• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

Brewtus;733076; said:
This is essentially the "Argument from Incredulity" or "god of the gaps," which in essence means that it is inconceivable to you that life could have originated naturally, therefore it must have been created by God.

The problem with this argument is that as human knowledge and abilities increase, the power of God decreases. At one time Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking. If one day humans are able to create life from non-life in a laboratory, what would this mean about the existence of God? It is predicted that sometime in the next 10 years humans will have the ability to create a unique artificial life form that has never existed before. Basically new and unique DNA will be created by splicing together strands of DNA from other life forms or from pieces created in a lab. The first new life form will most likely be very simple but it will have the ability to take in energy and reproduce. While this is not exactly "creating life from non-life", it is a huge leap in that direction.

And humans are not "devolving". In fact there is more genetic variety between any two random humans now than in thousands of years as a result of people migrating all over the world and reproducing with others of completely difference races and societies. But the basic genetic code for humans has not significantly changed in over 100,000 years. If we do have more genetic diseases it's a result of longer life spans or other factor, not a degradation of our DNA.
you continue to illustrate the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. all humans share approximately 99.5% of their DNA. we're all cousins.
 
Upvote 0
Jagdaddy;734086; said:
What evidence? Is there actually a bible passage or other divine instruction that demands perfection from human beings? I don't think that even Jesus claimed to be perfect.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heavan is perfect."

He claimed His divinity, therefore, He is the Son, but ALSO the father. so, in essence, He claimed His perfection.

the whole premise of the Bible is that we humans are horribly incapable of saving ourselves, so God sacrificed Himself for us in order that we might be saved... heck, that's the basic premise of most of the religions on the planet.
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;734099; said:
Sorry, I don't buy "atheists have no reason to be moral" argument. Imagine, for argument's sake, that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to you? If you believe that God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, you would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness you might feel, abandon your wife and children (assuming you have either), steal and even murder thus wrecking what should have been a close, loving family?

How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that committing crimes or abandoning one's family is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to be moral" is false. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to act immoral only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to act immoral regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian.

what makes it an immoral act? if a lion kills another lion has it sinned?
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;734424; said:
Well, these guys seem to think they were successful:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

On the isue of oxygen, I suppose I'll have to remind you that I don't make my living as a lab scientist, so I don't have the expertise to answer your question on that, and frankly don't feel like researching it.
it was a trick question. the replication will not take place in the presence of oxygen, yet the cell cannot live without it. wrap your head around that.

regarding that article, they didn't produce life. they wrote a program. i can write a program on my computer, but that doesn't mean i created the computer.

But, you balk at the notion that evolution could be the way God set up the universe? I don't understand that.
once you've accepted the presence of a Deity, isn't it kind of lame to question that Deity's power by assuming that Deity couldn't get it right the first time? no offense, but my God doesn't make mistakes. evolution posits millions years of mistakes, or 'failed attempts,' if you will, before we finally came out right.


Maybe, maybe not. My point was that Pasteur's research was to answer a limited question, which you have taken to become a "sweeping" law. While I have to concede that we have not ever observed the spontaneous creation of life out of nothing, I don't know how that helps your argument as we therefore have no evidence to support that God breathed life in to Adam, or created a bovine out of thin air. You may have faith that he did so at some point in time, but to pontificate that science is failing without recognition of the failures consequent in your analysis as it applies to Biblical stories seems a bit suspect.
suspect in whose eyes? we've already determined that there is no natural process that produces life from non-life. therefore life must be the result of a SUPERNATURAL process. QED.


And if we are to believe the Bible, this is EXACTLY what God is to have done.. violate his own rules of nature, and create life from non life. What good is a "LAW" if it must be broken in the first instance to ever be observed in the second? Seems more likely that God created life using a process which I would suspect we do not as yet understand fully (at all?) than to say He sets up laws of nature and then violates them because he can't do what he sets out to do if the law is in fact a law.

In this respect, I think a scientist would leave room for the refinement of understanding. The guy who appeals to the Bible, on the other hand (at least in my expierence), doesn't seem to leave room for any refinement of understanding.
He doesn't violate the laws, He supercedes them. we've all sinned. the wages of sin is death. we are all damned by the laws of God because we've broken them. however, God paid the price for our sins by sacrificing himself. as Christ said, "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;734554; said:
where does that awareness come from?
the apple in the garden :)

knowledge? knowing better and still doing wrong? conscious? the minds eye?

the reason why i asked if the lion knew better, its my opinion if it didn't know better it would not be a sin.

i've often wondered why christ was drawn towards kids, i assume because of the innocence. in gnostic texts he appears to the apostles in the form of a child sometimes.. maybe buckeyegrad knows
 
Upvote 0
Bleed S & G;734563; said:
the apple in the garden :)

knowledge? knowing better and still doing wrong? conscious? the minds eye?

the reason why i asked if the lion knew better, its my opinion if it didn't know better it would not be a sin.

i've often wondered why christ was drawn towards kids, i assume because of the innocence. in gnostic texts he appears to the apostles in the form of a child sometimes.. maybe buckeyegrad knows
i agree. the act itsself is meaningless unless the knowlege of sin exists. now, my dog can go slinking out of the bathroom after he's been in there eating tiolet paper, but that is because when i catch him, i bust his ass. he hasn't sinned, but he knows he'll get in trouble... the difference in humans is that we feel that guilt BEFORE we've been busted for something we're not supposed to be doing. sometimes we feel that prick before we've even committed the act.

i want a humanistic atheist to explain the human concience with science.
 
Upvote 0
Originally Posted by Brewtus
Sorry, I don't buy "atheists have no reason to be moral" argument. Imagine, for argument's sake, that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to you? If you believe that God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, you would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness you might feel, abandon your wife and children (assuming you have either), steal and even murder thus wrecking what should have been a close, loving family?

How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that committing crimes or abandoning one's family is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to be moral" is false. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to act immoral only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to act immoral regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian.

Ever read Nietzsche? He was an atheist and he said the logical conclusion of there being no God is that the only moral code is might makes right. In other words, the only moral person according to Nietzsche was the one who looks out only for himself/herself and does whatever it takes to accumulate the greatest power. If this is what morality is without God, then I want nothing of it.

As for who has the stronger moral foundation claim, that is pure rubbish. For the atheist, he gets to live by whatever morality he decides to adopt. In other words, I avoid what I don't like and do what I do like--its pure self-gratification. On the other hand, the religious person (Christian or other) who follows a moral code they believe to be established by a Divine Creator is following something greater than themselves. Unfortunately, this is often done out of fear in many religions, but if it is done out of love for God (as occurs in mature Christians), then you have achieved morality at a state of others-gratification.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top