8 of 28
8
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 24 April 2013 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:13 PM

Jesus came to die for the sins of all humanity. He came to die for my, and your sins. Who acccepts his sacrifice, is receiving Gods pardon.

Do you know what a ‘scapegoat’ is? What is the difference between a scapegoat and Jesus?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2013 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
asanta - 24 April 2013 08:23 PM
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:13 PM

Jesus came to die for the sins of all humanity. He came to die for my, and your sins. Who acccepts his sacrifice, is receiving Gods pardon.

Do you know what a ‘scapegoat’ is? What is the difference between a scapegoat and Jesus?

a scapegoat does not die freely, while Jesus became a scapegoat out of a free decision, based on Gods love for humanity, and his will to redeem us from sin, and eternal death.

how do you explain the radar system of bats through evolution ? what are the ancestors of turtles ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2013 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

scapegoat |ˈskāpˌgōt|
noun
(in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16).
• a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, esp. for reasons of expediency.

Nothing in the definition says whether the scapegoat was willing or not.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

For me, its the contrary. Where philosophical naturalism fails, divine intervention is perfectly logical, and fits the evidence.

It’s not and it doesn’t.

And don’t bother giving me that “Fine tuned to a razors edge” crap as that nonsense was falsified ages ago. It’s a variation of the so called anthropomorphic principle (Hope I got that word right) which asserts that the universe is fine tuned for US. It isn’t and it’s easy enough to show to be false without leaving the planet. a planet where the 75% covered by water is absolutely impossible to survive in without technical intervention.

Put it this way: Where…other then the equatorial regions of South America or the savannahs of Africa could you be placed, unarmed, without resources of any kind at any time of the year, unsheltered, and completely naked and still reasonably expect to be alive in the morning?

Outside of the zones I just mentioned, there are no such zones. Humans are a tropical animal.

Don’t even get me started about off planet as there is no world in this solar system where we could survive without technological intervention, and no such world in the solar systems we have discovered over the past quarter century.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:33 PM

how do you explain the radar system of bats through evolution ?

Natural selection. How do you explain it?

Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:33 PM

what are the ancestors of turtles ?

Henodus, Placochelys, Psephoderma,...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 04:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 25 April 2013 03:56 AM

For me, its the contrary. Where philosophical naturalism fails, divine intervention is perfectly logical, and fits the evidence.

It’s not and it doesn’t.

And don’t bother giving me that “Fine tuned to a razors edge” crap as that nonsense was falsified ages ago. It’s a variation of the so called anthropomorphic principle (Hope I got that word right) which asserts that the universe is fine tuned for US. It isn’t and it’s easy enough to show to be false without leaving the planet. a planet where the 75% covered by water is absolutely impossible to survive in without technical intervention.

Put it this way: Where…other then the equatorial regions of South America or the savannahs of Africa could you be placed, unarmed, without resources of any kind at any time of the year, unsheltered, and completely naked and still reasonably expect to be alive in the morning?

Outside of the zones I just mentioned, there are no such zones. Humans are a tropical animal.

Don’t even get me started about off planet as there is no world in this solar system where we could survive without technological intervention, and no such world in the solar systems we have discovered over the past quarter century.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

Absolutely wrong. Since life did in fact arise here, the probability of it happening is 100% absolute.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 04:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
George - 25 April 2013 03:56 AM
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:33 PM

how do you explain the radar system of bats through evolution ?

Natural selection. How do you explain it?

thats not a explanation, but a unsupported assertion.

Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 08:33 PM

what are the ancestors of turtles ?

Henodus, Placochelys, Psephoderma,...

http://creation.com/evidence-for-turtle-evolution

The oldest known turtles clearly were turtles. Since turtles appear abruptly in the fossil record, the current data are consistent with a creation event followed by considerable diversification coupled with degeneration.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

Isn’t this the “God of the Gaps” argument. i.e. To prove validity of the theory of evolution to the satisfaction of a Creationist, you would have to have the fossil of every single descendent.  Anyway, there seems to be quite a body of information, growing all the time, about the evolution of turtles.

Now, creation theory would be much would be much easier to embrace if God hadn’t decided to do all the creating in the first week.  It would be very impressive if God would add a new, completely viable species, all new dna and everything, periodically and observably.  That would be really good evidence for Creationism. 

If the proof of God lies in the fact that there are as yet unexplained phenomenon, the body of proof is constantly shrinking as more phenomena are explained by science.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Henodus, Placochelys and Psephoderma were not turtles.

And what kind of an argument is this: “The oldest known turtles clearly were turtles”? What else would you expect them to be?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4811
Joined  2007-10-05
George - 25 April 2013 05:15 AM

Henodus, Placochelys and Psephoderma were not turtles.

And what kind of an argument is this: “The oldest known turtles clearly were turtles”? What else would you expect them to be?

George, that is known as an argument from willful ignorance, as is his wall-of-gray argument about cosmology.

Adonai888 wrote

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.

This fails on so many levels it is mind boggling. Adonai, Jupiter is a gas giant. The gravity at the outer edges of Jupiter’s gaseous envelope is minuscule compared with the crushing gravity at Jupiter’s center. Pick up a used astronomy textbook at your local bookstore and read it. You’ll also learn, if you care, that Jupiter and Saturn have moons which could harbor life.

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.

While it is true that larger stars burn out faster than smaller ones, stars smaller than the Sun can and do have planetary systems, and they can also have a Goldilocks Zone capable of supporting life. Where did you come up with the line about small stars not being likely to form planetary systems?

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen.

Volcanic activity does not bring oxygen to the surface. Other planets and moons in our solar system show signs of past volcanic activity, and some even have current volcanic activity.

The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating.

Wrong again. Google “earth heavy bombardment.”

Edit: corrected a typo

[ Edited: 25 April 2013 09:01 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1764
Joined  2007-10-22

888

It appears you have a problem accepting reality.  Humans using science has discovered a few things since the Bible was written by ancient humans.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
garythehuman - 25 April 2013 07:17 AM

888

It appears you have a problem accepting reality.  Humans using science has discovered a few things since the Bible was written by ancient humans.

these few things confirm the bible is right. Like that the universe had a beginning. Just one example…...check out, how many ancient religions and philosophers shared the same view.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yeah, we still need to show that a virgin can get pregnant, dead people can become alive again, people can walk on water and turn water into wine, sun (or rather Earth) can stop moving, and a woman can be created from a man’s rib. Sure, the Bible got some stuff right, but so did “The Adventures of Pinocchio.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2013 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

these few things confirm the bible is right.

No they don’t. The affirm the exact opposite.

See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm

Regarding evolution, see http://www.talkorigins.org/ that way, you might just have a clue what you’re talking about.

Don’t try telling me you do.

You don’t.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 28
8