(March 19, 2014 at 6:39 am)discipulus Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Rahul Wrote: Yes, saying that we came into existence by numerous, highly improbable events that can be proven to have happened takes more faith than a magical being that cannot be proven to even exist invented the entire universe, that on just one of the billions upon billions of worlds there is just one species among millions that currently exist on that one tiny planet that the magical creator of everything is super concerned about how they act and what they believe.

This is what you have decided is a more logical conclusion and takes less faith to believe.

What proof do you have that the ten improbable events I listed earlier happened by purely naturalistic means?

Can you give me links to the events? I want to take a look.
Btw if they are improbable by naturalistic means it does NOT provide evidence for supernatural processes.
We have ZERO evidence for supernatural.

(March 18, 2014 at 9:59 pm)Aral Gamelon Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 9:53 pm)discipulus Wrote: I am open to wherever the evidence leads. I can be far more objective than the naturalist.

My relationship with God is not going to be affected in the least bit by affirming or denying evolution. God is still God. Whatever way He chose to bring about the existence of mankind via special creation or evolution, He did what He wanted.

Science and the bible don't mix, but hey if you need a sky-daddy that badly then have at it, just don't expect anyone outside your faith to take you seriously.

Of course they mix. Many of the first men to champion the pursuits of scientists were bible believing Christians.

Many great and brilliant minds in the academy today are Bible believing Christians.

I am a bible believing Christian. I also love science and hermeneutics. So your assertion that the Bible and science do not mix is unconvincing.

Like I asked Deidre, so too I ask you to support your statement with some type of argument.

---

(March 19, 2014 at 6:42 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 6:39 am)discipulus Wrote: What proof do you have that the ten improbable events I listed earlier happened by purely naturalistic means?

Can you give me links to the events? I want to take a look.
Btw if they are improbable by naturalistic means it does NOT provide evidence for supernatural processes.
We have ZERO evidence for supernatural.

The Book and references are in one of my previous posts. Barrow and Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Simply stunning conclusions in a book well worth reading.

(March 19, 2014 at 6:39 am)discipulus Wrote: What proof do you have that the ten improbable events I listed earlier happened by purely naturalistic means?

Well, we have proof that nature exists, and no proof that supernature exists. Occam's Razor dictates that, sans evidence of the supernatural, it is more logical to expect the answer to be from within the natural realm, given that we can at least detect that.

Improbable doesn't mean impossible, and we live in a big big universe, Disc. Given the sheer size of it, those improbable events become far more likely in at least one place in it; it's only your anthropic privilege that makes you think that there's some significance to you being the product of improbable things.

(March 19, 2014 at 6:51 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 6:39 am)discipulus Wrote: What proof do you have that the ten improbable events I listed earlier happened by purely naturalistic means?

Well, we have proof that nature exists, and no proof that supernature exists. Occam's Razor dictates that, sans evidence of the supernatural, it is more logical to expect the answer to be from within the natural realm, given that we can at least detect that.

Improbable doesn't mean impossible, and we live in a big big universe, Disc. Given the sheer size of it, those improbable events become far more likely in at least one place in it; it's only your anthropic privilege that makes you think that there's some significance to you being the product of improbable things.

Care to debate me?

This thread began asking the question of why we Christians attack evolution.
After answering your question some of you desire to debate this into an endless
spin. Have fun.

(March 19, 2014 at 7:32 am)discipulus Wrote: Care to debate me?

That depends: are we going to see the same endless negotiations beforehand, or will we eventually reach some kind of actual starting point?

professor Wrote:This thread began asking the question of why we Christians attack evolution.
After answering your question some of you desire to debate this into an endless
spin. Have fun.

Translation: I don't feel like actually responding to any of the real scientific evidence you guys have presented to me, so here's a vague accusation so I can go away feeling better about my complete failure to defend my beliefs.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:06 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 7:32 am)discipulus Wrote: Care to debate me?

That depends: are we going to see the same endless negotiations beforehand, or will we eventually reach some kind of actual starting point?

professor Wrote:This thread began asking the question of why we Christians attack evolution.
After answering your question some of you desire to debate this into an endless
spin. Have fun.

Translation: I don't feel like actually responding to any of the real scientific evidence you guys have presented to me, so here's a vague accusation so I can go away feeling better about my complete failure to defend my beliefs.

Are you knowledgeable enough on the Anthropic Cosmological Principle to participate in a debate whose topic would deal heavily with the principle?

Don't much feel like delving into this long thread for the absurd lulzfest I'll likely find within (which just happened to me in another thread...), just thought I'd say I'm willing to debate Disciplus on the topic of "Does the Christian God Exist?" or "Is the Christian God's Existence More Likely Than It's Negation?"


...What do you mean off topic? Fuck you. How about that?

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Of course they mix. Many of the first men to champion the pursuits of scientists were bible believing Christians.

And? This proves the bible is compatible with science how?

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Many great and brilliant minds in the academy today are Bible believing Christians.

I am a bible believing Christian. I also love science and hermeneutics. So your assertion that the Bible and science do not mix is unconvincing.

*taps foot*

You know, I saw Ken Ham do this same thing in the beginning of his debate. Yes, Christians can be scientists, this doesn't mean that science supports the bible. It fucking doesn't. I have to ask if you're a fundementalist or if you take a moderate standpoint on the bible, it makes a large difference.

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Like I asked Deidre, so too I ask you to support your statement with some type of argument.

Answer to your standpoint and we may have a conversation.