(August 3, 2015 at 2:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: I used it as an example. It's well known, don't take my word for it. I take it you weren't aware of this then. Go look it up elsewhere!

I can't make any sense of the second paragraph... presupposes evolution? That is scientific fact, there is nothing to presuppose. You are comparing that to a hearsay account about an unprecedented supernatural occurance? Please tell me you can see you're clutching at straws there.

No no.  My point was to not discount a conclusion based on a perceived (or even realized) presupposition.  Presuppositions are inherent to look for coherent answers.  Every hypothesis has a presupposition.  

I was very aware of the additions to Mark's Gospel and how apparent it is to be added later and most Bible's today denote this addition. However, even removing verses 9-20 does nothing to dispel the resurrection.  Ending it at 16:8 does not present an issue.

Okay! Well, not much more I can say then, I shall leave you to it

(July 16, 2015 at 12:42 pm)FreeTony Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)lkingpinl Wrote: 1.  The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

2.  Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?

Thank you and look forward to the discussion.

1. You cannot calculate these odds. I'd suggest a refresher of Bayes Theorem. If you think you can generate a probability of humans existing then either you do not understand probability or physics, and most likely don't have a clue about either.

2. The human DNA isn't a word, it's a bunch of chemicals. With your logic I could measure all the heights of a hill along a line, assign different letters to different heights, then claim the hill must have been designed because you spelt out a word.

Bayes Theorem is not properly used by calculating probability based solely on a previous event(s). For instance, flipping a coin 1 mil times and recording the results then assigning meaning to that event (10^301030). This probability hold no significant since one combination had to come up. However, Bayes Theorem can be properly used when predicting future results when compared to something else, or when used to compare past results against something else (meaningful ‘else‘); aka, creation model, naturalistic model, or naturalistic against established scientific conditions.

For me to be convinced of the existence of God, I first need be convinced of the coherence of the concept.
This entails solving the problem of solipsism for the God itself: 
How does it know it is not a brain in a vat, deluded as to its godhood?
How does it know its unknown unknowns in order to claim omniscience?
Failing to answer these questions gives the God only one other option, to directly force belief, the crowbar solution.

^Last two sentences are really good points.
For me, if god were proven to be real, it would prove that god isn't real.
He would just be some dude with powers beyond our understanding, but still just some dude.

Another brick (actually maybe several bricks) has been removed from the naturalistic evolutionary model of apes and humans. Artist renditions like these have been render passé (https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ion+images). A Research study* concludes that the human hand is more primitive than the knuckle-walking ape type pictured in those human evolution images; therefore the human hand dexterity didn’t evolve over time to be adapted for tool use; it was fully functional for using tools from the get-go. I’m numbering this as number ‘4’  (other 3, previously posted) reason that the naturalistic model is unable to explain the evidence while the creation model does so elegantly. Humans were created completely separate form the animals. They were created in God's image (meaning, humans have a non-physical component called the 'spirit' which gives them knowledge of God and eternal life, and had hands that could handle responsibilities over the domain of plants and animals). This study has a far-reaching effect: it cast major doubt on the whole evolutionary paradigm.
* http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.c...c_258-FPOw

(August 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Another brick (actually maybe several bricks) has been removed from the naturalistic evolutionary model of apes and humans. Artist renditions like these have been render passé (https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ion+images). A Research study* concludes that the human hand is more primitive than the knuckle-walking ape type pictured in those human evolution images; therefore the human hand dexterity didn’t evolve over time to be adapted for tool use; it was fully functional for using tools from the get-go. I’m numbering this as number ‘4’  (other 3, previously posted) reason that the naturalistic model is unable to explain the evidence while the creation model does so elegantly. Humans were created completely separate form the animals. They were created in God's image (meaning, humans have a non-physical component called the 'spirit' which gives them knowledge of God and eternal life, and had hands that could handle responsibilities over the domain of plants and animals). This study has a far-reaching effect: it cast major doubt on the whole evolutionary paradigm.
* http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.c...c_258-FPOw

Umm. No, it doesn't.

The Cambrian explosion is scientific evidence for God. Evolution is unable to explain the Cambrian explosion. Fossil intermediates are missing, The reason is new forms of animal life by gradually transformation, which is a evolutionary basic tenet, would require continuity of a vast array of intermediates plus the original prototype all performing simultaneously; all these body types need to keep working because if the immediate malfunctions (which it would by blind trial and error), the original needs to be available to start over.
New body types (macroevolution changes) would require an early gene expression mutation --- late development gene expression would have little or no effect on animal architectural animal bodies.
Darwin had hoped later fossil discoveries would eventually eliminate what he regarded as a troublesome outstanding issue associated with his theory - Ref: Origin of Species*, page 307 (I have it on E-book as that). What appeared in the fossil records was ’disparity’ (major differences in form, phyla level) without prior ’diversity’ (minor diff. among organisms, species level ) as unearthed at the Burgess Shale site.** But of course, after 150 years, no fossils to supports this big gapping hole in the theory. Time for the old man to roll-over.
*On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

(August 24, 2015 at 11:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The Cambrian explosion is scientific evidence for God.

Um. No. Even if the Cambrian explosion disproved evolution (which it doesn't), it has ZERO bearing on atheism or religion. To assert that therefore creationism, and your particular CHRISTIAN creationism at that must be true is a ridiculous false dichotomy. But I guess it has to be since you don't have anything to support your 'theory', so the only way of it gaining any kind of validity in your mind is disproving evolution....But it doesn't work like that. If evolution were false, creationism could still be false.

Not to mention....WHICH god? And how do you come to that conclusion? -_-

we really have no choice in being nebulous about a 'god". the bible is the best guess of 2000 years ago. But today we can less detailed picture of god because we now know what we don't know. well, sort of. So all we really can say is that there is "something", "nothing", or "I don't know enough." Then based on the list of evidence use assign proper weights to determine what is more valid. It might even end up being 50/50 between two of the many choices. That's ok.
I saw the use of dark matter as an example on how to think about it on another forum.
a) "do you believe in dark matter?"
Yes, no, and I do not know are reasonable answer today. The is not a lot of evidence for this "dark matter". But the data does suggest something is there. In fact, it is more reasonable to say that dark matter is "something" than to say "nothing" is causing what we see. But we have to understand just how little "data" we have. there is not much at all.
b) versus "let me tell you what I think dark matter is."
We have absolutely no direct observations as of yet. Nothing, nada, zilch. But we can take some reasonable guesses even though we know nothing.
This is where philosophy and science separate a little bit. Philosophers can make up some axioms under the disguise of "if/then" and then follow down a line of logic. Scientist are obligated to start at only what we do know right now. We use "if/then" also but the 'if's" have to be what can be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
They look very similar and when well written can look exactly the same. They are not. The weighted value of the axioms can be way off when comparing what we do have and what we made up even though we used the word logic.
to be continued ...