What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[drfuzzy]

"He who farts in church sits in own pew."

I can make nonsensical aphorisms too, they don't say anything.  They're just an attempt to deflect attention away from a palpable difficulty.

I've heard that one before. However, I was referring to what seems obvious to me, and that is that consciousness is not of the body. Our thoughts do not come from random electrical impulses in the brain. Neither did our bodies come about by random acts of nature. It was designed just like a Boeing 747. Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't. Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

Our thoughts DO come from electrical impulses in the brain.  They can be measured, and mapped specifically to an area of the brain.
The difference between the "design" of a Boeing 747 and a human body is that the 747 is a GOOD design and the human body is most definitely NOT.  All sorts of problems are directly caused by one little evolutionary step - standing up - just for a start.

[vulcanlogician]

I've heard that one before. However, I was referring to what seems obvious to me, and that is that consciousness is not of the body. Our thoughts do not come from random electrical impulses in the brain. Neither did our bodies come about by random acts of nature. It was designed just like a Boeing 747. Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't. Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

Rather than simply conclude that life is to complex to have arisen from natural processes, why don't you look at the specific parts of the theory which explain how such complexity can come about?

I could point to a 747 flying in the sky and say, "Look, that disproves gravity."

And if someone were to approach me and say, "A 747 flying in the sky does not disprove gravity. You're oversimplifying things. There are a number of forces at work that you are not taking into account," and my response was to simply point at the 747 again and say, "Look that disproves gravity"... well... that would be a lot like what you are doing.

Stop pointing at the 747. It's not a good argument.

[Amarok]

I've heard that one before. However, I was referring to what seems obvious to me, and that is that consciousness is not of the body.

A belief without basis 

Our thoughts do not come from random electrical impulses in the brain.

There  not random 

Neither did our bodies come about by random acts of nature.

Evolution is not random 

 It was designed just like a Boeing 747.

No evidence of this and hoyles fallacy is still a fallacy . Evolution is nothing like a tornado and junk yard . 

Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't.

Why would nature produce a man made object ? And the fact it didn't says nothing about it's ability to make biological forms

Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

Yup and there is every reason to believe it's a result of evolution . And no there is no problem as long as you don't make ludicrous  strawman comparisons  . Between natural things and man made things . Or comparing evolution to a tornado .  There is a reason it's called Hoyles fallacy because it's fallacious . 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

http://evolvingcreation.com/fred-hoyles-...d-fallacy/

We also might want to add

Bare assertion and personnel credulity fallacies as well .

[The Grand Nudger]

The thing I've always found delicious about the 747 analogy is how completely it helps to explain a difference between design and evolution.  I wonder who would correctly surmise that the the 747 has in it's technical background the Flyer of Kitty Hawk fame knowing nothing about planes.  No one would expect to find a Flyer nestled in the fuselage of a 747 (and no one will find that..it isn't there)....and I bet that next to no one would imagine that aircraft started out looking like the flyer based on how a 747 looks.

The same simply isn't true of ourselves.  We have more in common with any other ape than a 747 has with the Flyer...and there were only a few decades between the latter two.  There are millions of years between us.  Still, in our case...we do find the the metaphoric Flyer in the fuselage.

[He lives]

I understand the human body better than a 747.  So much for complicated.

How does the body maintain the PH of the blood? What is the length of the blood vessels if they were connected together? WhaT causes the cells to stop splitting? And as for DNA:

For the past decade, scientists have been working on the assumption that 20,000 genes, less than 2 percent of the total genome, underpin human biology. But a massive international project called ENCODE has just revealed that plenty of the remaining 98 percent, once tossed aside as "junk DNA", is in fact incredibly important.

In fact, the project—known more formally as the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements—reveals that 80 percent of that "junk DNA" is biochemically active. Add to that the fact that large stretches of DNA that appeared to serve no purpose actually contain over 400,000 regulators that help activate or silence genes, and the scientific community is surprised to say the least.

From: https://gizmodo.com/5940914/the-human-ge...ts-thought

---

[quote=KhemikalObviously not -just- like a boeing 747.  People designed those...we probably didn't design life, lol.  Further, 747s aren't born.   They don't have heritable attributes to pass on, along with mutations, to the offspring they never have.  So...regardless of what it is you believe..or what you're trying to express with this tired ass comment...what's "obvious"..as in actually obvious and not obviously an article of your faith..is that our bodies didn't come about by any process even remotely like the one that gave us a 747.  

Because of this...the fact that a 747 is designed has absolutely nothing to say about our bodies or how we came to possess them as they are. 

The smallest one cell animal or plant is perhaps 1,000 times as complex as a 747. It would be much easier to design a 747.

Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't.

It couldn't.......so.......that's hardly surprising. 

 Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

Sure...horrendously complicated.  Perhaps needlessly complicated.  Piles and piles and piles of accumulated systems and divergence.  There are tons of big problems -because- "nature did it".  I mean...that or your tinkergod is a massive fuckup and perpetual underachiever that couldn't engineer so much as a 747 (never quite got around to that one..did he...that was our baby).....despite having eternity from eternity and all the power in the universe with which to do so.  The pinnacle of his creation being substantially less well engineered than a 747 in the first place - but we're working on it..so we might cover for his ass again.    

Your call.

[/quote]

Adam and Eve had perfect bodies to begin with. When they became mortal their bodies were changed and became imperfect. They still lived almost 1,000 years. Later our bodies were changed to a 120 year lifespan. Has science been able to add another 120 years to our lifespan? We are actually getting worse, not better. Your call.

[Godscreated]

I see no evidence saying God doesn't exist.

GC

That is entirely your choice.

That's quite the picture of your attitude towards God. You and no one else have ever presented any, period. You go to the links of children with things like this picture to divert from the subject at hand.

GC

[Amarok]

Wow the site is garbage 

Nobody ever claim junk DNA had no function nor did any geneticist toss it aside  as anything. It's always been understood that junk had some function . Despite the bullshit ID advocates spew on what ENCODE found . So the Idea that this was somehow groundbreaking or in anyway makes a case for ID is nonsense . 


Oh and this articles claims are deceptive and refuted  
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2018/02/enco...er-of.html

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidenc...y-junk-dna

And their are other studies which posit alternatives 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...140234.htm

Do i also need to point out that ENCODES own scientists reject intelligent design . Oh and the none existence of junk dna would not help intelligent design . It's still an argument from personnel credulity . And just because scientist are surprised about something (they were not or should not have been ) does not support ID .

---

That's quite the picture of your attitude towards God. You and no one else have ever presented any, period. You go to the links of children with things like this picture to divert from the subject at hand.

Because it not our job to prove god does not exist . Nor have i claimed he does not .

---

Some more thoughts on ENCODES and issues with projects reporting 

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-...ncode.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2018/02/junk...h-dna.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2018/02/how-...ional.html

[He lives]

I've heard that one before. However, I was referring to what seems obvious to me, and that is that consciousness is not of the body. Our thoughts do not come from random electrical impulses in the brain. Neither did our bodies come about by random acts of nature. It was designed just like a Boeing 747. Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't. Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

Rather than simply conclude that life is to complex to have arisen from natural processes, why don't you look at the specific parts of the theory which explain how such complexity can come about?

I could point to a 747 flying in the sky and say, "Look, that disproves gravity."

And if someone were to approach me and say, "A 747 flying in the sky does not disprove gravity. You're oversimplifying things. There are a number of forces at work that you are not taking into account," and my response was to simply point at the 747 again and say, "Look that disproves gravity"... well... that would be a lot like what you are doing.

Stop pointing at the 747. It's not a good argument.

This article shares my views:

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore

From: https://evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too/

[Amarok]

Evolution news is an ID propaganda site . Run by the frauds at the discovery institute. Their lies have been documented to death . Their the only ones faking anything .

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

And it claim the DNA is too complex for evolution is bunk .

---

More on Junk DNA staring Discovery institute liar  Jonathan Wells 
https://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2017/05/

More on junk DNA and how it's not dead 

https://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2017/05/den...k-dna.html

[Fake Messiah]

I've heard that one before. However, I was referring to what seems obvious to me, and that is that consciousness is not of the body. Our thoughts do not come from random electrical impulses in the brain. Neither did our bodies come about by random acts of nature. It was designed just like a Boeing 747. Nature had billions of years to design a 747, but it didn't. Our bodies are much more complicated than a 747. There is a big problem with nature did it.

YAY! ANOTHER AIRPLANE FUCKER!!! Another dumbass christian who is excited about his debunked rhetoric.