quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This just might get interesting again...........

Not as interesting as the fundies fighting each other could have been .

And it looks like this guy is a hit and run fundy ... c'mon, he didn't even bother reading the thread past the first couple of fundy posts to see that their arguments were subsequentely obliterated.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Not as interesting as the fundies fighting each other could have been . And it looks like this guy is a hit and run fundy ... c'mon, he didn't even bother reading the thread past the first couple of fundy posts to see that their arguments were subsequentely obliterated.

Sshhh, you'll spoil the fun! C'mon Occ, I let people take your hooks every now and then, why's you gots to spoils it for me?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Sshhh, you'll spoil the fun! C'mon Occ, I let people take your hooks every now and then, why's you gots to spoils it for me?

Hehe cmon, don't you want a REAL challenge ... I'm just trying to weed out all the filler for you.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hehe cmon, don't you want a REAL challenge ... I'm just trying to weed out all the filler for you.

No. It's Monday man, I only have 1/2 a brain working.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

i wish i caught this at the beginning.. some intresting points made. as well the mockery of religion wasnt called for. Actually it was very immature.


Im not very relgious and i do believe in evolution. when one talks about micro evolution, macro evolution is just looking at the big picture. they are both the same thing essentially (im pretty sure mister opus mentioned this earlier in the thread)

Doing experiments in biology on bacterial cells cultured, then exposing them to antibiotics and them developing resistance, shows evolution in the workings. Those bacterial cells which have the specific DNA coding for proteins which will cause the antibiotics to be innafective will survive while the others dont. the surviving bacteria has made a "random" reproductive mutation (of course its not really random because chemical reactions have direction and opposite reactions, we just say random to show that some environmental factors are the cause). the resistant bacteria continues to thrive and reproduce into new colonies .


Essentially, this can be applied to all life. Genetic mutations are the basis of evolution. the mutations which cause the organism to be better suited for the environment will cause them to survive, and so forth. organisms are always chaning to adapt to the environment. Bacterial evolution is just a small scale example of evolution works throughout time in the big picture.


I know i havent posted any references but its just a quick summary of most points that have been pointed out in this thread.

It

just

won't

fucking

die.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

For a good debate (actually, it's among the most famous ones ever held) on the existence of God I recommend:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...5F2FF36C0ECC4A2

quote:

Originally posted by Alex For a good debate (actually, it's among the most famous ones ever held) on the existence of God I recommend: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...5F2FF36C0ECC4A2

Nope, that's still pretty bad. All the more so because (so Amazon informs me) it's a cherished example in evangelical circles of "what applied apologetics looks and sounds like" and "a brilliant scholar crush[ing] satan's walls and pound[ing] them to powder in full public view", to the extent that it is still being published by "Advanced Apologetics" as a terrific exposition of Christian thought some 23 years later.

The first two videos were merely examples of special pleading ("theism is not beholden to your demands of logic or empiricism!") and the ninth video (yeah, I skipped the ones in between) plays out like this:

quote:

Bahnsen: What is the basis for the Uniformity of Nature? Stein:The Uniformity of Nature comes from the fact that matter has certain properties which it regularly exhibits. It's a part of the nature of matter. Electrons, opposite things attract;[whereas] the same charged things repel. There are certain valences that fill up the shell of an atom, and that's as far as they can combine. Bahnsen: Have you tested all electrons? Stein: All the electrons that have been tested repel each other. I have not tested all of them. Bahnsen: Have you read all the tests on electrons? Stein: Me personally? Or can I go on the witness of experts? Bahnsen: Have you read all the witnesses about electrons? Stein: All it takes is one witness to say "no", and it will be on the front pages of every physics journal, and there are none. So I'd say, in effect, yes. Bahnsen: Well, physicists have their [own] presuppositions by which they exclude contrary evidence, too...In other words, you haven't experienced all the electrons, but you would generalize that all the electrons under certain conditions repel each other. Stein: Just statistically, on the basis of past observation. Bahnsen: But we don't know that it's going to be that way ten minutes after this debate then.

In other words, theist denies simple, demonstrable facts of nature in order to pretend that there is any rational basis for the quite specific theological beliefs he holds, i.e.: "Well the scientists don't know that the 175 billionth electron they test will have the same properties as the first 174,999,999,999 they tested, therefore Jesus rose from the dead".

There are theologians out there that are worth listening to (the Bishop John Shelby Spong for one) and I am willing to accept that theology is capable of nuance and insight which might preclude it from the more generalised attacks of atheists, but come on: this is just embarrassing. The only sort of person who could accept the validity of this line of argumentation is one who has a vested emotional stake in it being true in the first place.

I'm amenable to argument: let's hear a decent one.

You read a synopsis on Amazon, skipped the majority of the videos and commented on a transcript of the debate.

Well done.

Gordon Stein was the one who literally wrote the book on how to argue with a theist and win, yet he repeatedly loses ground throughout the debate and eventually offers some really poor closing arguments that make no sense.

Listen to the whole thing before you write it off as not worthy, your post is pure fingers in the ear screaming nananananana just because you were too lazy to listen to the whole thing. There are fantastic arguments offered by both sides and you'd know that if you really were open to an argument.


(Note, Stein's supporters also hail the debate as a victory for their side)

If you want to really read theologians/philosophers that have analyzed the evidence and 2 of which weren't even Christians their entire lives I suggest:

Augustine of Hippo
C.S. Lewis (Not really a theologian actually)
Thomas Aquinas (Specifically his Summa Theologica, but if you didn't have the attention span to listen to the entire debate I doubt you'll ever make it through even 3 questions of the library that is the Summa Theologica)

Also I suggest Peter Kreeft for his apologetics, some of his other stuff is a bit wack even for me.

My biggest suggestion would be Thomas Aquinas though, if you like to think and are open to argument as you claim you are, read the Summa, it's one hell of a piece of philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade In other words, theist denies simple, demonstrable facts of nature in order to pretend that there is any rational basis for the quite specific theological beliefs he holds, i.e.: "Well the scientists don't know that the 175 billionth electron they test will have the same properties as the first 174,999,999,999 they tested, therefore Jesus rose from the dead". There are theologians out there that are worth listening to (the Bishop John Shelby Spong for one) and I am willing to accept that theology is capable of nuance and insight which might preclude it from the more generalised attacks of atheists, but come on: this is just embarrassing. The only sort of person who could accept the validity of this line of argumentation is one who has a vested emotional stake in it being true in the first place.

Also:

Bahnsen is a literalist, like most Evangelicals. That's why his base of support is saying that nonsense about the debate.

That is also why he would even bother getting into the argument of electrons with an Atheist, it's simply because he literally believes God created the earth in 7 days, 24 hours to a day, 60 minutes to an hour, 60 seconds to a minute in our present measure of time.

He also believes that Genesis is 100% true without the slightest chance of any deviation being acceptable. Therefore the argument you decided to use to defend your attacks on a debate you didn't listen to are irrelevant to the rest of the great points made in the debate.

While it's too bad Bahnsen is a literalist, he is also a great mind regardless and makes some great great points.

Stein makes some amazing points as well but as I said he get's caught in a few traps along the way and eventually loses ground.

Opus and Occrider basically cured me of all the creationism I was taught throughtout my christian indoctrination. Not saying there is not a Creator of our reality, because I actually do believe there is one. But how our reality was created...sure as hell ain't described by creationism. I rather believe creationism puts god in a box because it denies what nature tells us through science, that this reality evolved into the state with which we observe it today.

___________________