Sorry about the bad formatting here on the last post. Please see my new thread in the 'Beliefs' section for a easier to read reply.
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
-
4
The Bottom Line: naturalism depends on speculation and FAITH.
by Shining One inthe great brain spews the typical line of reasoning we hear from from die-hard naturalists: .
macro-evolution is equivalent to speciation.
who has made this assertion and is it accepted and proven theory?
-
-
Shining One
The Great Brain spews the typical line of reasoning we hear from from die-hard naturalists:
>Of course. Macro-evolution is equivalent to speciation.
Who has made this assertion and is it accepted and proven theory? Wjo accepts this assertion?
>We know of a number of examples of fairly recent speciation. For example, when the Americas were first colonized by Europeans, a species of fruit fly that in Europe colonized only the fruit of the mulberry tree came along for the ride. Eventually it split into two separate, non-interbreeding and non-interacting species -- one that continued to colonize mulberry trees and another that colonized only apple trees.
Isn't this 'speciation' actually a 'speculation'? How do you know it was not a native American fruit fly? LOL
>In the Hawaiian islands, in a few million years, fruit flies have diversified from one or a few founding species into more than 800 species that are found nowhere else in the world.
What???? Who was around to document this? LOL. Is this another 'proof' or more 'speculation on speciation'? "In a few million years' is the best you can do? Good thing we have 'talk origins'! LOL
>In various large African lakes like Lake Victoria, cichlid fishes have diversified from a few founding species to many hundreds in the various lakes in a few million years.
Again, in a 'few million years'. Wow, it looks like 'scientists', like you have more problems with numbers than the Hebrews did! Man, this is so unbelievable. Evolutionists pin all of their hopes and speculation on 'millions and billions of years'. How did these fishes originate in the first place? Oh, I forgot, they just appeared in some great leap of evolution all of a sudden but 'millions' of years ago. How convenient! LOL
How about that fish that shoots down flies for 20% food supply when it can get all it needs from bugs in the water it lives in? It can accurately aim, despite the refraction of light between water and air! How did 'evolutionary pressure' cause that?
>Now, of course, I know that what you really mean is, "has any scientist actually observed macro-evolution in a laboratory?" And of course, the answer is No, because what some people term "macro-evolution" doesn't act that fast.
Point, MATCH, set. Here is the BOTTOM LINE FOR NATURALISTS WHO HAVE FAITH IN EVOLUTION!
>But the fact that it's observed in the far larger laboratory of nature proves that evolution does occur. And that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is an artificial one that in reality does not exist.
Right, it happens, we can't prove it, we can assert it, we can't measure it, we can't observe it, it just happens. Just believe us because we are scientists and we alone can interpret the facts of origins. No one else can do so unless they go by our presuppositions! That sounds like the Watchtower Society!!!
Bottome line: Again: No, it cannot be observed. Many of the most critical of the naturalist's assertions are nothing more than speculations. Naturalism takes more FAITH to believe in than Christianity.
Have a nice day, 'scholars'.
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
The Great Brain spews the typical line of reasoning from die=hard naturalists: >Of course. Macro-evolution is equivalent to speciation. Who has made this assertion and is it accepted and proven theory? >We know of a number of examples of fairly recent speciation. For example, when the Americas were first colonized by Europeans, a species of fruit fly that in Europe colonized only the fruit of the mulberry tree came along for the ride. Eventually it split into two separate, non-interbreeding and non-interacting species -- one that continued to colonize mulberry trees and another that colonized only apple trees. Isn't this 'speciation' actually a 'speculation'? LOL >In the Hawaiian islands, in a few million years, fruit flies have diversified from one or a few founding species into more than 800 species that are found nowhere else in the world. What???? Who was around to document this? LOL. Is this another 'proof' or more 'speculation on speciation'? >In various large African lakes like Lake Victoria, cichlid fishes have diversified from a few founding species to many hundreds in the various lakes in a few million years. Again, in a 'few million years'. Wow, it looks like 'scientists' like you have more problem with numbers than the Hebrews did! Man, this is so unbelievable. Evolutionists pin all of their hopes and speculation on millions and billions of years. How did these fishes originate? Oh, I forgot, they just appeared in some great leap of evolution all of a sudden but 'millions' of years ago. How convenient! LOL >Now, of course, I know that what you really mean is, "has any scientist actually observed macro-evolution in a laboratory?" And of course, the answer is No, because what some people term "macro-evolution" doesn't act that fast. Point, MATCH, set. HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE FOR NATURALISTS WHO HAVE FAITH IN EVOLUTION! >But the fact that it's observed in the far larger laboratory of nature proves that evolution does occur. And that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is an artificial one that in reality does not exist. Right, it happens, we can't prove it, we can assert it, we can't measure it, we can't observe it, it just happens. Just believe us because we are scientists and we alone can interpret the facts of origins. No one else can do so unless they go by our presuppositions! That sounds like the Watchtower Society!!! Rex
-
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
I feel badly for you, Alan. Some day your arrogance will catch up to you. I hear that it already has and I don't wish to air that at all. Some dark day you realize what you have done to others who come here to heal then leave with nihilistic ideas and no hope. Perhaps you will then gain some humility.
People don't 'run' from you or any of that rot. You imagine yourself some clever debater and scholar. The reality is this: you are a run of the mill skeptic who happens to inhabit your own little kingdom. You are the one who would be laughed at if you actually took on any real scholars. It’s so easy to play 'armchair quarterback' and take potshots at people who don't even know you exist. You were challenged to try and stand in a fair forum with agreed upon guidelines and you refused to leave here to do so. You can never admit to being wrong, instead you increase your antagonism and arrogance.
As long as I have cast doubts in some people who were ready to leave faith behind, I have done what God intended me to do!
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
>As for you, O Shining One, as Dave said, it's a waste of time replying to you. You're a simple teenybopper cheerleader for your, um, oh-so-wise mentors like Norman Geisler, and you're demonstrably incapable of understanding what is written by them or us.
Poisoning the well again? Bluster is easy amongst your back-slappers. Dave is miffed because his apparent acceptance of new age dogma is so readily discounted.
>But wait! This is a repeat from some years ago, when you were whipped soundly and disappeared for a few years. Please do so again.
I am here when I have the time to be. Unlike you, I am not a ex-JW forever. I have moved on and left the rubbish that you dwell in behind. Giving people some reason to believe brings much fruit. The fruit of defending the faith, even outnubered is people escaping from this nihlistic arena, something that some of you may never leave.
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
Good Day Great Brain,
>>>The fact is that modern physicists are usually extremely careful to distinguish between what is solidly known and accepted, and what is poorly known and only partially accepted, if at all. Furthermore,
Furthermore? That is bunk: appeal to authority. It is also assuming your own axioms.
>>>Furthermore, Geisler ignores the fact that most cosmologists today accept the notion of a "big bang" in which our present, local space-time universe originated perhaps 14 billion years ago. And so it's something of a mystery why Geisler claims that most atheists believe that this universe was just "there" forever.
Bunk! Appeal to the popular. “There forever” seems to be inferred by atheists since they cannot explain a reasonable ‘first cause‘.
>>>Sort of ok, so far, except that Geisler -- like Watchtower writers -- fails to give proper source references.
What kind of cheap shot is this? You are using the ex-JW aversion to the Watchtower in order to undermine Geisler in the eyes of the board participants! Ohh, I believe that is ‘ad hominim, right? You are manipulating us here. 'Poisoning the well', I believe.
>>>Observation is only as good as what has been observed up to a specific point in time, and if new things arise, observations and conclusions based upon them will change accordingly.
"All of the evidence is not in" for much of what science has discovered, right Alan? Has any scientist actually’ observed’ macro-evolution and can any rule out intelligent design by such observations? If not, why do they insist on the ‘facts’ of evolutionary theory alone being taught or ‘accepted‘? Axioms, axioms, axioms!
>>>Not so. Fundamentally, Christians believe there must be a God because they learned it in childhood, or for emotional reasons they accepted the Bible and the Bible says there is a God, or any number of other non-scientific reasons.
Straw man!!!! Who was the first person to observe nature and decide it must have a designer and who taught him to believe in a ‘god‘? “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.“
It’s kind of like this, Great Brain: any cave man can see the INTELLIGENT DESIGN and sheer magnitude of nature, something many here have a tough thing realizing! LOL
>>>They cannot possibly believe it for scientific reasons, since the existence of God cannot be proved scientifically.
Wait a minute here; this is apologetics, i.e. reasoning that defends belief in God, did Geisler claim he was proving there is a God or stating in scientific terms why he believes the scienctific evidence convinces him, or, many Christians?
>>>Furthermore, since today's science agrees that our local space-time universe (this is obviously what Geisler is talking about in his article) had a beginning, Geisler’s statement amounts to a claim that Christians believe there must be a God because of the scientific evidence.
Straw man again and a unproven assertion! You are getting scientific evidence that backs the presupposition of God's existence. He is simply arguing his point, just as you or anyone else would!
>>>But that is not only demonstrably untrue in the case of countless Christians, but Geisler and countless other Christians would strenuously object to it. So he isn't even aware that his statement -- -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
Dearest Alan,
What circular argument do you use to explain how the universe originated'? If the big bang theory is correct, then why are there 'clumps' and 'voids' os stellar material? Why isn't matter all spread out evenly and uniformly throughout the cosmos? What set off the bang?
What circular argument do you use to assert that life came about from primordial ooze (or whatever the latest atrocious theory is)? Can logic explain your own reasoning ability? Where does the metaphysical basis (that explains logic) originate in the first place? Where are the transitional fossils, Alan? Has any scientist ever measured AND observed macro-evolution?
I think this applies to you and a few others here, this is from CARM:
"Your presupposition is that there is no God, therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition; namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited."
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
>2.People who want to give the illusion of thinking for themselves by digging deeper, but, who cannot take the objective facts to their inevitable conclusions.
Pot, kettle, black. You have a carefully constructed natualistic belief system that is based on speculation and faith, more faith than it takes to believe in PINK INVISIBLE UNICORNS. LOL
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
>Persons who can survive without an intact intellect must substitute the illusion of scholarly support from apologetics and hobble forward on the crutch of cut and paste philosophy.
Oh my, aren’t we witty, Terry? Intellectual idiocy runs close to the surface here. You smug elitists are in a class of delusion deeper than any 'Bible thumpers'. You create parameters that you insist everyone else must adhere to. They are built on your own presuppositions and NO MORE VALID than any other claimed 'belief system'. When others insist on more reasonable and fair parameters for debate, you start crying and spout intellectual snobbery, which intimidates some but not all.
If you don't want to believe in the facts that you see before your eyes, so be it. As long as I keep reaching people that want to believe (here and in daily life), I am going to keep preaching it. Just like the apostle Paul, I will gladly be thought a fool if it saves one more soul from the pit of hell!
Rex -
49
Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers
by AlanF ingod had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .
if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.
of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.
-
-
Shining One
Waahhhhh
Keep crying oh wounded one. I know where you come from and know of your complex replacement belief system that replaced the cukt we belonged to. If you had any hair on your chest you would go on their turf to debate them, instead of hanging out here where all of your disciples can chime in and pile on. If you want to answer a scholar like Geisler just go for it.
Rex