Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 07:02 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 06:51 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 09:47 PM)jennybee Wrote:  The OT is not talking about Jesus. It never was. Christians took passages out of context and twisted them to fit Jesus. If you read the passages in the OT in their correct context, it makes much more sense that they were never talking about Jesus.

The prophecies in the Bible are talking about events taking place in their own time. Not things happening many, many years in the future. Again if you read the Bible in its correct context, read "prophecies" in their correct historical context, the Bible makes much more sense. If you don't and take passages out of context, you can literally find the Bible predicting anything and everything due to the way it is written.

The creation story does not line up with science. A talking snake and the human race created out of dust and a rib. Not too mention the slew of other things that are not consistent which again Christians love to try and twist to line up with science in the most creative possible ways.

A huge focus of the Old Testament is on the coming Messiah. This is Christianity and Judaism 101. Jesus is that Messiah.

Read Isiah 53: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

Read:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

There is a ton of prophecy in the Bible. Read Daniel and Revelation. The year Jesus would be baptised and then crucified is in the Book of Daniel (600 years prior to it happening), as are many other prophecies. Book of Daniel is filled with astounding time based prophecies.

Creation story lines up with science. See chart below for Day-Age interpretation:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Someone doesn't understand after the fact writing. Derp.Hobo

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-06-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(14-06-2016 05:37 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:56 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Death entered the world for man after the fall. I believe there was animal death prior to the fall of man. I believe that is how Adam knew what God meant when He told him that if he ate from the tree of knowledge he would surely die. I think animal death was the example. God knows all and in my interpretation, he knew, despite Adam seeing the example of animal death, he would still disobey. Jesus, Son of God, came to this earth to redeem us from this fall.

I believe Adam walked the earth somewhere between 50,000 - 200,000 years ago. I believe the genealogy in the Bible from Adam to Abraham are just the key highlights of descendants (great grandfathers,...). I believe the Neanderthals and the like were like monkeys and belonged to the animal kingdom and Adam and Eve were the first modern humans which all our DNA traces back to.

I believe Ellen White created the ridiculous 6000 year old earth (Young Earth Creationism) to make Christianity appear as if it is based on a weak argument. I believe she was a false prophetess and deliberately created this view as a straw man to be easily knocked down. She made up many other rules and false interpretations and made it more difficult for people to come to Christianity. She made/makes her Christian followers lives hard with all these rules as well and adds on to God's commands which is strictly forbidden.

You chose number 2 - You are dishonest, fortunately your dishonesty works only on you, it's not going to fly on this forum.

I notice that you want to pretend to accept science, saying that our DNA goes back to the mythical Adam and Eve.

It goes back further than that, it goes back to non-human primate ancestors up to and including endogenous retroviruses.

Understand what that means?

We inherited the genetic markers of viruses from our primate ancestors, long before humans existed, these viral markers were in primates and they were passed down to us.

1.Viruses existed before humans and were in the DNA of our primate ancestors.

2.We inherited these same DNA.

Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Your mythology does not stand up to scientific evidence.

But you'll no doubt just make up more stories to try to reconcile science with myth.

DNA goes back to a single man and single women. Read about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(14-06-2016 05:48 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  the whole idea of the universe needing to be finely tuned cracks me up. so god just haphazardly tossed the shit out there, then had to make adjustments to his sloppy work? id like to see a universe that is not so finely tuned in order to compare.

Not needing to be fine-tuned, it is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent. I think it is the gravitational force which if you had a measuring tape and stretched it from one end of the universe to the other end, if you moved the gravitational constant one inch in either direction, life would not exist.

The cosmological constant is the most fine-tuned constant at 1/10^120. There are 10^80 elementary particles estimated in the known universe to give you an idea of that figure.

There are over 30 other finely tuned constants and if any one was changed in the slightest bit, life would not exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:15 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:11 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  There are over 30 other finely tuned constants and if any one was changed in the slightest bit, life would not exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

If it's so damned fine tuned, why are we limited to a tiny portion of a tiny world in one insignificant section of the universe?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:22 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(14-06-2016 05:37 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You chose number 2 - You are dishonest, fortunately your dishonesty works only on you, it's not going to fly on this forum.

I notice that you want to pretend to accept science, saying that our DNA goes back to the mythical Adam and Eve.

It goes back further than that, it goes back to non-human primate ancestors up to and including endogenous retroviruses.

Understand what that means?

We inherited the genetic markers of viruses from our primate ancestors, long before humans existed, these viral markers were in primates and they were passed down to us.

1.Viruses existed before humans and were in the DNA of our primate ancestors.

2.We inherited these same DNA.

Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Your mythology does not stand up to scientific evidence.

But you'll no doubt just make up more stories to try to reconcile science with myth.

DNA goes back to a single man and single women. Read about it.

No it doesn't, read about it:

The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:30 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:01 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 10:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  * It is not absolutely precise.
* Astounding specificity means nothing.
* Complexity is not argument, in and of itself, for design, unless you can demonstrate that it is physically impossible for it to have come into existence through natural mechanisms. Merely suggesting that it doesn't seem to be able to do so is not an argument.

As to the "miracle" explanation, the argument you (and that apologist) offered, about how Jacob/Laban "saw" the speckles due to some kind of magical optical illusion, isn't even close to what the Bible says, there. It says, quote:

37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Emphasis mine. It clearly and unequivocally states that it was breeding in front of the sticks that caused them to bring forth striped and speckled and spotted sheep. It's Lamarckian inheritance in action-- change the environment and you change the offspring.

Except that's simply not how it works. Alluding to magical intervention not only is a lazy explanation, it defies what the next few verses say about Jacob:

40 And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. 41 Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, 42 but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. 43 Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

The passage makes it quite clear that it was the cleverness of Jacob, and not an intervention by God, that causes this to happen, resulting in the cattle-wealth of the founder of Israel. Note how the passage says "when they were breeding", and "that they might breed among the sticks". It is clear as day that this passage refers to changing the environment in front of the breeding sheep so they might breed lambs he can keep in his own flocks, per Lamarckian adaptation. It is dishonest of both you and the apologist in your link to suggest that this is discussing a miracle. It is a mistake made by a science-ignorant people (as everyone was prior to Mendel, on this subject), and you cannot be honest about what it says because to you it's impossible that the Bible could have mistakes in it about science.

How, then can we expect you to honestly evaluate the evidence provided by the natural world, with such bias?

Matthew Henry gives many great commentaries. Below is his commentary on these verses. This was performed by God and as a token of His power.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

30:25-43 The fourteen years being gone, Jacob was willing to depart without any provision, except God's promise. But he had in many ways a just claim on Laban's substance, and it was the will of God that he should be provided for from it. He referred his cause to God, rather than agree for stated wages with Laban, whose selfishness was very great. And it would appear that he acted honestly, when none but those of the colours fixed upon should be found among his cattle. Laban selfishly thought that his cattle would produce few different in colour from their own. Jacob's course after this agreement has been considered an instance of his policy and management. But it was done by intimation from God, and as a token of his power. The Lord will one way or another plead the cause of the oppressed, and honour those who simply trust his providence. Neither could Laban complain of Jacob, for he had nothing more than was freely agreed that he should have; nor was he injured, but greatly benefitted by Jacob's services. May all our mercies be received with thanksgiving and prayer, that coming from his bounty, they may lead to his praise.

That doesn't even begin to address the question, or in any way deal with the issue of the poplar branches. It doesn't even mention what the verses say about why Jacob took out his knife to start cutting branches in the first place.

All it does is imply that none of the details or actions of Jacob matter, here, because God did the providing. Except that isn't what the story says at all.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 07:39 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  DNA goes back to a single man and single women. Read about it.

You can't be that dense. You just can't!

That's not what the DNA analysis is saying at all.

For instance, the reason it traces to a woman is because mtDNA covers up any lineage that has only sons (since they don't pass on mtDNA), so the other lineages alive at the time of "Mitochondrial Eve" were overlaid by random statistics. (It turned out to not even be a useful mechanism, by the way, since they discovered that men do in fact contribute, on occasion, to the mtDNA of the offspring.)

It's a nickname. Not one person is claiming that this "Eve" is actually the Biblical Eve, that she was the only person alive at the time, or that she lived at the same exact time or place as "Chromosomal Adam". They're inaccurate phrases designed to simplify the concept for a wider audience, rather like the inaccurate phrases "Big Bang" and "Cambrian Explosion".

But every freakin' time, one of you people will take the name (and apparently learn nothing else about it other than the summary paragraph) and try to say it backs up your tribal mythologies. It doesn't. It just makes you look like an idiot to even assert this. Seriously.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-06-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 07:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  DNA goes back to a single man and single women. Read about it.

You can't be that dense. You just can't!

That's not what the DNA analysis is saying at all.

For instance, the reason it traces to a woman is because mtDNA covers up any lineage that has only sons (since they don't pass on mtDNA), so the other lineages alive at the time of "Mitochondrial Eve" were overlaid by random statistics. (It turned out to not even be a useful mechanism, by the way, since they discovered that men do in fact contribute, on occasion, to the mtDNA of the offspring.)

It's a nickname. Not one person is claiming that this "Eve" is actually the Biblical Eve, that she was the only person alive at the time, or that she lived at the same exact time or place as "Chromosomal Adam". They're inaccurate phrases designed to simplify the concept for a wider audience, rather like the inaccurate phrases "Big Bang" and "Cambrian Explosion".

But every freakin' time, one of you people will take the name (and apparently learn nothing else about it other than the summary paragraph) and try to say it backs up your tribal mythologies. It doesn't. It just makes you look like an idiot to even assert this. Seriously.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...frica.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 09:23 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  You did not understand the arguments or the fact that your definition of irreducible complexity reduces to Dawkins' definition.

The argument you miss is that the system as it is today is built from pieces that had some other function in the past.

I got what he was saying. He was trying to over simplify the definition in a straw man tactic to try to more easily refute it. Been there seen that.

Final Answer: Either random or designed. Clearly designed.

Repeating that incorrect, ignorant, downright stupid dichotomy does not make it true or enhance your credibility.

You did not understand the argument because you lack critical thinking skills.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-06-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 09:33 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 09:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, there is. It's called evolution.


Precise like birth defects? Precise like genetic diseases? Precise like prions?
Precise like what?


Beyond yours, apparently, but your incredulity is not an argument.


No, it isn't. That has been debunked repeatedly.


So? The system you see today did not come about all at once - it evolved from previous functional components that may have been doing other things.


No, it isn't. That has been debunked.


Don't bother - theology is all made up; it is not based on any evidence.


It is all unsupported myth.

No it's not. It's called designed and created.

Precise like molecular machines, assembly processes, 65 billion miles of code in human DNA if uncompressed, 37.2 trillion cells in human body,...... Imperfection is part of the intent of the design for this fallen world.

Beyond all of ours.

Yes it is and no it hasn't

Yes it is and no it hasn't.

System I see today is a mix of different types of machines and assembly processes which cannot be explained by random dumb luck chance.

No it is not. It is based on truth.

No it is not.

Your response is a mess. Try again. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: