What bothers you most about these posts?

Credible non-biased source?

 

If you read an understand the Bible, Satan actually looks pretty good and God looks like a juvenile douchbag.

 

Absolutely, in full agreement with that statement.

 

That is a commonly used argument by Intelligent Designers, and seems like common sense, except it is simply wrong and shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and how good science works.

Here's a quick primer:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

The God in the bible is a petty jealous monster. That is obviously not the god of love, and was written by man as a method of social control

 

good stuff
one a side note, absence of proof is not proof of absence, however the Bible has nothing to offer material science

 

My thoughts exactly. Social control was a serious issue in the days of Jesus. There is a lot of proof that Jesus did live on this Earth, and he was sort of a revolutionary at the time. Unfortunately, a few thousand years and the message has been changed and corrupted by man. Jesus was not the writer of the bible, so it is hard to tell what got lost/changed in all the stories.

 

Riddle me this Batman,

Why did a God who is omnipotent and can make no mistakes need to re-think his position?

The angry, vengeful Lord of the Old Testament vs. the kind and forgiving Lord of Ver. 2.0 (New Testament).

I guess that God changed P.R. firms. They pointed out that forgiveness beats tactics like loading a couple people in a boat and drowning all the rest! What?

Not yellin'...just wonderin'.

Slide On.

 

I am well aware of the scientific method. I have worked in the scientific/engineering world for over 3 decades. Also (@BE), did I not say evolution was not scientific. All I said was the application to origins or as "the designer" required "faith", because it is still a "theory", and from perspective the rigorous and practical scientific world I work in (where planes must fly, electronic signals can be measured, etc.) it suffers from the difficulty of proof and repeatability.

Intelligent design has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community, and mostly for what one might view as philosophical reasons. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

The problem is, that creation or design by a supernatural being opposes the pursuit of totally materialist/natural processes as the exclusive explanation for life. Granted, a supreme being could provincially utilize these processes, but then there are probably some in both camps might object to this for different reasons.

 

I like Turtles
[video=youtube_share;xBxaFCufFtw]http://youtu.be/xBxaFCufFtw[/video]



Vote Rcarter in 2014 Because if we all work together we can all hate everybody.

 

The God of the Bible (since this is your reference) has always been a God of Love and Justice. He has a love for His creation, yet does not approve of all the "free will" choices and actions of the creatures. He would not be "just" if He did not at some point deal with injustice, and therefore, would not be worth anybody's attention. Still, because He chooses to express His love with unmerited favor (grace), He provides a means of reconciliation/redemption for all those who have opposed His ways and/or fallen short some fashion (usually against a fellow creature).

In Noah's case, it says "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen 6:8). And thus he got busy, putting his trust in God's goodness, & built an ark, the means of His deliverance from the impending judgement.

Likewise, in the NT, for those that "find God's favor" or "realize God's grace", appropriate the good will of God that he demonstrated in JC by a response of gratitude and living in a manner that reflects such grace, love, and good will.

So God has not changed, it is that He has progressively revealed His redemption plan of grace.

That is all for now.

 

Yes ... and there is more to that story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6YRshEn8K0

 

Wow. this does not pass the sniff test ccdog, Please dont promote bovine scatology.

 

Evolution has proof and repeatability across many different species, ranging from microbes to mammals. I am not sure how you can ignore thousands of data points and still say there is nothing to the theory. You are making some poor logical conclusions about scientific theory (thus you use "theory" in your writing). You need to understand the use of the word. http://www.livescience.com/9363-intelligent-design-belief-posing-theory.html
ID is a belief. It does not require scientific fact and does not have to follow and laws. Macro/micro evolution are theories. They must follow specific laws and be backed by scientific facts. ID has no backing in the scientific community because there are no facts or laws to prove the existence of a creator. There is more data to prove otherwise, but that doesn't matter to creationists. After all, creationists don't understand what a scientific theory really is. A prime example, is the term creation science that tends to be thrown around a lot in the USA.
All that said, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. I don't have enough data to say that there is no higher power. I do have enough data to conclude that evolution can and has happened on many levels on this planet, and it is responsible for what we know as the human race. The question you should be asking, which wouldn't require you to abandon all faith, is whether the mechanisms and laws in place to cause evolution were actually put there by a supreme being. That is up for more negotiation than the simple existence of evolution and the origins of human life.

 

So, I suppose you're now going to process with a crusade to identify and vanquish all the cow caca on the SI forums. Good luck with that.

If you read the book, which was the context of WBF's riddle, the implementation details of God's redemption plan are progressively "rolled out" in history. At least that is the way I see it after several "cover to cover" readings. The issue is not whether you believe it (the Bible) or not, I am simply reporting what it says.

 

Im not trying to remove caca from SI, if I did, SI would disappear. I think you are above that caca, but maybe not. It is possible to be a moral righteous being without believing stone-age goat herder myths, and ignoring sci evidence is rather silly, especially for one trained in the methods.

Sci doesnt have all the answers, but as far as measuring and observing physical phenomena, it has more than any other human endeavor

tell me ccdog, how old is the earth?

 

This is a very good point and is common ground. The answer I believe, obviously, is "yes". I'll leave it here.

This could go on and on, I recognize the "issues" on both sides of the arguments. I am much more critical of the "evidence" than you may be giving me credit, and I have not drawn the the same conclusions as to the cause (and therefore possibly purpose) of our existence.

 

You tell me .. were you there?

I know radiometrics / mass spectrometry currently has it at (i.e. 4.5B +/- 50Million), but there are assumptions even with these scientific measurement techniques. Whose to say a new number won't come out? Science always retains the right to revise things.

Not sure about the relevance.

And, "is possible to be a moral righteous being?". Depends on what the standard is. Our own evaluation says "yes", but the last person we were a jerk to says, "no."

 

Ahh now we're getting down to it! Free will vs determinism. Do you believe that Aquinas settled this issue? Or anyone else? Personally, I don't believe he did. I have my own thoughts on how free will and determinism can exist, but that revolves more around the concept of psychohistory put forth by Asimov in the Foundation series.

 

Hey crew, these are my gods. Respect.