The Top Ten Reasons....

[Igakusei]

The Gender Genie thinks differently:

Haha, that's hilarious. I wonder how accurate it actually is. So far it's 1 for 1 :)

[Raphael]

Igakusei, wouldn't one want to live not only physically but mentally and emotionally in perfect health, beyond the limits of one's diminutive lifespan?

If not... then its a limit atheists doom themselves. People, who struggle with themselves often, only have a one way ticket down, that is to bounce off the bottom.. hopefully the sooner the better.

If yes... search with all your heart & might because it beyond everything the world can offer.

[miz3]

There are really two things that drive the TOE forward:

1) The inherent biological, functional, and genetic similarities in living organisms.

2) The ability of organisms to adopt to their environment over time.

Those are the two major pillars that make TOE plausible and compelling.

The problem with TOE is that it makes connections, which end up being a circle of self-supporting evidence for evolution. TOE largely relies on assumptions derived from observation, and in itself there's not thing wrong with it if such assumptions were not a claim to the proven theory.

I would certainly not outright reject the TOE as plausible explanation of a variety. But, for the same exact reasons I would not reject the plausibility of super-natural creator. Both are logical. Sure, the second one is not "scientific" due to the nature of the theory, but nevertheless it is logical.

It's difficult to debate whether or not evolution ever "happened" (from single cell to human species) due to the nature of knowledge that revolves around such debate. Such knowledge is largely circumstantial, thus it is not "knowledge" at all. It's a belief, if we consider the epistomelogical requirement for knowledge.

I think the major problem with this debate is that we mistake science with explanation of certain phenomenon. Sure, we know and understand concepts through explanation, but in terms of knowledge (sciencia), evolution theory... even while providing objective support for the theory, still rests in the realm of epistemological belief.

How do you prove a believe that it's 12:00? You can look at the clock in your living room that's designed to accurately measure time. You can then compare that with various clocks around the world, and you can prove that your belief reflects certain reality.

How can you prove that all life on earth started from a single-cell organism? The answer is simple, you can't. Just like you can't prove that the entire universe began with a "big bang". Sure, we can discuss and measure possibilities. The universe is expanding, and there are good correlation evidence to consider the plausibility of single-cell origin of all biological variety, but likewise, we can make the opposite arguments from statistics and cosmology that would rule out such explanations, and leave us to search for better ones.

Just because there are no better explanations, does not justify us taking the best possible (yet unprovable theory) and run with it by making the assumptive connections that exist without direct evidence... and given the nature of the evolutionary argument, the evidence we find is indirect, and we are left with making connections that may or may not be true.

The point being, any ontological debate of Creation vs Evolution is a practical waste of time. It accomplishes very little, just like the statements akin "Bible is proven to be reliable truth" and "Evolution is a proven fact". Both statements are derived from taking a small amount of factual discoveries and then using these as a "proof blanket" for entire belief.

Science is important. We know things through scientific method. Religion is important, because it makes us consider the philosophical implications of being that extend beyond the simple clockwork.

Both, should be contextualized and reconciled properly.

Igakusei, hello my dear friend from the "Origins" room.

You and I and Bravus have been around this block before in the "Origins" room. I read the OP and all the posts up to this post cited above.

As we found in our original go round the argument cannot be settled outside of the ORIGIN. Without knowing the what really happened at the ORIGIN it is impossible for us to actually state with any certainty how this after evidence got to be the way it is.

We also proved that regardless of your belief as to the ORIGIN it requires "FAITH" to hold your theory of how things came to be. It requires "FAITH" because the ORIGIN is beyond our ability to prove with any semblance of certainty how we got to this point in human existence. All we can do is "guess" based on our FAITH!

I also found your OP in which you cited someone's ten reasons to be horribly weak. It was nothing more than an anti-religion rant with weak evidence if there was even evidence at all. It was simply a rant of someone's feelings which clearly was a venting of their hatred of "organized religion".

I will agree that "organized Christianity" has many "sins" and in many historical instances is bankrupt of "moral" decency. Hypocritical is the most charge for which Christianity as an organized entity can be charged with. Which is no more than other "organized" entities, including so-called science, can be charged with. Such hypocrisy would include being dishonest and untruthful (lying). Both sides have been guilty.

Such correctly pointed accusations of "both sides" does not change the FACT that:

1. It all boils down to what actually happened at the ORIGIN.

2. Whatever you now believe to be true about the ORIGIN is based on your FAITH that such is True.

[Overaged]

2. Whatever you now believe to be true about the ORIGIN is based on your FAITH that such is True.

Are you sure about that? How do you know this?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. Whatever you now believe to be true about the ORIGIN is based on your FAITH that such is True.

Are you sure about that? How do you know this?

Your kidding, right?

[Overaged]

Yes I am serious.

[miz3]

Yes I am serious.

That's amazing.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Yes I am serious.

That's amazing.

Whats amazing? What did I do now?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Yes I am serious.

That's amazing.

[Overaged]

THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF THIS BOX! Everything depends on what you have FAITH in.

That is why both my statements one and two are correct and I am amazed that you would question those statements.

Case closed.

I'll re-open it then. Because the Bible calls our "faith" "EVIDENCE."

Now the case is closed.

[skyblue888]

"Faith is the evidence of things not seen...." Heb:11:1

[Overaged]

"Faith is the evidence of things not seen...." Heb:11:1

[Igakusei]

If your faith is evidence, than what is the faith of other Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe differently?

[Overaged]

If your faith is evidence, than what is the faith of other Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe differently?

Their "faith" is evidence of something too

[skyblue888]

Faith is the substance of things not seen. We do not see with our eyes the mighty power that works all through nature but we can see it with the eyes of our understanding because the Scriptures declare that "In Christ all things hold together" and that by His Spirit He is everywhere present working in and through all but especially in and through those who believe.

Seing the invisible with the eyes of our understanding enlightened by the Word of God.

sky

[skyblue888]

The Muslim's faith is not based on the totality of the Word of God any more than the Jew's faith is. Neither believe that "In Christ all things hold together," or that "In Him we live and move and have our being." They do not believe the Scriptures that declare that Christ is God and Saviour in the highest sense. Therefore their faith is vain.

It is the same with Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not acknowledge the supremacy of Christ. They do not recognize Him as equal with God and they certainly do not acknowledge that "In Him we live and move and have our being," and that "In Him all things hold together."

They do not see the invisible any more than those who make no profession of religion at all or who are deceived through cunning fables like Buddhism or any other ism there may be whether in religion or in philosophy or the occult.

And it doesn't matter whether we be Catholics or so-called Protestants or Adventists even. If we do not recognize that "In Christ all things hold together" we have not yet seen the invisible.

sky