sister trying to destroy herself? Let's not even start on wars and people who have it a hell of a lot worse off than my family. Imho, if God does exist and planned everything, he has a hell of a lot to answer for.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Dragonshadow I went to a Christian primary school, and a secondary run by a devout Catholic. I never really beleived in God, but kept the mind frame of "he could exist". Similarly, what little faith I may have had, I lost when my gran died and a well meaning Christian friend said "God planned it all out, including her death. He has greater plans for her". To me, that was like saying God killed her. I wondered, if God planned my gran dying, did he plan my grandad's painful death? Did he plan her misery through memory loss? Did he plan my family's years of pain watching my sister trying to destroy herself? Let's not even start on wars and people who have it a hell of a lot worse off than my family. Imho, if God does exist and planned everything, he has a hell of a lot to answer for.

Exactly, there's far too much evil and injustice in the world for this benevolent god to exist. I just fail to see how causing a 14 year old girl years of pain, and then a slow death, falls under the category of loving.

But like you said, Liz, it's not just that. There're examples in everybody's life. Christians will say that these things are sent to test us, and improve out faith etc. But I'd rather do without it thank you very much. Someone earlier, think it was Yorick, said that 'here was to praying that the third world debt was called off'.

How does this god even allow it to exist? Starvation? Disease? Poverty?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Stratos How much evidence is enough evidence? In one way, you could always claim that there isn't enough evidence. You can say that there sin't enough evidence, but how much of the evidence have you yourself studied to come to this conclusion? Keep in mind that the ToE is widely accepted by the scientific community, and particularely those in the life sciences. People more intelligent and far more educated in the field than any of us accept the theory.

The question of "how much evidence is enough" cuts both ways, Stratos. Non-believers ask for "evidence". Believers provide personal experiences and/or events they have read or heard about. And the non-believer almost universally dismisses it as coincidence, happenstance or anomaly that must have a logical explanation if the person of faith would only look at it objectively. Note that, in that case, the burden of proof is on the non-believer, since they are the one discounting the claim, they are the ones that have the burden of providing an alternative explanation that can be backed up with more than "just coincidence(sp?).

So, let me ask all the non-believers here a very simple question. What would it take for you to believe God exists? What sign would you need to see to convince you He is real? This is not a trick question, this is an honost attempt to determine what evidence you would consider sufficient.

Originally Posted by Stratos Perhaps, but the non-believe would probably ask you to analyze the miracle for systematically and try to rule out other explanations before he or she would accept it.

Fair enough. I had a miracle in my own life in 1996 (there have been many smaller ones, but those would not be counted as such by non-believers). I was diagnosed with a chronic illness called Chron's disease at the age of 21. For those unfamiliar with it, let me just say it was one nasty beast. The immune system goes into overdrive and begins attacking parts of the body - primarily the digestive tract. MOST of the cases occur in the colon (large intestine) but can actually manifest anywhere in the digestive tract (my ex-wife knew a lady with Chron's in her mouth and throat). In 1996, the disease launched an especially vicious attack on my body, killing over 95% of my colon. The whole thing ruptured and my body began pumping waste into my abdominal cavity. I can assure you the pain is indescribable (I can honostly say I know how a samurai feels when he commits hari-kari, because that is effectively what my body did, without using a sword).
Through a series of events, it took more than 30 hours before I was taken into an operating room. During the surgery, my body was so contaminated that one of the veteran OR nurses had to leave the room because they became ill at the very sight of what happened.
After 18 hours of surgery, the surgeon came out to my mom and (then) wife. When they asked how I was doing, the surgeons exact words were "Do you believe in miracles?" They both said "Of course we do". "Then you better start praying for your miracle right now, because that is the only thing that is going to save him." The surgeon went on to explain that he had done his best, but the damage was just too extensive. Peritonitis was running rampant throughout my abdomen and internal organs. It was only a matter of time before the poison entered my bloodstream and would be spread throughout the rest of my body. Once that happened, it would be over. There would be nothing that could save me. He told them I had roughly 72 hours to live before the peritonitis spread throughout my system.

I have talked to several doctors, PAs and RNs since then (I worked in a hospital at the time) and asked them if the doctor's diagnosis was correct. Every single one of them has answered "Yes. With peritonitis that widespread for that long, it should have entered your bloodstream. That is the natural progression and there is no medical reason for the poison to NOT spread to your blood."

So, you see, I did ask other experts if there was an alternative explanation and the response has been uniformly "No. The peritonitis should have spread to your bloodstream and that would have been fatal."

While I doubt my experience will convince any non-believers, I provided what was asked for - a miracle in which alternative explanations had been explored.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Cerek The question of "how much evidence is enough" cuts both ways, Stratos. Non-believers ask for "evidence". Believers provide personal experiences and/or events they have read or heard about. And the non-believer almost universally dismisses it as coincidence, happenstance or anomaly that must have a logical explanation if the person of faith would only look at it objectively. Note that, in that case, the burden of proof is on the non-believer, since they are the one discounting the claim, they are the ones that have the burden of providing an alternative explanation that can be backed up with more than "just coincidence(sp?). So, let me ask all the non-believers here a very simple question. What would it take for you to believe God exists? What sign would you need to see to convince you He is real? This is not a trick question, this is an honost attempt to determine what evidence you would consider sufficient. Fair enough. I had a miracle in my own life in 1996 (there have been many smaller ones, but those would not be counted as such by non-believers). I was diagnosed with a chronic illness called Chron's disease at the age of 21. For those unfamiliar with it, let me just say it was one nasty beast. The immune system goes into overdrive and begins attacking parts of the body - primarily the digestive tract. MOST of the cases occur in the colon (large intestine) but can actually manifest anywhere in the digestive tract (my ex-wife knew a lady with Chron's in her mouth and throat). In 1996, the disease launched an especially vicious attack on my body, killing over 95% of my colon. The whole thing ruptured and my body began pumping waste into my abdominal cavity. I can assure you the pain is indescribable (I can honostly say I know how a samurai feels when he commits hari-kari, because that is effectively what my body did, without using a sword). Through a series of events, it took more than 30 hours before I was taken into an operating room. During the surgery, my body was so contaminated that one of the veteran OR nurses had to leave the room because they became ill at the very sight of what happened. After 18 hours of surgery, the surgeon came out to my mom and (then) wife. When they asked how I was doing, the surgeons exact words were "Do you believe in miracles?" They both said "Of course we do". "Then you better start praying for your miracle right now, because that is the only thing that is going to save him." The surgeon went on to explain that he had done his best, but the damage was just too extensive. Peritonitis was running rampant throughout my abdomen and internal organs. It was only a matter of time before the poison entered my bloodstream and would be spread throughout the rest of my body. Once that happened, it would be over. There would be nothing that could save me. He told them I had roughly 72 hours to live before the peritonitis spread throughout my system. I have talked to several doctors, PAs and RNs since then (I worked in a hospital at the time) and asked them if the doctor's diagnosis was correct. Every single one of them has answered "Yes. With peritonitis that widespread for that long, it should have entered your bloodstream. That is the natural progression and there is no medical reason for the poison to NOT spread to your blood." So, you see, I did ask other experts if there was an alternative explanation and the response has been uniformly "No. The peritonitis should have spread to your bloodstream and that would have been fatal." While I doubt my experience will convince any non-believers, I provided what was asked for - a miracle in which alternative explanations had been explored.

Sorry to hear that Cerek, and I'm glad to hear you pulled through in shape. My question, regarding that would go thus:

I presume you regard your recovery as a miracle from god; and that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't have faith in your god? Am I right in thinking this?

So, does this mean someone who didn't have faith would have perished?

By this logic it just seems like God will save those with faith in him - although the bible states he loves all equally?

As for the 'what would you need?' evidence wise, I'm not sure. But I'd need something physical. Something I could see. Actual proof. More than just a feeling. And more than Bishop Brennan's face appearing on a skirting board.