Arguments about Him

[Rortabend]

Wootah,

I'm not sure what you think these links prove. There are problems and puzzles to do with current scientific theories. Correct. There are disenters to scientific consensus. Again correct.

The HUGE gap in your argument is that you somehow take this to support creationism.

Say these worries about the big bang theory prove to be correct and that we decide to come up with another theory. Do you honestly and truthfully think that this theory will be creationist in nature?

Religion once played an important part in the development of scientific theories. It is a shame that it has fallen so low that it must rely on half-truths and hearsay to earn its place at the table.

[Wootah]

Wootah,

I'm not sure what you think these links prove. There are problems and puzzles to do with current scientific theories. Correct. There are disenters to scientific consensus. Again correct.

The HUGE gap in your argument is that you somehow take this to support creationism.

Say these worries about the big bang theory prove to be correct and that we decide to come up with another theory. Do you honestly and truthfully think that this theory will be creationist in nature?

Religion once played an important part in the development of scientific theories. It is a shame that it has fallen so low that it must rely on half-truths and hearsay to earn its place at the table.

Rortabend - I am replying to you, not posting evidence for God. You asked:

What about all of the animals who have had to suffer needlessly throughout the history of life? What about those humans not 'fortunate enough' to have been born after the rise of Christianity. They didn't have the chance to accept the 'truth' because it wasn't around. What about early forms of man such as Homo Erectus and Homo Habilus? Was salvation an option for them?

There is definitely an appeal to what we know about the world in what you typed. I've highlighted the parts that had me conclude this. I simply said I don't accept your claim. You went further into that. Even if the world is 10K years old I completely agree that proves nothing about who made it. So there you go I am saying that I agree with you when you say, "The HUGE gap in your argument is that you somehow take this to support creationism." What I do say is that long ages and evolution destroy Christianity and as such I do think I need evidence for short ages to justifiably believe in Christianity.

I think you and Jester have the issue backwards. I'm not raising science to prove God here. I leave that to Ray. Jester keeps quoting me and implying how is what I am saying philosophy. I feel I am replying to a conversation. I didn't lead it to here. However Jester and I and you all know that the science does play a part in molding our views.

Jester knows quite well his heartless (or would he say realistic) attitude to others is a product of his evolutionary world view. Why should I care that there are scientific facts that he has to confront that point to short ages and possibly show that his world view is not based upon an understanding of the world and more a desire to rule the world and live how he wants too. I assure you, it's the reason why he lashes out in every post. The consequences for him being wrong are disastrous, whereas for me if I'm wrong I can just change views.

[Rortabend]

You're avoiding my questions again Wootah. Another creationist trick but I'll let that one pass.

Let me say this once again. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The fact that you can find problems with current theories of the age of the universe does not provide support for young earth theories.

Jester knows quite well his heartless (or would he say realistic) attitude to others is a product of his evolutionary world view. Why should I care that there are scientific facts that he has to confront that point to short ages and possibly show that his world view is not based upon an understanding of the world and more a desire to rule the world and live how he wants too. I assure you, it's the reason why he lashes out in every post. The consequences for him being wrong are disastrous, whereas for me if I'm wrong I can just change views.

You are committing the genetic fallacy here Wootah. The fact that Jester supports the evolutionary theory has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Your innovocation of Pascal's wager is also suspect. It sounds like your belief in God is motivated by fear of personal injury. Isn't Christian faith supposed to be based on love rather than love? Also, if you do accept Pascal's wager then hadn't you better start believing in Allah as well?

[Jester]

I think you and Jester have the issue backwards. I'm not raising science to prove God here. I leave that to Ray. Jester keeps quoting me and implying how is what I am saying philosophy. I feel I am replying to a conversation. I didn't lead it to here. However Jester and I and you all know that the science does play a part in molding our views.

Jester knows quite well his heartless (or would he say realistic) attitude to others is a product of his evolutionary world view. Why should I care that there are scientific facts that he has to confront that point to short ages and possibly show that his world view is not based upon an understanding of the world and more a desire to rule the world and live how he wants too. I assure you, it's the reason why he lashes out in every post. The consequences for him being wrong are disastrous, whereas for me if I'm wrong I can just change views.

No fool, I want logical arguments, I dont require scientific proof of God, but if you can make a logical arguments to prove his existence then I shall take up that challenge.

I was heartless before I understood the theory of evolution and its implications.
I am not heartless to those I like/love.
I lash out? I am just agressive when it comes to the dumb stuff I see you post

You are committing the genetic fallacy here Wootah. The fact that Jester supports the evolutionary theory has nothing to do with its truth or falsity.

right on

[Wootah]

You're avoiding my questions again Wootah. Another creationist trick but I'll let that one pass.

What the ?

Let me say this once again. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The fact that you can find problems with current theories of the age of the universe does not provide support for young earth theories.

Fine let's leave it as you've stated it. What we are both agreeing on then is that the game isn't over. I was entirely certain the issue of Christianity being real was rubbish based upon the current science of long ages and evolution. Now I can see the conjecture in those theories. Let's just let the evidence of science be the evidence and see which interpretations best fit.

Jester knows quite well his heartless (or would he say realistic) attitude to others is a product of his evolutionary world view. Why should I care that there are scientific facts that he has to confront that point to short ages and possibly show that his world view is not based upon an understanding of the world and more a desire to rule the world and live how he wants too. I assure you, it's the reason why he lashes out in every post. The consequences for him being wrong are disastrous, whereas for me if I'm wrong I can just change views.

You are committing the genetic fallacy here Wootah. The fact that Jester supports the evolutionary theory has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Your innovocation of Pascal's wager is also suspect. It sounds like your belief in God is motivated by fear of personal injury. Isn't Christian faith supposed to be based on love rather than love? Also, if you do accept Pascal's wager then hadn't you better start believing in Allah as well?

Probably. I just want him to know. I'm entirely concerned that there are people saying, "Hey ethics and morals don't matter it's all evolution." One can only hope Jester just plays on the forum.

There are many motives to everything we do. I'm not afraid to be afraid. Every good enterprise is best started with a bit of fear and trepidation. Beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

Allah is a god of will. As I have argued a lot in the Islam thread, the Muslim says that Allah is good, loving, just and merciful, qualities very similar to the Christian God (which is your point). However a god of will cannot rationally or logically have these traits. Why believe something that I have arguments against that I believe are valid?

Finally you said, "Isn't Christian faith supposed to be based on love rather than love?" I'm not sure what difference you are making.

[Jester]

Beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

there is no God you dumbass

Probably. I just want him to know. I'm entirely concerned that there are people saying, "Hey ethics and morals don't matter it's all evolution." One can only hope Jester just plays on the forum.

you dont have any arguments for your delusional beliefs, now stop pulling shit out of your ass.
once again evolution doesnt care about you or your baptistic morons.

[Wootah]

Beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

there is no God you dumbass

Probably. I just want him to know. I'm entirely concerned that there are people saying, "Hey ethics and morals don't matter it's all evolution." One can only hope Jester just plays on the forum.

you dont have any arguments for your delusional beliefs, now stop pulling shit out of your ass.
once again evolution doesnt care about you or your baptistic morons.

Go Jester. Get him.

[Banno]

So pleasing to see the vast improvement in the quality of discussion on this forum...

[Rortabend]

Finally you said, "Isn't Christian faith supposed to be based on love rather than love?" I'm not sure what difference you are making.

Good point. It should have read "Isn't Christian faith supposed to be based on love rather than fear?"

What we are both agreeing on then is that the game isn't over.

No. There is vast amounts of evidence in favour of an ancient earth. There is very little or no evidence in favour of a young earth.

Tell me, if the earth is 6-10K years old then why did God out lots of fossils in the ground of species that presumably never lived? This seems like a pretty mean trick to me. Why disguise the nature of her creation? Is this some kind of test?

[Jester]

Why disguise the nature of her creation? Is this some kind of test?

yes its a test to see who's dumb enough to reject reality in favour of fairy tales

So pleasing to see the vast improvement in the quality of discussion on this forum...

well arent you the big philosopher who always stands outside and whispers doubt in our ears?

[Arising_uk]

6-10K or so.

Wow. Same age for universe as well? If so, how do you make any sense of astronomy and astrophysics?

Forget those, what about Geology?

[Rortabend]

Forget those, what about Geology?

It's all a trick. God has made it look as if land masses have shifted over vast amounts of time just to trick us. He's a crazy guy!

[Wootah]

No. There is vast amounts of evidence in favour of an ancient earth. There is very little or no evidence in favour of a young earth.

Go on show me. Don't just say fossils show me the fossil, show me the rock formation you want to point to.

Tell me, if the earth is 6-10K years old then why did God out lots of fossils in the ground of species that presumably never lived? This seems like a pretty mean trick to me. Why disguise the nature of her creation? Is this some kind of test?

A global flood would easily explain the fossilisation that occurs.

[Wootah]

6-10K or so.

Wow. Same age for universe as well? If so, how do you make any sense of astronomy and astrophysics?

Forget those, what about Geology?

Please don't read any of this unless you have time, alcohol or medication.

http://creation.com/geology-questions-and-answers

I'll do you the courtesy of pulling out some of the best ones.
- Rapid stalactites, not 10000s of years only a few.
- Rapid petrification. Mad made objects with the last 50 years petrified.
- Diamonds and opals being made in months not millions of years.
- Most formations are from dramatic upheaval and not slow erosive processes
- Rapid rock formation.

You only have to start reading. Ignore anything that says God did it, which is basically talking about the global flood and replace it with a major catastrophe such as a meteor, whatever makes it more palatable so you can look at the science. You start to see that the world was formed by catastrophies and not gradual changes.

[Arising_uk]

You only have to start reading. Ignore anything that says God did it, which is basically talking about the global flood and replace it with a major catastrophe such as a meteor, whatever makes it more palatable so you can look at the science. You start to see that the world was formed by catastrophies and not gradual changes.

What puzzles me then is what was it that these catastrophies were affecting?