The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

If abiogenesis is incorrect, you have no explanation at all for the origin of life. You may be comfortable with that as millions are, but I am not. We all agree that there must have been a first cause of life since the earth had a beginning in which no life was possible. Since all life that we observe, (billions of examples) comes from other life, and you cannot have infinite regression, therefore at some point, life must have arisen from non-life. There isn't really a credible alternative option.

I will fully admit I do not have an answer to the origin of life. Neither do you just because you assert it so. Now what?

Take the option that best fits.

[rexbeccarox]

I will fully admit I do not have an answer to the origin of life. Neither do you just because you assert it so. Now what?

Take the option that best fits.

Why???? Why not just say, "I don't know! It would be cool to find out!"???? And how do you know your assertions are the ones that "best fit"? If actual scientists did that, they'd never actually learn anything!! Jesus effing Krispy Kreme!

I think I'm about to implode.

[robvalue]

Hmm.

AJW still is yet to indicate how and where the designer was involved.

It seems he ismeither has no clue, or is embarressed to say. Unless I missed it?

[The Valkyrie]

Hmm.

AJW still is yet to indicate how and where the designer was involved.

It seems he ismeither has no clue, or is embarressed to say. Unless I missed it?

The incompetent "designer"?

[robvalue]

Maybe he will admit he has no clue as to how a designer was involved, or at what point, just that he believes there was one.

I'm going to put this video here, as there are people in this discussion who I suspect could do with a brush up on what it actually is they are objecting to.

Imagine I turned up in a church and said, "How can you guys believe that Jesus was a magical coffee table that played the flute? That's just fucking stupid!" Understand what you're arguing against. Or else you are debating only the people who hold the position you're describing, which is no one.

http://youtu.be/qV3WPyp8WmU

[Pat Mustard]

It's like watching a fucking carousel.

Yeah, well people stopped replying to me last time, so I figured I'd give it another try

No, Junk Status, you got schooled and ran away, just like you did back in January.

[AAA]

Yeah, well people stopped replying to me last time, so I figured I'd give it another try

No, Junk Status, you got schooled and ran away, just like you did back in January.

The reason I stopped replying in January is because I went back to school, and this semester has been crazy busy. I'm taking 3 of the hardest classes offered at my school. I know that this forum is your whole life, but some of us have other things that take priority, while the forum is secondary.

[LadyForCamus]

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

Christianity is not science.  At the end of the day it is a matter of faith and reason. My reason to believe is multifaceted but I regard the Scripture as being accurate because of its ability to reliably predict the future.

Concerning evolution, I don't regard it as being scientific. If you called it a faith, that would make more sense to me. One thing I would like to know is, what are the stages of the evolution of humans? Apart from neanderthals, what was the progenitor to humans? And what was the progenitor to that?

So the type of evidence that you require to accept the scripture as reliable is different than the kind of evidence you require to accept the theory of evolution as reliable? Again...you don't see a major contradiction here? Which type of evidence do you employ when evaluating other supernatural claims like say...ghosts, or poltergeists? Science? Or the other?

Either way, as Rob mentioned somewhere, attempting (and failing) to poke holes in evolutionary science is not positive evidence for a designer. It never will be.

[robvalue]

Evolution not scientific? Someone must know next to nothing about it if they could possibly think that.

But pointing at life and saying "that looks designed" is science? Jeez. I give up. I'd already given up, but I give up again.

[LadyForCamus]

In other words...how do you, in your mind, reconcile requiring scientific evidence to believe in your designer, but NOT require it at any point after accepting that belief?  Let me ask you this:  if you couldn't make a scientific case in your own mind for a designer, would you believe in Him anyway?

 When I first believed, I did not understand science at all, so requiring "scientific evidence" to believe in a designer was not relevant at the time. If I wish to make an argument now for the existence of God, I may choose to use science but it isn't a requirement for faith. For some, it's as simple as staring at the stars and finding faith as a natural consequence.

There are other personal experiences that have led me to believe in God, none of which are scientifically provable, especially since they are past events that cannot be reproduced under laboratory conditions. These alone would be sufficient to cause me to believe, without any science being involved.

So, there it is. You would believe in god for all of your "feely," non-scientific reasons, no matter WHAT science has to say about complex life or the universe. So, please stop with the "I believe in a designer because of science" act, as clearly science is arbitrary to you here. You're only latch onto it where you think it somehow enhances your biased conclusion (which it does not).