Jump to content


Photo

Designed Or Not Designed...


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#141 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 02 September 2009 - 12:21 PM

Javabean wrote:But just because I don't know doesn't mean that I am going to jump aboard the feel good bandwagon called 'Godidit'.  I just don't feel comfortable by saying oh it's too difficult to prove XYZ so I am just going to use a textbook answer that is 2000 years old, and could have been written by bronze age monks, but the book will claim to be written by God, so I will believe it at its face value.  I just can't do it.

Yes but sometimes we are being drawn and don't even know it Javabean.  I can totally understand your concerns here and sounds like you're being very objective and honest.

As far as the text of the scripture--there are multiplicities of fully copied manuscripts as well as many ancient portions and fragments.  Have you heard of the dead sea scrolls--very old--and they match very well with copied more modern texts.

But I realize you're doubting if it actually came from God. One of favorite verses in I Corinthians 2:4,5--the apostle Paul writes -- 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,  5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

I was raised in a very sedate but Bible preaching church--however there was really no power in the peoples' lives or in the church services.  I remember I used to feel something though--like a peace--but not much else and so I "backslid" when I was 16.

When I came back after 6 years my dad was going to a different type of church that believed in the power of God and prayer.  Not weirdo people, but their worship (song service) was very lively.  i remember I felt peace first but something else too.  It felt like power--almost like static electricity in the air.  The back of my neck wanted to shake but I did not lose control of it.  i just felt it--and it was real.

The sermons were like the preacher was reading my mail--which many people testify too.

I was ready Java--at that time--you are just not ready--but God is drawing you.  Just don't wait too long.

View Post


Thank you AFJ for your well written post :lol: I always enjoy learning the how's and why's of what makes people tick.

I think life is an amazing thing, and not knowing what will happen next is what makes it so interesting! I'm happy for you to find peace and comfort from God and religion.

I was there at one point also, but like I've said before It didn't hold up to my scrutiny. I felt that there was some internal logic problems that no one had a good answer for, or at the very least one that I could buy.

#142 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 September 2009 - 01:27 PM

There what is? I didn't use the argument you were waiting for. :lol:

View Post


That is incorrect javabean, you did use it.

Where did God come from?

View Post


That IS the classic "Infinite Regress" argument.

OH, SNAP ;)

#143 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:07 PM

That IS the classic "Infinite Regress" argument.

OH, SNAP  :lol:

View Post


That doesn't answer the question though does it? Classic dodge.

#144 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 02 September 2009 - 05:23 PM

That is incorrect javabean, you did use it.
That IS the classic "Infinite Regress" argument.

OH, SNAP  ;)

View Post


:lol: De_skudd, you should probably look up the definition of facetious!


(here's a big hint...I wasn't being serious)

#145 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:52 AM

:D De_skudd, you should probably look up the definition of facetious!
(here's a big hint...I wasn't being serious)

View Post


Yes, but then dogmatic evolutheists like Jason78 don't understand that Javabean. They think you're serious, and also don't understand the fallacy in the argumentation. :rolleyes:



OH, SNAP :D

#146 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 03 September 2009 - 10:14 AM

Yes, but then dogmatic evolutheists like Jason78 don't understand that Javabean. They think you're serious, and also don't understand the fallacy in the argumentation.  :rolleyes:


So basically what you are saying is that if you are joking around with an answer then I should react to it like you really meant it? Just in case there is some dogmatic creationist who might think that you were being serious? That doesn't seem real smart to me, so I won't do it. But if you want to keep on doing it then go right ahead.

Also I am fairly certain that Jason78 has a large enough lexicon to know what facetious means. And even if he didn't the context of that post should have given it away.

OH, SNAP  :D

View Post


I think someone is having fun with color and size lately. maybe a little too much fun. It's starting to distract from you usually excellent posts actually. But have fun!

#147 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 03 September 2009 - 10:18 AM

Also I am fairly certain that Jason78 has a large enough lexicon to know what facetious means.  And even if he didn't the context of that post should have given it away.

View Post



One would think, but it doesn't look that way :rolleyes:

#148 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 03 September 2009 - 11:06 AM

Everything that displays design "obviously" displays a designer.

View Post


I'm not sure if you're joking or serious here. But either way, this is really as far as ID has got, and in fact it is far from obvious. What is needed is evidence that something was designed not that it looks designed.

We know we didn't design life. But we are the only scientifically known designers in the universe.

#149 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 September 2009 - 05:03 PM

I'm not sure if you're joking or serious here. But either way, this is really as far as ID has got, and in fact it is far from obvious. What is needed is evidence that something was designed not that it looks designed.

We know we didn't design life. But we are the only scientifically known designers in the universe.

View Post

Not sure who you mean by 'we'. Might it include "our cousins" the bees, or "our ancestors" the rocks and stars?

#150 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 September 2009 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE(Richard Townsend @ Sep 3 2009, 11:06 AM)
But either way, this is really as far as ID has got, and in fact it is far from obvious. What is needed is evidence that something was designed not that it looks designed.


Richard, what is needed is evidence that something evolved not that it looks like it evolved i.e. homology.

#151 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 04 September 2009 - 06:16 AM

I found out through a homologous DNA trace one my ancestors was a tree in 1,650,000,000 B.C.  He was killed in a volcano, but luckily before he had  dropped some mutant acorns. :P

View Post



ROFLOL!!! Sorry I missed that one till now :lol:

Too funny! I still think there were Giant Space Monkeys at some point! How else do they explain why we like bananas so much!!!!!!!!

It has to be the only explanation :)

#152 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 September 2009 - 12:57 PM

QUOTE(Richard Townsend @ Sep 3 2009, 11:06 AM)
But either way, this is really as far as ID has got, and in fact it is far from obvious. What is needed is evidence that something was designed not that it looks designed.


Richard, what is needed is evidence that something evolved not that it looks like it evolved i.e. homology.

View Post


AFJ,

:lol: I was going to make the same retort. But you beat me to the punch :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users