The Resurrection of Jesus - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Did Jesus Christ actually rise from dead?

Definitely Yes
11
20%
Probably Yes
No votes
0%
On the Fence
1
2%
Probably Not
10
18%
Definitely Not
33
60%
#14832070
"But where are the transitional fossils"

There are indeed plenty of transitional fossils. I think what some of the scientists are pointing out is that the fossils are a series of snapshots of moments in time, and therefore cannot in themselves be evidence of a process. We infer the process from the series of snapshots. Logically, of course, a critic could ask: "But where are the transitional fossils between these transitional fossils?" And every time you present them with new transitional fossils, they just repeat the question.
#14832074
Evolutionists have had to change their ideas on how evolution took place. This would be expected in science, but it creates an opening for criticism which can not be fully dealt with until we know all the answers, which we probably never will. After all, recreating the past accurately may not be possible today. Too much has changed.
#14832096
ingliz wrote:"But where are the transitional fossils"

Transitional fossils of whales? Yep, it’s here. Birds? Here. Primates? Yep. Oh, land fish? Here you go. Early human-like ancestors? There’s a link to more than a million scientific articles about the subject here.


:)

But there is no transitional fossils for Macroevolotion. Creationists acknowledge that Microevolution is mainly true, such as there are different kinds of whales, monkeys, birds, dogs, cats, horses, etc. However, we need to see all the missing transitional forms for Macroevolution. If they have them, then where are they being hid and why don't they show them so they can be examined?
#14832142
Macroevolution.

No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons:

1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science,

2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found,

3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data,

and

4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Whether you like a theory or you don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. If a scientific theory describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense, and it agrees fully with experiment, then Nature as She is - is absurd.

The Scientific Case for Common Descent
#14832172
M
y purpose is not to hurt people but to wake them up.



Religious people believe that you are the one who needs waking up.

Lots of poor suckers still fall for holy joe con men.


Yawn. Childish remark.

It may be true that it's still impossible to dislodge christianity now. But I like the idea of being ahead of my time and making this clear to future generations. :)


Arrogant much?

You are not ahead of your time. You are not even ahead during your time. Your goals are ill advised, methods clumsy and arguments poorly developed.

There is nothing advanced in your thinking. I am surprised you cannot see that. Well not really.
#14832251
Drlee wrote:Religious people believe that you are the one who needs waking up.

Yawn. Childish remark.

Arrogant much?

You are not ahead of your time. You are not even ahead during your time. Your goals are ill advised, methods clumsy and arguments poorly developed.

There is nothing advanced in your thinking. I am surprised you cannot see that. Well not really.


You didn't answer the questions and points in my previous post. You have no rational response just insults.
#14832275
ingliz wrote:No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons:

1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science,

2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found,

3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data,

and

4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Whether you like a theory or you don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. If a scientific theory describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense, and it agrees fully with experiment, then Nature as She is - is absurd.

All that agrees with experiment is at the micro level. It does not support the macro level, which is what Genesis one in the Holy Bible is referring to. Micro-evolution is simply natural selection, which is the same as selective breeding controlled by nature instead of man. There is nothing there that contradicts the Holy Bible. However, macro-evolution does contradict the Holy Bible. This macro-evolution is what makes the theory of evolution wrong. A dog will never become a horse by natural selection (evolution) or vice versa. Man has done enough selective breeding with dogs and horses to prove that. Get it? Actually, science has proven it too with the discovery of DNA, even though die-hard evolutionists will say otherwise.

9 Scientific Facts Prove "the Theory Of Evolution" Wrong

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scie ... ry-of.html

#14832289
It does not support the macro level

Just one piece of evidence, out of the many pieces provided, supporting evolution at the macro level.

Protein catalysis

In order to perform the functions necessary for life, organisms must catalyze chemical reactions. In all known organisms, enzymatic catalysis is based on the abilities provided by protein molecules (and in relatively rare, yet important, cases by RNA molecules). There are over 390 naturally occurring amino acids known (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 69; Garavelli et al. 2001); however, the protein molecules used by all known living organisms are constructed with the same subset of 22 amino acids.

If you are provided with a source it is best you read it before commenting. Why? I here you asking. Because, as your Mr. Lincoln said, it's "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."


:)
#14832326
ingliz wrote:Just one piece of evidence, out of the many pieces provided, supporting evolution at the macro level.

If you are provided with a source it is best you read it before commenting. Why? I here you asking. Because, as your Mr. Lincoln said, it's "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

:)

It should be clear to any reasonable person that the reason all living things on earth are made of common elements is because they were all designed by a common Designer, the Lord God Almighty, the creator of the universe.

This video is a collection of points from several videos that show how the theory of evolution is an absurd and stupid idea of atheists, who desire a fairy tale that they can claim to be science in order to deny the existence of the creator God.



Dr. Michael Behe (biochemist), Dr. Dean Kenyon (biologist), Dr. Paul Nelson (philosopher of biology), Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (historian and philosopher of science), Dr. William Dembski (mathematician and philosopher), Dr. Jonathan Wells (cell biologist and theologian), Dr. Scott Minnich (microbiologist) debunk evolution.

#14832367
@Starman. I answered all of your points. You did not like my answers so you restated your questions without answering my points. But I am happy to work at your speed. Here they are again:

Staarman: Faith is waning in places where people are best educated and informed such as western Europe and the northeast US. Given rapid communication etc it's only a matter of time before people everywhere else wise up too.


Looking at the US this is objectively untrue. Five of the 10 most educated states have average or higher church attendance.

Now I am not going to publish a wall of text here but what you are asserting is simply untrue. Your fundamental mistake is to equate church attendance with faith and faith with religiosity. They are not the same thing. Here are some facts for you to ponder. (I am not going to write a book so if you want to disbelieve my sources you are free to do so. Check Wiki and argue with them.)

A Pew Center study about religion and education around the world in 2016, found that Jews are most educated religious group around in the world with an average of 13.4 years of schooling;[6] Jews also have the highest number of graduate and post-graduate degrees per capita (61%)....

Christians ranked as the second most educated religious group around in the world with an average of 9.3 years of schooling,[6] Christians were also found to have the second highest number of graduate and post-graduate degrees per capita while in absolute numbers ranked in the first place (220 million)....

The religiously unaffiliated—which includes atheists, agnostics and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular”—ranked as the third educated religious group with an average of 8.8 years of schooling,[6] and around 16% of unaffiliated have graduate and post-graduate degrees.


I will try to use easier words for our atheist friends.

Statistical analysis of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 65.4% of Nobel laureates were Christians, over 20% were Jewish and 10.5% were atheists, agnostics, or freethinkers.[9] According to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.[10] Since 1901-2013, 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews.[11]



According to the General Social Survey, which has collected data on Americans since 1972, people who are educated often are more religious by various measures. For instance, as of 2010 sociologist Philip Schwadel found that with each additional year of education: the likelihood of attending religious services increased 15%, the likelihood of reading the Bible at least occasionally increased by 9%. The likelihood of switching to a mainline Protestant denomination increased by 13%.[16] On belief in God or a higher power, Schwadel said, “With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, ‘I don’t believe in God...But you are relatively more likely to say, ‘I believe in a higher power.’”[16]


Starman tried to say: As, in certain parts of the world, is the faith of Atheism.
It's not based on "faith" but knowledge, which shows "god" is superfluous, as well as unverified.



This shows very shallow thinking. Why?

Atheism is certainly based upon faith. All science can provide is the knowledge that there is no evidence of God at this point. That is OK. Can you think of any scientific discoveries that one could say the same about a couple of decades ago? I can.

But the second part of your statement is particularly thoughtless. You said..."It's not based on "faith" but knowledge, which shows "god" is superfluous." God is far from superfluous. He/She/Them are perhaps the most powerful forces of human interaction known since sex. Even if the Christian God did not exist in any verifiable form, "He" is immensely powerful in your life. Faith in God influences virtually every facet of your social interaction. A scientist would not dismiss something of such observable effect as "superfluous". All science is not physics.



No, I meant that collectively, scientific knowledge renders "god" unnecessary. Btw a 1998 NATURE poll indicated 90% of top scientists reject "god." :)


Well shit poll is shit. There is much better data.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.


Seems like your numbers were off by....well.....a bunch.

There are lots of studies like this. The point ought to be that the way the questions are phrased (as in all surveys) will illicit different responses. For example. If you asked me this question: Do you believe in the Bible in its entirety? I would answer, no. That does not make me an atheist.

The burden of proof is on the holy joes. And as Atkins and others have noted, there is no need to invoke "god" all the way back to the start of the Universe. "We have tracked the infinitely lazy creator all the way back to his lair. He is of course not there." :)


This is a monumentally stupid idea but understandable based upon your ignorance of the subject.

The burden of proof is on the holy joes.


No it isn't. We "Holy Joes" are not trying to prove anything. No need to. For most of us the search for proof is not only irrelevant, it is a waste of time. Some would say apostasy.

"We have tracked the infinitely lazy creator all the way back to his lair. He is of course not there.


This is a statement of faith. Certainly not one any real scientist would want to have to prove. And remember. Science is about evidence AND the lack thereof.



And what specific unexplained phenomenon requires the "god" explanation??


Again. You are endlessly ignoring the social sciences.


But you see, there is rarely settled truth. Of course you do not know "the truth" though you know some things that are probably pretty well proved for the time being.



:lol: The one most urgently in need of help is the person who thinks he regularly communicates with something he's never seen....


Help with what? It is very hard to assert any kind of pathology when the odd people out are the ones who do not do this. People who do NOT communicate with something they have never seen are and always have been a very tiny minority.

Marx lived back in the 19th century, long before the scientific and technological advances that can really finish off the holy bs. Marx couldn't have foreseen the conquest of aging that modern advances can probably bring about in this century or soon afterwards. If religion has waned this much among the most sophisticated even now, future advances will kill it for sure. :)


I will set aside the fact that you obviously know little about Marx and simply state that the your conclusion is demonstrably false. Marx would not even recognize most of the technology we take for granted today. And religious observation is not falling in the presence of this technology. It is growing in many places including some quite scientifically and technologically advanced. So your whole overriding premise is demonstrably false. Scientific knowledge has not been shown to destroy religious belief. In most cases it just modifies it.

Right for the time being. And as I've said, in the best educated areas are a harbinger of the future.


Demonstrable belief in God is situational. It is no surprise to anyone that the wealthiest among us do not feel the need for help. The Bible speaks to this time and again. Happy people do not go to shrinks as frequently as unhappy ones do. I am surprised that you can't see what is obvious to the meanest of understanding. No doubt you do not understand the old saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes".
#14832373
It should be clear to any reasonable person

:lol:

Dr. Michael Behe (biochemist)

Discredited.

Behe's claims have been rejected by the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.

Departmental statement, Lehigh University, August 2005 wrote:It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Dr. Dean Kenyon (biologist)

Discredited.

A young earth creationist.

Dr. Paul Nelson (philosopher of biology)

Discredited.

A young earth creationist.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (historian and philosopher of science)

Discredited.

A liar.

wiki wrote:In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy, which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of "Darwinian evolution".

When contacted, none of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.

Dr. William Dembski (mathematician and philosopher)

Discredited.

Dembski's work has been strongly criticised within the scientific community, which argues that there are a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypotheses.

David Wolpert wrote:fatally informal and imprecise... written in jello...

The results regarding the NFL theorems being invalid for coevolution have been known for some time (and mentioned, for example, in M. Perakh's book Unintelligent Design). A paper by Wolpert and Macready, with a proof of these results, was published:

D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready. Coevolutionary free lunches. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 9(6):721-735, December 2005.

Dr. Jonathan Wells (cell biologist and theologian)

A Moonie.

Dr. Scott Minnich (microbiologist)

#279 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

a fairy tale

Scientific creationism is not science. It makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. It is not testable. And, when, on the few occasions it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 13 Aug 2017 18:13, edited 2 times in total.
#14832561
Drlee wrote:Atheism is certainly based upon faith. All science can provide is the knowledge that there is no evidence of God at this point.


So atheism is based on knowledge and reality. A rational person doesn't believe something until it's been shown to be true or exist, which is not the case for "god."

That is OK. Can you think of any scientific discoveries that one could say the same about a couple of decades ago? I can.


But a sensible person shouldn't assume something unproven exists.

You said..."It's not based on "faith" but knowledge, which shows "god" is superfluous." God is far from superfluous. He/She/Them are perhaps the most powerful forces of human interaction known since sex. Even if the Christian God did not exist in any verifiable form, "He" is immensely powerful in your life. Faith in God influences virtually every facet of your social interaction. A scientist would not dismiss something of such observable effect as "superfluous". All science is not physics.


:roll: I don't doubt belief in "god" has permeated society I just meant it's not needed to explain anything in the real, natural world--not the origin of mountains, species, the Earth, the solar system or the Universe.


This is a monumentally stupid idea but understandable based upon your ignorance of the subject.


You think Atkins is "monumentally stupid"...what are your credentials compared to his?


No it isn't. We "Holy Joes" are not trying to prove anything. No need to. For most of us the search for proof is not only irrelevant, it is a waste of time. Some would say apostasy.


:lol: Yeah sure, typical attitude of the brainless and the deluded, who believe in "god" with no scientific evidence whatsoever. And look at the real, renowned experts--Hawking, Dawkins and Krauss. The 1998 NATURE poll involved top scientists not ordinary doctors or educators--though even among them, nonbelief is higher than among the general population.


Help with what?


Delusional mental problems.

It is very hard to assert any kind of pathology when the odd people out are the ones who do not do this. People who do NOT communicate with something they have never seen are and always have been a very tiny minority.


And a very rational one. The problem is delusional nonsense in present culture.


And religious observation is not falling in the presence of this technology. It is growing in many places including some quite scientifically and technologically advanced. So your whole overriding premise is demonstrably false. Scientific knowledge has not been shown to destroy religious belief. In most cases it just modifies it.


Modifies it=erodes it, until nothing is left. Scientific knowledge provides rational alternatives to holy hocus pocus and it helps improve life in the real world to the detriment of fantasy. Christianity may not be destroyed yet, but there's no doubt religious belief has eroded over the centuries with advancing progress in Europe etc. Extrapolate this trend another century or so... :)

Demonstrable belief in God is situational. It is no surprise to anyone that the wealthiest among us do not feel the need for help. The Bible speaks to this time and again. Happy people do not go to shrinks as frequently as unhappy ones do. I am surprised that you can't see what is obvious to the meanest of understanding. No doubt you do not understand the old saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes".


:roll: I've heard that stupid saying...Basically religion is for the desperate who have no real world answers. They turn to it out of desperation not reason.
#14832591
I'm tired of you. You are a broken record endlessly playing the only tune you know. Smart people don't do that. I have made my arguments and I am not going to feed your childish need to insult people anymore. If you wish to refute anything I have said, go for it. So far you haven't.

Note that you seem to be alone in your efforts here. Given the number of very smart atheists on this forum that should tell you something.
#14832681
starman2003 wrote:So atheism is based on knowledge...

The supernatural is unknowable.

and reality.

Being picky, science doesn’t "prove" or "disprove" anything. It simply renders hypotheses more or less plausible. And, even though you may think that science’s ability to render ideas implausible comes very close to what we all think of as absolute disproof, the supernatural is not testable.

Explanations employing non naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science.

Drlee wrote:[Atheism] is a statement of faith.

It is.

A sceptical agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. But that said, holding to that position does not bar one from choosing to live without God.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 14 Aug 2017 07:59, edited 1 time in total.
#14832842
A sceptical agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. But, that said, holding to that position does not bar one from choosing to live without God.


I absolutely agree with this. There are many thoughtful and wise people who do exactly that. Those of us who choose to live with God do so as a matter of faith. Many of us have experiences that reinforce our beliefs. Some quite profound experiences. but at the end of the day, there is a reason we are referred to as 'the faithful'.
#14832977
ingliz wrote:Scientific creationism is not science. It makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. It is not testable. And, when, on the few occasions it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.

:)

Of course, there are those in the establishment that must go along to get along. You may find many that say they disagree with the scientist that believe in creation or intelligent design, but creation or intelligent design has not been proven wrong or discredited as you seem to think. And to fall back on ad hominem arguments is evidence that you don't have any good arguments.

Scientists who focus on details all day long may inadvertently miss the big picture of this incredibly complex creation around us. Don't they claim that this giant universe with its complexity and laws just exploded into existence all by itself? And that there is no creator and designer behind it all? I hope you are not really that stupid to believe that nonsense.

Scientists admit that our buildings, cars, computers, and other machinery didn't just explode into existence. They don't doubt that man designed and built all those things, because they acknowledge those things require at least some intelligent design. However, those man-made things are far less complex than plants and animals, which are capable of reproducing themselves. That is because their creator God programmed the ability to reproduce within themselves. See the DNA and cell.



I don't trust modern scientists when it comes to ancient history and spiritual matters - our origins and the purpose of life. How we first got here and precisely when it started is inherently outside of modern testable-repeatable science. Evolutionists must have more faith to believe in their evolution fairy tale than a creationists does to believe God did it.

Evolutionist atheists have yet to prove how life began or even how a fish became a frog or a frog became a prince. It certainly didn't happen by a kiss. The evolutionists ignore all the scientific testable evidence that prove that it is impossible for a chimpanzee to evolve into a man or a woman. They also ignore the Theory of Biogenesis that states that life only comes from preexisting life. This theory is so certain and accepted that many refer to it as the Law of Biogenesis.
#14833000
ad hominem

In some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious.

Evolutionist atheists have yet to prove how life began

They have not, but then why should they? Evolution traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.

the Law of Biogenesis

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


:)
#14833024
Hindsite wrote:Evolutionist atheists have yet to prove how life began or even how a fish became a frog


Tiktaalik is indisputable proof that a transition from fish to amphibian was possible and occurred. There are many transitional forms known.


The evolutionists ignore all the scientific testable evidence that prove that it is impossible for a chimpanzee to evolve into a man or a woman.


Who ever said our species evolved from a chimp?? We evolved from earlier members of the genus Homo.

Drlee wrote:
I'm tired of you.


Feelings are mutual. Good riddance.

ingliz wrote:

The supernatural is unknowable....the supernatural is untestable.


In theory it should be testable by means of miracles. None verified of course.
#14833068
In theory it should be testable by means of miracles. None verified of course.


This makes no sense. If it happens it is natural. Who is it that is claiming that God is not a natural as the sunrise?
#14833189
discredited

The claims of "irreducible complexity" in bacterial flagellum by Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, have been comprehensively shot down by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others who have shown that the final evolution of the flagellum involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes.

Similarly, his claims of "irreducible complexity" in the blood-clotting system that have been shown to involve only the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego.

discredited

The claims of "specified complexity" - living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce - by William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch have been shown to be complete tosh by researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere who have demonstrated that simple undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.


:)
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 14
Can Islam be Reformed ?

double post deleted

Muslim outrage on social networks after video of[…]

Trump Takes on NFL

In other words, they are against anybody making […]

The instant I saw "Infowars" I stopped w[…]