Conquer Club

That was directed at Player and not meant to try to prove Him to someone perhaps... maybe people should ask themselves if they stand by Psalm 14:1 if they claim to be a believer in Him and yet feel it's intelligent to deny Him...

Well, Player doesn't say that in her heart.

dctalk wrote:hey, maybe it's just me, but i can't really find why believing in God is NOT logical compared to evolution or NO God for that matter. did you hear what the EVOLUTIONISTS said?

Phillip Johnson: tell me one thing, any one thing about evolution that is true?

YOUR OWN PEOPLE said nothing and even said it was just theory, which is why it shouldn't be taught in school!
NOW THAT'S ILLOGICAL!!!! i know MANY things that could prove God's existence, but evolution doesn't know ONE thing?
THAT'S PLAINLY ILLOGICAL!!!!!!

Newsflash. Scientists are far less united than Christians. That quote you keeping pointing to is meaningless, utterly meaningless, for many reasons. (beginning with he is not "my people") And many, many Christians certainly DO accept Evolution. It is based on evidence, not belief. But let's keep that debate to its proper threads (not the plural).

Yeah, I'm Catholic and I believe in evolution...just look at the stars, the ones that take the light traveling from them more time than the earth has been around, to reach our planet. Why would God try to fool us?

Calidus,

Things bring forth variety perhaps, but what if He created several kinds of creatures who have brought forth variety after their kinds? What suggests to you that earth has living creatures who all share common ancestry with one another? What if lions and tigers share common ancestry and yet lions and butterflies don't?

Also, what should we expect to see if He created light and the heavens and the earth instantly out of nothing? Maybe light's actually far from a constant and has decayed over time and there's an address you should check out below, but it might be a moot argument to argue about whether or not it has either way. You might want to ask yourself if you think He fooled Adam if He created him with pubic hair. What if He's powerful enough to speak a diamond filled earth into existance out of nothing and He's never had a good reason to sit around and wait for starlight to strike earth for a first time?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0961.htm

Calidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Calidus wrote:I just spent the last hour typing a response to you, when I tried to post it the website told me to relogin. There is no way I'm going to retype it all, but I'll point out a few things.

Your guys image is not the same. The shroud cannot be drawn.

Take a closer look at the images. You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

The shroud could not have been drawn, because when the scientists used a 3d imaging machine they were able to see a clear 3d image of the man on the shroud. There has not been any artist out there capable drawing with such detail. If you take the 3d imaging system and use it on these other drawings, the results come out very destorted.

"darker spots are darker and lighter spots are lighter" OH NO, ever heard of fading? There's certainly evidence of that between the two.

Ummmm... If you read it says "You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

There is no "fading" here....unless you are saying that fading over time means it will be the opposite color???

But yeah, I don't need to cover my ass with sources because I believe all of them and I'm not going to spend three hours looking for all my sources I used to research it. You can if you want to though, but the problem you will run into is not that my sources exist, but that you will say something biased and sarcastic like " oooooh this is soooo true", and I can say the same about your source too. My goal was to post something on here that I (not you) felt was evidence for God. You can then go and find out if what I have said is true. All you do is try to say that your guy's picture was a good copy, which again it's not.... refer to beginning.

The rest of my last post was simply saying that unless either one of us is going to use scientific measures to prove the evidence or disprove it, your not going to change my mind and visa-versa. That wasn't the point of my original posting of the Shroud of Turin.

Sauce please?

First off, your website is very shakey. You have to tell me exactly what you want me to look at and...how to get there?
Honestly, I can't really argue that things just....existed. Yes it's possible that they could have.
However, when you made the remark "You might want to ask yourself if you think He fooled Adam if He created him with pubic hair." It made me think... 1. Why are we discussing pubic hair. 2. Why Adam's instead of Eve's? 3. Are you gay? 4. Just kidding, I wont go there. 5. There is a reason why God created certain things:

Basically in Chapter 1 of Genesis, almost everytime God made something (like the earth and water, plants and trees, and the two lights in the sky to mark day and night) the Bible then says "God saw how good it was."

To me this means there has to be some purpose. In otherwords the meaning of good is that of being very purposful.
>>An example of this would be the lights in the sky "Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years.

So, if this is the case then there should be a purpose for ALL of the lights in the sky. Only 2 of them (the greater one {the Sun?} and the lesser one {the moon?} ) were to govern day and night for our planet earth.

Keep in mind that the Bible doesn't really mention other things in space that we know of today as being out there, such as Black Holes, Super Novas, Gama Ray Bursts, and a lot of other Galaxies and Stars.
The Bible basically narrows these down to the word 'stars' (Black Hole and Super Nova are types of stars FYI)

So what is the purpose for ALL of the other stars out there (minus the 2 I mentioned...)?
It seems to me that the purpose isn't really needed for the people in this time period.
After all notice the language. The lesser one (if meant the moon) is actually just a reflection of light from the greater one (the sun). The purpose is for people of our time period and for generations past our time period.

So, what do we measure in space to help us with todays physics? We measure the distance of 1 light year. The distance light travels in space over one year. This derives from what we know of light. That it is a wave-length. This is part of the electro megnetic spectrum. So all of this extra stuff that is not mentioned in the Bible has a purpose in todays time period.

X-rays (also part of the elctro megnetic) spectrum help us with medical purposes, this is a small example.

Light Years puts things such as our solar sytem into scale. We now know things such as Juputer's size helps block astroids from colliding into the earth.

The above examples are the PURPOSES I'm talking about that we have for ALL the other stars in the sky.

If there was no purpose for our knowing of light waves from stars we wouldn't be able to survive. So we know today that light from stars take longer to reach us than the earth has been around. This is the point I have built up to.

I want you to tell me, If God created all these other stars out there (that we know the light from them takes a long time to reach us), what was there purpose?

Ah, then continue being intellectually dishonest, sir.

BigBallinStalin, also the Source for my last post in regards to you is that of your own picture that you showed me. That is of the picture that shows an image that you claim is a negative of the one next to it when it isn't.

[quote="BigBallinStalin"]




Do you see that they are NOT negatives of each other??? The light spots in the one one the left are also light in those in the image on the right....so are the dark spots. This is the picture you posted.


I posted the picture below...



You can clearly see that the Dark spots are Light in the opposite picture, and the Light Spots are Dark.


So you see... my picture is that from the Shroud of Turin... you can google it and find the picture and see that it came from it.

Your picture is apparently that from the guy who tried to remake the shroud.


The Shroud, you can look it up, is a photo graphic NEGATIVE so that if you take a picture you will get a photographic POSITIVE.

Clear enough??

Also I am explaining something to you that you don't understand obviously, so please don't say "Source" dur dur dur....

If you do I wont respond just so you know...and please don't take that as a threat or anything, it's just stupid to try to comunicate with someone who is not paying attention.

Also, back to you Lionz, realize that as a Chatholic I try to translate the Bible into terms that we know of in todays society.

All of the extra stars out there (black holes, Super novas...and alot more of these events studied in cosmology) I believe are simply part of the "abyss" stated in the second line of the Bible. ... "the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss,..."

This abyss has * next to it. Many Bibles will then explain what the * refers to. It clearly shows that the Abyss is the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. This refers to any existance or origin of the Universe...not just the earth.

I'm not sure of a true purpose for anything possibly, but what would us not knowing a purpose for something in the heavens have to do with whether or not He waited years for light to strike earth from stars? There's evidence that light speed has decayed over time whether He chose to have light reach earth from stars automatically or not maybe. This will bring you to slide 67 in a slideshow and you will find arrow type things below slides that you can use to move backwards and forwards perhaps. You might want to consider flipping through 100 or so slides. Slideshow just referred to by me on page 57 and yet a different starting point?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0367.htm

PLAYER57832 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

No, you don't get a pass on this one. In this context whether you add "not" is irrelevant. The belief in flying teapots or lack of it, is not in any way equivalent to belief in God.

If I ever find someone who really and truly does believe in flying teapots or pink elephants or whatever, then they will have justification. You two do not. You are merely being insulting. And you are quite intelligent enough to understand what you do.

You have every right to deny God. I agree it is an intelligent and logical position. However, so is belief in God. Claiming otherwise IS illogical.. and when you do it in that manner, insulting

Oh, but it is highly relevant in this case. You see, when Snorri says that the point of the comparison is about the lack of belief in something, you cannot extrapolate that he is equating believing in one thing with believing in another. I'm serious, the presence or absence of two "not"s makes all the difference in the world.

People don't believe in a lot of things that can't be proven (undetectable flying teapots among others). Non-belief is the default position until there's evidence for the contrary. People who believe in gods deviate from that position, and that's the point of the comparison. It shows that the onus is upon the believer to present good reasons for their belief, not on the non-believer to explain why they maintain the default position.

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

No, you don't get a pass on this one. In this context whether you add "not" is irrelevant. The belief in flying teapots or lack of it, is not in any way equivalent to belief in God.

If I ever find someone who really and truly does believe in flying teapots or pink elephants or whatever, then they will have justification. You two do not. You are merely being insulting. And you are quite intelligent enough to understand what you do.

You have every right to deny God. I agree it is an intelligent and logical position. However, so is belief in God. Claiming otherwise IS illogical.. and when you do it in that manner, insulting

Oh, but it is highly relevant in this case. You see, when Snorri says that the point of the comparison is about the lack of belief in something, you cannot extrapolate that he is equating believing in one thing with believing in another. I'm serious, the presence or absence of two "not"s makes all the difference in the world.

People don't believe in a lot of things that can't be proven (undetectable flying teapots among others). Non-belief is the default position until there's evidence for the contrary. People who believe in gods deviate from that position, and that's the point of the comparison. It shows that the onus is upon the believer to present good reasons for their belief, not on the non-believer to explain why they maintain the default position.

We go round and around on this.

But no. The point is that you are trying to compare something you do not believe and call it equivalent to something else you do not believe in. That works for you, because you don't even begin to understand why we believe or really what it means.

The two are NOT equivalent and that is the real point. You can pretend to be erudite all you like, but the real truth is that no one DOES believe in flying teapots. It is a really and truly ludicrous idea. God, however, is not. Millions of people around the world agree that belief in God is not ludicrous or silly, most agree it is quite logical.

You and Snorri disagree. You feel that you know better than the millions of us around the earth who believe. That is your right. But, when you try to pretend you have some greater understanding or knowledge, all you really show is how unwilling you are to even consider other people's thinking. That is not the sign of an intelligent mind, it is the sign of a narrow one.

All you really show by making that comparison is how little YOU understand our beliefs. I have tried, many people have tried to explain. Not convince you, but explain. You show a complete inability to understand other people's beliefs.

Player, you may be a good scientist, but you fail as a philosopher, sorry.

It's not the things that are not believed in that are equated, it's the non-belief in those things.

MeDeFe wrote:Player, you may be a good scientist, but you fail as a philosopher, sorry.

It's not the things that are not believed in that are equated, it's the non-belief in those things.

No, you are wrong.

And you are intelligent enough to realize it. But to you it is nothing more than an intellectual game where you consider yourself superior. So, you don't even try. You just put forward idiocies as if they were real.

THAT is why it is insulting.

Calidus wrote:BigBallinStalin, also the Source for my last post in regards to you is that of your own picture that you showed me. That is of the picture that shows an image that you claim is a negative of the one next to it when it isn't.

BigBallinStalin wrote:



Do you see that they are NOT negatives of each other??? The light spots in the one one the left are also light in those in the image on the right....so are the dark spots. This is the picture you posted.


I posted the picture below...



You can clearly see that the Dark spots are Light in the opposite picture, and the Light Spots are Dark.


So you see... my picture is that from the Shroud of Turin... you can google it and find the picture and see that it came from it.

Your picture is apparently that from the guy who tried to remake the shroud.


The Shroud, you can look it up, is a photo graphic NEGATIVE so that if you take a picture you will get a photographic POSITIVE.

Clear enough??

Also I am explaining something to you that you don't understand obviously, so please don't say "Source" dur dur dur....

If you do I wont respond just so you know...and please don't take that as a threat or anything, it's just stupid to try to comunicate with someone who is not paying attention.

hey that's great, a photographic negative that shows a positive, I already dealt with that earlier. Have you physically examined the shroud? Are your credentials worthy enough to instill the confidence required in the reader to believe what you've stated without sources is indeed fact?

If not, then you're going to have to provide sources on the "facts" you presented earlier, so I can see where you're coming up with the majority of your material. Obviously, you won't because just like that coin from around 32 AD, when one takes a deeper look into what you provide, one can see how misleading and how intellectually dishonest you are.

A mere "You're a jerk, BBS!" followed by a vain attempt to block your tears with your hands isn't going to cut it. You've shown us time and time again that you're unwillingly to cough up your sources on your supposed "research." In the end, it appears that you've only based your conclusions by a giant leap of faith.

Re: the flying teapot... different from God because the universe itself serves as evidence for God. How could a universe without spontaneous generation come into being without an external creator? Furthermore, undetectable things probably don't exist because all things we know are detectable.

Re: the FSM... it's hard to believe in because it's a special nonsense case. God as a concept is much larger than the FSM alone. It's as if I compared the existence of a cat with the existence of a cat made of meatballs and noodles.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Calidus wrote:BigBallinStalin, also the Source for my last post in regards to you is that of your own picture that you showed me. That is of the picture that shows an image that you claim is a negative of the one next to it when it isn't.

BigBallinStalin wrote:



Do you see that they are NOT negatives of each other??? The light spots in the one one the left are also light in those in the image on the right....so are the dark spots. This is the picture you posted.


I posted the picture below...



You can clearly see that the Dark spots are Light in the opposite picture, and the Light Spots are Dark.


So you see... my picture is that from the Shroud of Turin... you can google it and find the picture and see that it came from it.

Your picture is apparently that from the guy who tried to remake the shroud.


The Shroud, you can look it up, is a photo graphic NEGATIVE so that if you take a picture you will get a photographic POSITIVE.

Clear enough??

Also I am explaining something to you that you don't understand obviously, so please don't say "Source" dur dur dur....

If you do I wont respond just so you know...and please don't take that as a threat or anything, it's just stupid to try to comunicate with someone who is not paying attention.

hey that's great, a photographic negative that shows a positive, I already dealt with that earlier. Have you physically examined the shroud? Are your credentials worthy enough to instill the confidence required in the reader to believe what you've stated without sources is indeed fact?

If not, then you're going to have to provide sources on the "facts" you presented earlier, so I can see where you're coming up with the majority of your material. Obviously, you won't because just like that coin from around 32 AD, when one takes a deeper look into what you provide, one can see how misleading and how intellectually dishonest you are.

A mere "You're a jerk, BBS!" followed by a vain attempt to block your tears with your hands isn't going to cut it. You've shown us time and time again that you're unwillingly to cough up your sources on your supposed "research." In the end, it appears that you've only based your conclusions by a giant leap of faith.

Umm wow dude, just wow.

I wasn't giving any sources except your own picture that you posted and the one I posted. Can you not see the difference here? I'm showing a difference in the picures that I don't need a source for. That's like asking what the number on Jordans back was in the last game he played as a Chicago Bull. It is clear to me, with my eyes that it was 23. Thanks.

You said that you already explained the differnece, but you really didn't. Please oh pretty please tell me how the two images in the photo YOU posted are photograpic negatives of one another. The one I posted is however, regardless of where I got the picture from.... is it not???

Stop trying to beat around the bush. Thanks.

PLAYER57832: Newsflash. Scientists are far less united than Christians. That quote you keeping pointing to is meaningless, utterly meaningless, for many reasons. (beginning with he is not "my people") And many, many Christians certainly DO accept Evolution. It is based on evidence, not belief. But let's keep that debate to its proper threads (not the plural).

yeah, well that's not true either. too many people think they intermix, but they don't.
how do prove that? tell me and ill say WHY that doesnt work!

I forgot who said this on page 58, but:

Basically in Chapter 1 of Genesis, almost everytime God made something (like the earth and water, plants and trees, and the two lights in the sky to mark day and night) the Bible then says "God saw how good it was."

To me this means there has to be some purpose. In otherwords the meaning of good is that of being very purposful.

EVOLUTION IS RANDOM!!!!!!! the whole idea was life had NO PURPOSE and was by accident!

PLAYER57832 wrote:We go round and around on this.

But no. The point is that you are trying to compare something you do not believe and call it equivalent to something else you do not believe in. That works for you, because you don't even begin to understand why we believe or really what it means.

The two are NOT equivalent and that is the real point. You can pretend to be erudite all you like, but the real truth is that no one DOES believe in flying teapots. It is a really and truly ludicrous idea. God, however, is not. Millions of people around the world agree that belief in God is not ludicrous or silly, most agree it is quite logical.

You and Snorri disagree. You feel that you know better than the millions of us around the earth who believe. That is your right. But, when you try to pretend you have some greater understanding or knowledge, all you really show is how unwilling you are to even consider other people's thinking. That is not the sign of an intelligent mind, it is the sign of a narrow one.

All you really show by making that comparison is how little YOU understand our beliefs. I have tried, many people have tried to explain. Not convince you, but explain. You show a complete inability to understand other people's beliefs.

I like how you get so insulted about this. The idea is not the plausibility of the belief. Just because people around the world believe in something does not make it logically more valid than any other belief. This is simply because the belief, in both the case of god and the teapot, are held without any evidence (except for this mythical evidence you keep talking about.

john9blue wrote:Re: the flying teapot... different from God because the universe itself serves as evidence for God. How could a universe without spontaneous generation come into being without an external creator? Furthermore, undetectable things probably don't exist because all things we know are detectable.

OK OK ::sigh:: the teapot is magical and creates worlds. Better? Now what?

dctalk wrote:hey, maybe it's just me, but i can't really find why believing in God is NOT logical compared to evolution or NO God for that matter. did you hear what the EVOLUTIONISTS said?

Phillip Johnson: tell me one thing, any one thing about evolution that is true?

YOUR OWN PEOPLE said nothing and even said it was just theory, which is why it shouldn't be taught in school!
NOW THAT'S ILLOGICAL!!!! i know MANY things that could prove God's existence, but evolution doesn't know ONE thing?
THAT'S PLAINLY ILLOGICAL!!!!!!

So which "evolutionist" said "it shouldn't be taught in school"? Any evidence for that?
Also, the entire auditorium falling silent when asked such a "searching" question sounds like my dad talking about some argument he had with some random bloke. Oddly enough, when my dad tells the story, the other guy never has anything sensible to say. The relationship of his tales to the truth is tenuous, to say the least.

Neoteny wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:We go round and around on this.

But no. The point is that you are trying to compare something you do not believe and call it equivalent to something else you do not believe in. That works for you, because you don't even begin to understand why we believe or really what it means.

The two are NOT equivalent and that is the real point. You can pretend to be erudite all you like, but the real truth is that no one DOES believe in flying teapots. It is a really and truly ludicrous idea. God, however, is not. Millions of people around the world agree that belief in God is not ludicrous or silly, most agree it is quite logical.

You and Snorri disagree. You feel that you know better than the millions of us around the earth who believe. That is your right. But, when you try to pretend you have some greater understanding or knowledge, all you really show is how unwilling you are to even consider other people's thinking. That is not the sign of an intelligent mind, it is the sign of a narrow one.

All you really show by making that comparison is how little YOU understand our beliefs. I have tried, many people have tried to explain. Not convince you, but explain. You show a complete inability to understand other people's beliefs.

I like how you get so insulted about this. The idea is not the plausibility of the belief. Just because people around the world believe in something does not make it logically more valid than any other belief. This is simply because the belief, in both the case of god and the teapot, are held without any evidence (except for this mythical evidence you keep talking about.

john9blue wrote:Re: the flying teapot... different from God because the universe itself serves as evidence for God. How could a universe without spontaneous generation come into being without an external creator? Furthermore, undetectable things probably don't exist because all things we know are detectable.

OK OK ::sigh:: the teapot is magical and creates worlds. Better? Now what?

More tea, vicar?

Wait til we learn to undetect the detectable. Then we're in for it.

Neoteny,

If you mean to suggest there's no evidence for Him, can you define evidence?