DINOSAUR BONES FOUND IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE FIRST TIME

[bonnie]

Quote:

Why is it that's these types of discussions tend to follow a certain progression:

1) Here's evidence for the flood

- no it isn't and here's why...

Strange question coming from you.

Quote:

2) Well, then where does everything came from? Everything can't come from nothing.

- Why do you think it has to come from nothing?

What did "it" come from? What was here prior to creation week is not known to anyone. Where did whatever was here come from?

How did human beings come about? Proof please.Something as complex and marvelous as the human body came about how?

Quote:

3) Well, without God morality is broken.

- no, it's not. You are presupposing something yet to be demonstrated true to explain everything else. Likewise, just because something is necessary in your view, doesn't make true or valid.

Odd statement,as that is exactly what you are doing

[fccool]

Quote:

What did "it" come from? What was here prior to creation week is not known to anyone.

How do you know that?

Quote:

Where did whatever was here come from?

Why do you think it has to "come" from anywhere?

Quote:

How did human beings come about? Proof please. Something as complex and marvelous as the human body came about how?

So, you think that something that marvelous, and incredibly complex has to have supernatural origins as the only possible explanation?

Are you absolutely sure that that has to be the case?

Is God marvelous and complex? How does that work in this case, or you merely invent an unexplainable reasons that you then believe with certainty, even though the proper and satisfactory answer to the first question could be "I don't know".

Why is "I don't know" so terrible in such context? If I don't really know, then I'm in a better place to attempt to find out than people who presume not only that they know, but that they know based on extremely fallacious logic and reasoning that seldom produces correct answers.

I think I'd rather not know, than pretending to know... and then structure my life around something that I'm pretending to know.

[bonnie]

Quote:

What did "it" come from? What was here prior to creation week is not known to anyone.

How do you know that?

[fccool]

Quote:

Tell me exactly what was here and for how long.Not speculation but what is known for a fact

Facts by definition have to be verifiable. I can't tell you for a fact what was here or not, therefore I can't make assumption... especially when it's assumption like "God did it", and not just a God concept... but with all certainty it was Christian God, a version of which you believe in.

That's a very big assumption and claim to knowledge with absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is factual. Facts are readily verifiable.

The question "Where everything came from" assumes that it has to come from somewhere. We simply don't know that it did.

Quote:

Tell me how it began. Not what you think but the proof of how it began.

I can't tell you how it began . Neither can you. Both of us were not there, and our theories are educated speculations. If you demand absolute proof and information and facts, we have none. We have theories that are based on present facts that inform these theories.

We structure our explanations about what we can observe, instead of basing it on what we can't observe, or things that contradict general observations.

Quote:

I am absolutely sure of that

So, you absolutely sure that marvelous and complex things have to have origin? How is it that you sure that God didn't need origin then? Is God not marvelously complex?

[bonnie]

Fact by definition have to be verifiable. I can't tell you for a fact what was here or not, therefore I can't make assumption.

[Igakusei]

I am as equally amazed how supposedly very intelligent people would never believe a computer & its OS, or a 747 could come into existence without a creator, and yet fervently believe that something even more complex like a "simple" cell, or a human brain could come about without a Creator.

Complexity arises from natural, and especially evolutionary processes all the time. Computer programmers use it every day to develop powerful and efficient solutions to problems that they then have difficulty understanding due to their often incredibly complex and obfuscatory nature (and before anyone says it, the only kind of "design" in nature that the existence of the computer programmer here could possibly support would be theistic evolution, where a designer sets up the environment in order to evolve the sorts of life-forms that it wants).

http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Regardless, let's get back to your last assertion. You seemed to imply quite clearly that a decent collection of local floods throughout the world was actually instead evidence for the Biblical Deluge of Noah. I replied that those floods were clearly understood as local, with well defined temporal and geographical boundaries, and therefore constituted no such thing. Given that, can you explain how your argument is therefore anything but baseless handwaving with no grounding in reality?

When you challenge my position, I give rebuttals. You may not agree with those rebuttals and we can keep going down each of those lines of argument in greater detail, but it's difficult when you instead simply neglect to address what I said and instead throw out a new and unrelated argument.

But if that's what you prefer to do, can you at least present them in a form that pre-emptively addresses the information at this link?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Because that would save me a lot of time.

[fccool]

Quote:

Then of course you can't tell me my bible based belief is wrong?

An untestable belief is not right or wrong until it is demonstrably right or wrong.

I can't really tell with certainty that someone isn't crazy when they claim that they see a bunch of leprechauns running around... but there's a high degree of probability that they are wrong, based on what we do observe.

We can't structure our beliefs about observable based on what's not observable. It works precisely the opposite. That's how we know thing - because we can observe these.

Quote:

So this world started from nothing,absolutely nothing?

Why do you think that I imply that? I've said that I don't know that this world even "started". I can't possibly know that. I can derive based on data that it's expanding, and that the rate of expansion could be explained by the fact that it may have been that it was compacted to a smaller area... but that's as far as I can go with assumptions.

Matter could have just always existed in one form or another. This universe could be a subset of a larger "multi-verse". I don't know. We can speculate all we want, but we don't do that by claiming absolute certainty. Absolute certainty only works for internal logic.

Quote:

I believe I said that some time ago. I believe in God,One God,I believe He is the creator of all. You don't,your choice. You and another poster set out to determine the rest of us are wrong. You need more than theories and speculation, You need to tell me how it happened,not that it didn't happen the way I believe it did.

I'm not set out to to determine that the rest of you are wrong... but simply that your logic and explanations are inconsistent, and somewhat misleading.

You claim to know the unobservable based on a claim from a 2000 year old book. And you claim to do that based on a belief.

I have no problems with beliefs, but it's quite different than knowing something. If you know something, you don't have to believe it. If something is known with certain, term's like "faith" and "belief" should be used at all.

Quote:

Yes,I am sure. You can try as hard as you like with your flawed human reasoning to convince others that God does not exist or He is one of many,or He has limitations as you do. For those that do believe in God,you need more than speculation and theories based on human reasoning

I'm not trying to convince you that God doesn't exist. I'm only showing you that you can't know that. You may believe that, but you can't really know that.

In that sense, we are on the same level of claim. I don't know, and you don't know either... but you believe that you do. Belief is useful, but is not very relevant in this context... especially when we discuss scientific matters.

[fccool]

Quote:

you need more than speculation and theories based on human reasoning

Don't all humans employ human reasoning? How can humans have God's reasoning?

If all reasoning is flawed, then how exactly did you come to a conclusion that God exists, and that Bible is true? Didn't you use your human reasoning to do that?

If you've used something different than I use... I certainly would love to try that out for a change!

[bonnie]

Quote:

you need more than speculation and theories based on human reasoning

Don't all humans employ human reasoning? How can humans have God's reasoning?

If all reasoning is flawed, then how exactly did you come to a conclusion that God exists, and that Bible is true? Didn't you use your human reasoning to do that?

If you've used something different than I use... I certainly would love to try that out for a change!

I believe in God,the creator of the universe because initially that is what I was taught by my parents. As I got older I asked questions as I am sure most do. The more I questioned what I had been taught the more I believed in God. Many times as a young person it would have been very convenient to believe otherwise.

The explanation of this earth coming into existence from nothing or a big bang never sounded plausible to me and it still doesn't.

I don't care what you believe but it seems that it annoys or disturbs you and the OP.

I posted this strictly from the standpoint that I enjoy and find the findings from so many years ago interesting and believe that some others do as well. Did I ever think for one second that it would appeal or prove anything to those that do not believe in a Creator,NOPE.

I can't prove to you and you can't prove to me. I didn't intend to try. It is pointless.

As for flawed reasoning,do I have absolute comprehension of God.Nope. Do I have a perfect understanding.NOPE

But I have seen many things that tell me that we are not here by chance.

As I see more information posted on finds of thousands of years ago I will continue to be interested and probably post the. If you find it necessary to try to refute each one,that is your choice I guess. It is to bad if it annoys or disturbs you.

[fccool]

Again,

I have no problems with a belief that Bible is true, but it's not something that's demonstrably and objectively true that we can verify with certainty.

The same goes for flood. The evidence seems to overwhelmingly support that global flood didn't happen as some thought it did. It's not very likely, given what we see and understand about present day geology and biology.

It may be that a wide variety of fields are simply wrong about that, but it would be a colossal failure of science on virtually all levels. It would be highly strange that the same science could put a man on a moon with a high degree of precision, and yet be wrong about so many things otherwise.

When you say that science is wrong... it's an absolute claim, that requires factual knowledge to demonstrate it. You can say that you believe that science is wrong, which would make it a claim relative to your beliefs, but generally, that's not what happens.

There seems to be a confusion and conflation of belief and knowledge.

[bonnie]

Again,

I have no problems with a belief that Bible is true, but it's not something that's demonstrably and objectively true that we can verify with certainty.

The same goes for flood. The evidence seems to overwhelmingly support that global flood didn't happen as some thought it did. It's not very likely, given what we see and understand about present day geology and biology.

It may be that a wide variety of fields are simply wrong about that, but it would be a colossal failure of science on virtually all levels. It would be highly strange that the same science could put a man on a moon with a high degree of precision, and yet be wrong about so many things otherwise.

That's fine.Then let it be. I will take you at your word that you don't have a problem with the belief that the bible is true.

Then hopefully in the future you won't waste the time and energy to persuade otherwise

[fccool]

Quote:

I believe in God,the creator of the universe because initially that is what I was taught by my parents. As I got older I asked questions as I am sure most do. The more I questioned what I had been taught the more I believed in God. Many times as a young person it would have been very convenient to believe otherwise.

Sure, I don't question what you believe. I question what you claim to know.

Quote:

The explanation of this earth coming into existence from nothing or a big bang never sounded plausible to me and it still doesn't.

I don't care what you believe but it seems that it annoys or disturbs you and the OP.

It doesn't really annoy or disturb me. I'm not sure where you get that idea. I'm trying to have a conversation in which we can discuss beliefs, and reason behind these beliefs, mainly because this conversation seldom happens in church on level in which the other side is adequately and accurately represented.

You stated that existence from nothing never sounded plausible... in context of your believe then, did God create universe from something? I'm just trying to understand the consistency of your reasoning here.

1) You don't find that universe from nothing sounds plausible, and then you say that's exactly what happened... God created it from nothing.

2) You say that complex things require creator, and then you say that they don't when it comes to the most complex thing of all.

3) You claim that human reasoning is flawed, yet you imply human reasoning to come to that conclusion... so it's like saying that "this statement is false".

I actually am interested in how you manage to reconcile these?

Quote:

I posted this strictly from the standpoint that I enjoy and find the findings from so many years ago interesting and believe that some others do as well. Did I ever think for one second that it would appeal or prove anything to those that do not believe in a Creator,NOPE.

Sure, we are on the same page about that. In fact, I have ZERO problem with you posting what you think supporting what you believe. I would actually encourage that.

Quote:

I can't prove to you and you can't prove to me. I didn't intend to try. It is pointless.

I think it's a more reasonable way to approach this. I would think that it's pointless to theorize about possibilities, especially if these are supported by what we observe.

Quote:

As for flawed reasoning,do I have absolute comprehension of God.Nope. Do I have a perfect understanding.NOPE

But I have seen many things that tell me that we are not here by chance.

I think that your usage of "by chance" is somewhat incorrect in this context. I think that you mean "by accident and without purposeful design", since chance is talking about probability.

If you mean that "we are not here without purposeful design", I think it that it's an assumption that carries a certain understanding of design that's not very relevant.

If you believe that everything is designed, then we can't really know what's not designed. If God designed everything, can you shown me example of non-design, and how do you distinguish it from design?

If I say that everything is white, the idea of color becomes somewhat meaningless. We understand color in context of contrasting it with something else. If everything is white, then you wouldn't be able to see anything at all.

The same goes for design and our understanding of it. We know that things are designed, because we can compare them with things that are not designed. Likewise, we have overwhelming examples of things that are designed, because we know that these are.

In case of humans, we don't really know. We see certain resemblance, but it's nothing like things that humans design. Human pattern things after what they observe in nature.

While I can agree that it's not unreasonable to believe that complexity is designed. I think that it's very difficult to jump form that to a very specific claims that in all actuality conflict with everything that we observe in nature.

Quote:

As I see more information posted on finds of thousands of years ago I will continue to be interested and probably post the. If you find it necessary to try to refute each one,that is your choice I guess. It is to bad if it annoys or disturbs you.

I think it's necessary to correct fallacious reasoning and facts. I would want to be corrected about things that I'm possibly wrong about... or in the very least presented opposing views accurately.

I don't think it serves us any good to interpret every piece of information that we see based on what we believe is unobservable. I'm not sure how it's helpful for the future of Christianity or humanity in general. We progress based on expansion of our knowledge, and not based on what we believe that we hold is as uncontroversial truth.

Anything in science is questionable, and will be questionable. I don't think that anything should be exempt from it.

[fccool]

Quote:

That's fine.Then let it be. I will take you at your word that you don't have a problem with the belief that the bible is true. Then hopefully in the future you won't waste the time and energy to persuade otherwise

There's a difference between claiming to believe something, and claiming to know something.

Knowledge is factual, belief can be based on facts, but is not necessarily follow. It's uncertain.

People who believe are not necessarily better than people who don't. In fact, belief is generally not a good way to navigate through life.

If we kept on living based on beliefs alone, we'd still be in the stone age. It's our desire to know things that made life better for everyone.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who insist that belief claims are more reliable, for some odd reason.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who insist that belief claims are more reliable, for some odd reason.

"...Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’...he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”"Luke 16:29,31 NASB

God/Jesus saves!

[Igakusei]

"...Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’...he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”"Luke 16:29,31 NASB

God/Jesus saves!

I tell you what, I'd change my beliefs in about 0.2 nanoseconds if people started rising from the dead. So the author of Luke is pretty much dead wrong here, at least as applied to me. And I doubt I'm alone here.

[Gerr]

Actually, Darwinism enhanced morality by detaching it from "My pastor/priests says that".

Where is the evidence for this? Nazi Germany's classification of Jews and non-whites as sub-humans? The Soviet Gulag?

[Gerr]

I tell you what, I'd change my beliefs in about 0.2 nanoseconds if people started rising from the dead. So the author of Luke is pretty much dead wrong here, at least as applied to me. And I doubt I'm alone here.

I take it that you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I tell you what, I'd change my beliefs in about 0.2 nanoseconds if people started rising from the dead. So the author of Luke is pretty much dead wrong here, at least as applied to me. And I doubt I'm alone here.

Sad to say, you're right.

It happens to be that I'm conversant with friends in a third world country that have not only seen one person raised from the dead, but a number of individuals have experienced the reality, children mostly as I remember. However for the most of us that do experience that joy, it will be at His coming. Those that do not know Him will not desire for Him to be their King and will miss out on the privilege.

I can honestly say though, if I didn't know Jesus as Lord, I have no desire to be resurrected on what this world is becoming.

God cares! Jesus saves!

[fccool]

Quote:

It happens to be that I'm conversant with friends in a third world country that have not only seen one person raised from the dead, but a number of individuals have experienced the reality, children mostly as I remember. However for the most of us that do experience that joy, it will be at His coming. Those that do not know Him will not desire for Him to be their King and will miss out on the privilege.

I can honestly say though, if I didn't know Jesus as Lord, I have no desire to be resurrected on what this world is becoming.

I'm curious, if there would be any time in history that you'd rather live, which you think was much better than now... what time would it be?

[fccool]

Quote:

Where is the evidence for this? Nazi Germany's classification of Jews and non-whites as sub-humans? The Soviet Gulag?

That's not evolution theory problem. It's a problem of statism and reactionary politics. Blaming Evolution theory for these is extremely misguided... especially in light that:

1) Soviet Union fought to end Nazi regime

2) Hitler and Nazis were endorsed by Christians, and actually used Luther's writings to justify expulsion of Jews (not Darwin's writings)

3) Soviet Revolution probably wouldn't even be a reality if prior Russian Emperor's regime wasn't so bloody and corrupt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281905%29

These have little to do with Evolution and even secularism.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I tell you what, I'd change my beliefs in about 0.2 nanoseconds if people started rising from the dead. So the author of Luke is pretty much dead wrong here, at least as applied to me. And I doubt I'm alone here.

I take it that you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

I'd say that's a no brainer Gerry! If you don't believe the Genesis account of Creation, why would you accept that Jesus came to this earth and died for us and than rose from the dead. But than I could be wrong and I apologize.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I'm curious, if there would be any time in history that you'd rather live, which you think was much better than now... what time would it be?

If it were anytime in the past it would have to be when I was a toddler and was ignorant of the sorrow and anguish prevalent in the human race, including the loss of one of my favorite uncles to murder, as well as another who spent a number of years in a foreign concentration camp and would never speak about what went on there after being released at the end of hostilities.

Since what God says is true for those who choose Him, as if what they haven't achieved yet, is already, this below is what I anticipate with great inner joy, seeing the past only as a time and experience for planning to receive that which is beyond our fondest expectations.

"[That you may really come] to know [practically, through experience for yourselves] the love of Christ, which far surpasses mere knowledge [without experience]; that you may be filled [through all your being] unto all the fullness of God [may have the richest measure of the divine Presence, and become a body wholly filled and flooded with God Himself]!

Now to Him Who, by (in consequence of) the [action of His] power that is at work within us, is able to [carry out His purpose and] do superabundantly, far over and above all that we [dare] ask or think [infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires, thoughts, hopes, or dreams]—

To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever and ever. Amen (so be it)."Ephesians 3:19-21 AMP Brackets parenthesis theirs' LHC

That will all take place according to these two promises.

"There is more than enough room in my Father’s home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?"John 14:2 NLT

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,"Philippians 3:20 NKJV

Some of that is given as a reward for what has been done in our lives that is worthwhile down here, but all is a result of having given ourselves over to God to do in us what we find ourselves incapable of doing on our own, in other words, it's all a gift totally undeserved on our part.

God saves! Jesus cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Soviet Union fought to end Nazi regime

And yet after helping to defeat Naziism which claimed some 13 million lives, the Soviet Union went on to claim some 40 million lives of their own citizens, all a result of an ideology that the solution to the world's ills is to exterminate the weak by force or subterfuge, the antithesis of saving the world through the love of our enemies, shortly to come to full fruition through the return of Jesus and full acceptance of the platform of His trust.

"Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things."John 8:28 NKJV

God/Jesus saves!

[fccool]

Quote:

The Soviet Union went on to claim some 40 million lives of their own citizens

I don't think you know your history, or my history either .

The largest death count in Soviet Union happened in 30s during the forced Collectivisation and "Razkulachivaniye", with the latter not really killing people... but sending them to colonize and farm the unpopulated areas of USSR. Generally that count was grossly exaggerated by the US historians during the Cold War.

Probably, the worst of these was Ukrainian famine that my grandparents survived. It took about 3-5 million people, based on estimates.

40 million number is ridiculous, considering that entire death count of WWII was 50 million, and we are talking about death toll of all of the 27 countries involved... for both civilian and military.

You are implying that post WWII, USSR killed 1/4th of its remaining population... which is ridiculous. There's simply no way that Communist regime could pull that off without undoing itself. Not quite sure where you get these numbers from.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I tell you what, I'd change my beliefs in about 0.2 nanoseconds if people started rising from the dead. So the author of Luke is pretty much dead wrong here, at least as applied to me. And I doubt I'm alone here.

I take it that you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I don't find the Biblical account of Jesus' resurrection sufficient evidence for pretty much the same reason that I don't find blurry photographs sufficient evidence for UFO visitation, or a collection of emotionally-charged testimonials sufficient evidence for medical quackery.

It's not that I don't want to believe it (who wouldn't want eternal life in paradise?), it's just that I can't do so and remain intellectually honest given what I've learned about the fine art of baloney detection.

My point here is that the claim in Luke is just silly. I don't believe the literal truth of everything in the Pentateuch because I literally have no good reason to. Look at how historians assess the reliability of ancient texts and apply those techniques to the Pentateuch. We have no corroborating external evidence for much of it. We have much external evidence that flat-out contradicts parts of it when taken at face value (see: geology, biology, archaeology, etc.). There is nothing within the Pentateuch that could not have been written by ancient people with a superstitious and poor understanding of reality. That's why I look at it with skepticism.

And the Gospel of Luke says that if people don't readily accept all of that, then they'll deny something much more convincing? Seriously, this argument goes like:

If: People don't accept [weak evidence]

Then: They won't accept [strong evidence]

You don't think this is a little silly?

Edit: I'd prefer to keep the original thread going rather than going on tangents like this. I mentioned this in my last reply to you.