Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

I will pray God gives you strength and resilience Michael.

Dear StanJ,

Thank you so much Stan!! I was sick all today worrying about having to go in for radiation. Just trembling all day. We got rain, lightning and thunder, and high winds today for the first time in 100 years. God is on the warpath for me. I've been a mess all day. I'm going to have to pass on going to the pulmonary doctor for my lungs, because I can only afford the co-pays for my urologist and oncologist. My urologist will probably want to see me twice. Once for the initial visit and then once again to put in the markers. That's $105 right there. My uncle also passed away yesterday and so I sent my nephew $200 instead of flowers. You only have an uncle die once. You know what I mean. Well, thanks again Stan. I borrowed the $200 to send to him anyway, so it's not like I'm made of money.

May God Give You The Right Words Always,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Our National Health Service may not be perfect Michael but at least you don't have to worry about facing huge medical bills if the need arises. If your income ceases because of illness then that might be another matter.
Look after yourself.
:e4e:

Dear alwight,

You are so blessed and lucky to have a National Health Service! Thanks so much for caring!! I don't know how your government can afford to help out all of it's citizens. I will have to turn my day upside down in order to go to radiation treatments. I will have to get up very early to get there in the morning. For 8 weeks. I'm a night owl. It's going to be what it is. A pain! Well, I will look after myself and do the right thing.

God Bless You Tons,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel:

 

[bybee]

Dear alwight,

You are so blessed and lucky to have a National Health Service! Thanks so much for caring!! I don't know how your government can afford to help out all of it's citizens. I will have to turn my day upside down in order to go to radiation treatments. I will have to get up very early to get there in the morning. For 8 weeks. I'm a night owl. It's going to be what it is. A pain! Well, I will look after myself and do the right thing.

God Bless You Tons,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel:

Hello Michael, I didn't know you were ill. I'm sorry to hear it but I shall pray for your well being. I send you blessings, pat

 

[StanJ]

Dear StanJ,

Thank you so much Stan!! I was sick all today worrying about having to go in for radiation. Just trembling all day. We got rain, lightning and thunder, and high winds today for the first time in 100 years. God is on the warpath for me. I've been a mess all day. I'm going to have to pass on going to the pulmonary doctor for my lungs, because I can only afford the co-pays for my urologist and oncologist. My urologist will probably want to see me twice. Once for the initial visit and then once again to put in the markers. That's $105 right there. My uncle also passed away yesterday and so I sent my nephew $200 instead of flowers. You only have an uncle die once. You know what I mean. Well, thanks again Stan. I borrowed the $200 to send to him anyway, so it's not like I'm made of money.

May God Give You The Right Words Always,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel:

I grieve for your circumstances Michael, and will continue to pray.
In Canada, all that is covered and I never have a worry about getting medical work done. No offense, but I would hate to live in the states for that one reason alone.
Having said that, I did have to pay $136 yesterday for one of my dogs who developed an infection on her belly and teets. Not something I can afford either. She is seven years old and has only had one such emergency in the past but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

Be encouraged brother, I know it's hard but receive James' words of encouragement;

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
​

 

[StanJ]

You tell me that your faith isn't blind, but it seems that when I ask you to then show me what the "visible" part to your faith is I get accused of being patronising or otherwise deflected instead.

It isn't blind,...I went into my faith, EYES WIDE OPEN. My evidence is who and where I am now and IF you knew me when I was a juvenile, and today you would see the difference. As the Bible says; Rom 12:2 (NIV)

I simply offered that Wiki page as an example of typical academic thinking, but if it's in fact a load of bovine scatterings then I would have expected it to be hotly disputed or corrected with better facts and evidence.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. If you had offered a more relevant link from an actual historical/geological perspective it would have been more acceptable to me, but in fact it didn't come close to dealing with the issue at hand which is why I posted the response it did with that link.
Apologetics is what Christians do.

I don't have a problem with faith in Jesus, but when I get told that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that science and all the natural evidence of Darwinian evolution is wrong and should be replaced with a YEC version of events, based entirely on a particular ancient scripture, then I think I can justifiably expect something more rational by way of an explanation.

You are told from a YEC perspective, which is faith based. That you don't accept it and use a THEORY to support your non-acceptance is normal for many, but IMO just as invalid as you feel my faith is. I have faith in a SUPREME being and you have faith in a man who theorized on the origin of species, when my Bible tells me God is the creator of species.

However you also seemed to be telling me that the story of Jesus is in fact verifiable. I wasn't saying the story was wrong btw I was disagreeing with your verifiability claim and pointing out what I consider to be the generally accepted scholarly position based on the available facts and evidence.

Sorry, I'm not really getting what verifiable facts and evidence you are talking about here? Is it about Jesus or about Darwin and his theory?

I find convincing rationality in facts and evidence, but so far imo your faith has been just about as close to blind faith as makes no difference. God's word would be one thing but presupposing that God's word is literally what is written in a particular ancient scripture is what beggars belief for me.
The Bible is for me an extremely interesting historical work giving many insights to the past, but it is also ignorant, fallible and very human.

and I BELIEVE the exact opposite, which for me, is NOT an opinion. As Paul states in 2 Tim 1:12;

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
​

I think that most of the detail in the Bible can be put to one side, I would really like to understand why it is regarded by fundamentalists as being infallible and literally historical, to the point of rejecting generally accepted scientific conclusions?

IMO, the ONLY way you can understand it in depth, is to read in it and discover what John 20:30-31 (NIV) states.

 

[alwight]

I suspect that we won't be getting much further here so this may be my last full response.

You tell me that your faith isn't blind, but it seems that when I ask you to then show me what the "visible" part to your faith is I get accused of being patronising or otherwise deflected instead.

It isn't blind,...I went into my faith, EYES WIDE OPEN. My evidence is who and where I am now and IF you knew me when I was a juvenile, and today you would see the difference. As the Bible says; Rom 12:2 (NIV)

OK and good for you Stan but that isn't particularly convincing from my own perspective but I presume that your faith helped you out of a bad situation? Otoh I know of many good people who have apparently never received any sign of divine help for their particular bad situation in life.

I simply offered that Wiki page as an example of typical academic thinking, but if it's in fact a load of bovine scatterings then I would have expected it to be hotly disputed or corrected with better facts and evidence.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. If you had offered a more relevant link from an actual historical/geological perspective it would have been more acceptable to me, but in fact it didn't come close to dealing with the issue at hand which is why I posted the response it did with that link.
Apologetics is what Christians do.

So you don't think that my albeit convenient link is good enough and that Christian apologetics offers something more thorough and accurate? I suppose you would think that wouldn't you?
But for me there are people who research the actual origins and sources of the Bible from the available evidence and then there are those whose job is apparently to put a particular Christian spin on the words. My mind seems to be more on the former while you seem to prefer the latter.

I don't have a problem with faith in Jesus, but when I get told that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that science and all the natural evidence of Darwinian evolution is wrong and should be replaced with a YEC version of events, based entirely on a particular ancient scripture, then I think I can justifiably expect something more rational by way of an explanation.

You are told from a YEC perspective, which is faith based. That you don't accept it and use a THEORY to support your non-acceptance is normal for many, but IMO just as invalid as you feel my faith is. I have faith in a SUPREME being and you have faith in a man who theorized on the origin of species, when my Bible tells me God is the creator of species.

My position is to look at the natural world around us and then look for reasonable and rational naturalistic answers. If a real supreme being wants to be part of that that's fine with me.
It has nothing to do with faith in a particular person but it is to do with facts, evidence and the best explanation or falsifiable theory available. If the explanation does not match the evidence then I at least feel free to disregard the explanation rather than dogmatically believing it anyway.

However you also seemed to be telling me that the story of Jesus is in fact verifiable. I wasn't saying the story was wrong btw I was disagreeing with your verifiability claim and pointing out what I consider to be the generally accepted scholarly position based on the available facts and evidence.

Sorry, I'm not really getting what verifiable facts and evidence you are talking about here? Is it about Jesus or about Darwin and his theory?

I was clearly talking about Jesus here, why the confusion? :idunno:
Maybe you have changed your mind on the verifiability of the gospels?

I find convincing rationality in facts and evidence, but so far imo your faith has been just about as close to blind faith as makes no difference. God's word would be one thing but presupposing that God's word is literally what is written in a particular ancient scripture is what beggars belief for me.
The Bible is for me an extremely interesting historical work giving many insights to the past, but it is also ignorant, fallible and very human.

and I BELIEVE the exact opposite, which for me, is NOT an opinion. As Paul states in 2 Tim 1:12;
I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

What you may believe doesn't make me any more enlightened as to why a particular scripture from long ago needs to be presumed as infallible and actually God's word, even if it often seems to be at odds with science...

I think that most of the detail in the Bible can be put to one side, I would really like to understand why it is regarded by fundamentalists as being infallible and literally historical, to the point of rejecting generally accepted scientific conclusions?

IMO, the ONLY way you can understand it in depth, is to read in it and discover what John 20:30-31 (NIV) states.

G.John also says that Jesus said quite a lot while before Pilate but the other gospels explain that Pilate was amazed by his lack of reply. What should we understand from this? Did Jesus speak or not? It can't be both.
But of course this is where Christian apologetics will perhaps be called on and I've seen one or two such attempts at squaring this particular circle, I wonder what your version would be? :think:

 

[StanJ]

OK and good for you Stan but that isn't particularly convincing from my own perspective but I presume that your faith helped you out of a bad situation? Otoh I know of many good people who have apparently never received any sign of divine help for their particular bad situation in life.

Yes, it brought me from 'death' to 'LIFE'. Good has nothing to do with belief in Jesus. All have to option to do so, but not all respond positively.

So you don't think that my albeit convenient link is good enough and that Christian apologetics offers something more thorough and accurate? I suppose you would think that wouldn't you?
But for me there are people who research the actual origins and sources of the Bible from the available evidence and then there are those whose job is apparently to put a particular Christian spin on the words. My mind seems to be more on the former while you seem to prefer the latter.

No, I didn't and expressed that. Apologetics is from people who KNOW the faith. Wiki is from a lot of people who THINK they know, and despite their best efforts, they don't get everything right or factual. It is good for quick reference, but sites devoted to the issues, whatever they may be, are far more accurate. If you were to cite those people who actually did research on the Bible, that would be different, but Wiki sure didn't unlike the site I quoted who did.

My position is to look at the natural world around us and then look for reasonable and rational naturalistic answers. If a real supreme being wants to be part of that that's fine with me.
It has nothing to do with faith in a particular person but it is to do with facts, evidence and the best explanation or falsifiable theory available. If the explanation does not match the evidence then I at least feel free to disregard the explanation rather than dogmatically believing it anyway.

So as you obviously don't believe in ID or a God that did create nature, it would be the way most people view nature, as a benevolent mother figure. That is the furthest thing from the truth ever. Nature is harsh and unfeeling. It does NOT have ANY feelings, nor does it nurture. Yes instead of calling hurricanes and floods and tornadoes mother nature, most call the Acts of God. Maybe you can see the irony there?
Dogmatically believing IS faith Alwight...I'm not sure why you don't get that?

I was clearly talking about Jesus here, why the confusion?
Maybe you have changed your mind on the verifiability of the gospels?

I was honestly wanting clarification before answering, but in any event you can read the following;
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow...ere-to-support-the-existence-of-jesus-christ/

What you may believe doesn't make me any more enlightened as to why a particular scripture from long ago needs to be presumed as infallible and actually God's word, even if it often seems to be at odds with science...
G. John also says that Jesus said quite a lot while before Pilate but the other gospels explain that Pilate was amazed by his lack of reply. What should we understand from this? Did Jesus speak or not? It can't be both.
But of course this is where Christian apologetics will perhaps be called on and I've seen one or two such attempts at squaring this particular circle, I wonder what your version would be? :think:

I gave you John 20:30-31 to show you why. I don't expect you to believe it, but it IS the reason.
There are the three 'synoptic' gospels and then John. The synoptic gospels are historical accounts, and if you can point out contradiction there, please feel free to do so....many have tired and failed. John is more a personal gospel written by Lazarus, Jesus' cousin, and as such deals more with details and personal issues. They ARE harmonic when you read and understand them. The fact that the Bible is comprised of 66 books that never contradict any of the others, IMO, supports that they are indeed inspired OF/BY God.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hello Michael, I didn't know you were ill. I'm sorry to hear it but I shall pray for your well being. I send you blessings, pat

Dearest bybee,

Thank you so much for taking the time to come to my thread. It's amazing seeing you here and I'm loving it. You are such a kind-hearted woman. I've always noticed that about you!! I will be going this week hopefully to start radiation treatments. I hope it hasn't spread. So many people care about me, I'm so blessed!! Thanks again, hon!!!

Much Love,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I grieve for your circumstances Michael, and will continue to pray.
In Canada, all that is covered and I never have a worry about getting medical work done. No offense, but I would hate to live in the states for that one reason alone.
Having said that, I did have to pay $136 yesterday for one of my dogs who developed an infection on her belly and teets. Not something I can afford either. She is seven years old and has only had one such emergency in the past but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

Be encouraged brother, I know it's hard but receive James' words of encouragement;

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
​

Dear StanJ,

Wow, I wish I lived in Canada too!! Everyone's government is better than the U.S. I don't know why they can't do that here too. Go figure. You know I appreciate so much your thoughtful heart. Everyone is being so good to me. I am so blessed by God to have you all!! God bless you dearly Stan!!!

Much Love,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

Stan does have a point there. They call tornadoes and hurricanes, wind damage, etc. 'acts of God' here in the U.S. The insurance companies have to pay you if something if they are 'acts of God.' It would not be unreasonable at all to figure that all lawyers believe in 'God.' I might be a bit wrong on the details, but I am trying to make the point that the law here regards "Acts of God." They must believe in God, evidently. Hey, I love you either way, whether you believe in God or not. It's just that I want you to receive eternal life when you die. You'll get to fly and visit places in the Universe. It's well worth it. What will it hurt if you believe in God and get all of the excellent rewards from Him when you die? Isn't that better than not believing and thus getting no reward or eternal life? What can it hurt to believe in God instead of not??

Much Love For You Alwight!!

Michael

 

[Hedshaker]

Oh no, not Pascals Wager. I thought that one sank with the Ark?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh no, not Pascals Wager. I thought that one sank with the Ark?

Dear Hedshaker,

Wow!! It's really good to hear from you again!! You like to keep scarce, eh? I've missed you!! What is Pascal's Wager? How's your music going?? My nephew bought me some new, expensive strings for my 12-string guitar, for my birthday. He also bought me an amplifier that clips to your belt and runs on a 9-volt battery. It works great with the microphone, or guitar. And he bought me a gold plated mono-to-stereo cord with 1/4" plugs on both ends. I don't get to play my guitar and sing as often as I'd like, but I'm going to start making time for it so I can practice my singing and guitar work. I hope you're still making music and that you get to sell some of it, tbh.

We got rain here yesterday for the first time in 100 years on that day. June is usually ALWAYS dry in Phoenix. We're supposed to get more rain during the week. Freaky, eh? God is showing us that He can make miracles still happen.

Well, not much news here. It's really nice indeed that you posted. I hope you do it again soon.

Many Good Blessings and Cheerio!!

Michael

:cloud9:

 

[StanJ]

Dear StanJ,

Wow, I wish I lived in Canada too!! Everyone's government is better than the U.S. I don't know why they can't do that here too. Go figure. You know I appreciate so much your thoughtful heart. Everyone is being so good to me. I am so blessed by God to have you all!! God bless you dearly Stan!!!

Much Love,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9:

Hi Michael,

I'm not saying our government is better, but our health care system sure is and for THAT reason alone I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
I do pray God provides for your health needs as He is surely able to do.

 

[StanJ]

Oh no, not Pascals Wager. I thought that one sank with the Ark?

Why not....as a probability theory, it is sound. To the atheist of course, it isn't, because atheists assume they are right and there is no God or afterlife. Pascal weighed all the pros and cons and came up with his theory.
From a purely logical perspective, that has NO bias, it if a good wager.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why not....as a probability theory, it is sound. To the atheist of course, it isn't, because atheists assume they are right and there is no God or afterlife. Pascal weighed all the pros and cons and came up with his theory.
From a purely logical perspective, that has NO bias, it if a good wager.

Dear StanJ,

I looked it up. Now I know what it is and it's not a sincere idea. I didn't mean it to be insincere. I just meant it was better to believe in God, so why not believe in God? That's what I meant. To sincerely believe in God and Jesus would be best.

Never Mind!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

Stan does have a point there. They call tornadoes and hurricanes, wind damage, etc. 'acts of God' here in the U.S. The insurance companies have to pay you if something if they are 'acts of God.' It would not be unreasonable at all to figure that all lawyers believe in 'God.' I might be a bit wrong on the details, but I am trying to make the point that the law here regards "Acts of God." They must believe in God, evidently.

I can assure you Michael that "Act of God" in a legal context is simply a metaphorical term for a natural occurrence. No actual belief in God is required or expected either way.

Hey, I love you either way, whether you believe in God or not. It's just that I want you to receive eternal life when you die. You'll get to fly and visit places in the Universe. It's well worth it. What will it hurt if you believe in God and get all of the excellent rewards from Him when you die? Isn't that better than not believing and thus getting no reward or eternal life? What can it hurt to believe in God instead of not??

Much Love For You Alwight!!

Michael

I can't simply choose to believe anything Michael, I need to be at least reasonably convinced.
To expect to receive eternal life simply because I pretend to believe would be absurd. No God I'd want to associate myself with forever would be so petty and fickle, nor indeed stupid enough to fall for that.
Pascal's Wager was from a place and time when there was really only the Christian God or nothing. These days however there are so many versions of god(s) that are believed in by somebody, should I just pick one at random?

Good luck Michael.
:e4e:

 

[alwight]

No, I didn't and expressed that. Apologetics is from people who KNOW the faith. Wiki is from a lot of people who THINK they know, and despite their best efforts, they don't get everything right or factual. It is good for quick reference, but sites devoted to the issues, whatever they may be, are far more accurate. If you were to cite those people who actually did research on the Bible, that would be different, but Wiki sure didn't unlike the site I quoted who did.

I simply don't agree, apologetics is done by those who want what they already believe to be true to be seen in the best possible light. I don't believe that apologetics exists to establish the real truth because it already presupposes what the real "Truth" is.
If you have evidence which verifies that the Bible is a factual historical narrative then that would be something else and by all means do present it.

So as you obviously don't believe in ID or a God that did create nature, it would be the way most people view nature, as a benevolent mother figure. That is the furthest thing from the truth ever. Nature is harsh and unfeeling. It does NOT have ANY feelings, nor does it nurture. Yes instead of calling hurricanes and floods and tornadoes mother nature, most call the Acts of God. Maybe you can see the irony there?
Dogmatically believing IS faith Alwight...I'm not sure why you don't get that?

The reason that nature is often harsh and cruel is imo because it is probably entirely natural, un-designed, it is what it is naturally, there is no reason to blame anyone.
We derive quite a few modern expressions from the past and use them figuratively.

Dogmatism seems to replace the need to engage brain for some people. lain:

I gave you John 20:30-31 to show you why. I don't expect you to believe it, but it IS the reason.
There are the three 'synoptic' gospels and then John. The synoptic gospels are historical accounts, and if you can point out contradiction there, please feel free to do so....many have tired and failed. John is more a personal gospel written by Lazarus, Jesus' cousin, and as such deals more with details and personal issues. They ARE harmonic when you read and understand them. The fact that the Bible is comprised of 66 books that never contradict any of the others, IMO, supports that they are indeed inspired OF/BY God.

How exactly do you know who wrote G.John, how do you verify it?
Did Jesus make a speech to Pilate or not?
There are imo enough notable inconsistencies or variations I could highlight within the synoptic gospels to detect an individual agenda for a particular audience, given that they were probably written at different times but based around the same source material.
Are you able to verify their authors too?

 

[Hedshaker]

Why not....as a probability theory, it is sound. To the atheist of course, it isn't, because atheists assume they are right and there is no God or afterlife. Pascal weighed all the pros and cons and came up with his theory.
From a purely logical perspective, that has NO bias, it if a good wager.

Refutation

Missing possibilities
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument.
Avoiding the wrong hell problem
Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite amount of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.


Sourse and more Refutations

You don't have to make any assumptions about the God myth to see how flawed Pascals Wager is, just a little sound reasoning will do it

 

[noguru]

I can assure you Michael that "Act of God" in a legal context is simply a metaphorical term for a natural occurrence. No actual belief in God is required or expected either way.

An "act of God" in legal terms regarding tort law is simply a way of saying that "no human or group of humans has liability for damages from the event".

A good example would be say if I rented a house in Kansas. Filled it with my belongings. Then a tornado destroyed the house along with all my belongings. The landlord would not be held responsible for replacing my belongings or any monetary compensation due to the damages from the tornado.

 

[alwight]

An "act of God" in legal terms regarding tort law is simply a way of saying that "no human or group of humans has liability for damages from the event".

A good example would be say if I rented a house in Kansas. Filled it with my belongings. Then a tornado destroyed the house along with all my belongings. The landlord would not be held responsible for replacing my belongings or any monetary compensation due to the damages from the tornado.

If God exists then why not sue Him for damages, culpable negligence? :think:
Fact is that an "act of God" in law means that no one can be blamed, therefore the legal system doesn't believe that there is a god, legally speaking God does not exist.

Act of God