"When people are faced with a choice, one they understand versus one they don't, they readily pick the former."

Isn't that ignorance ?

Understanding in that context can be fairly subjective. If anyone believes they understand either of the two dogmas, they are deluded. One of the first steps in defeating ignorance, is it's admission. I am only in a position to repair my own ignorance, Very often when I learn something, it draws my attention to something I have believed for the sake of convenience. I have found if I refuse to understand something through fear, the fear will never leave. I also have to admit that due to my position as an individual on a specified time line, many things wil...

"When people are faced with a choice, one they understand versus one they don't, they readily pick the former."

Isn't that ignorance ?

Understanding in that context can be fairly subjective. If anyone believes they understand either of the two dogmas, they are deluded. One of the first steps in defeating ignorance, is it's admission. I am only in a position to repair my own ignorance, Very often when I learn something, it draws my attention to something I have believed for the sake of convenience. I have found if I refuse to understand something through fear, the fear will never leave. I also have to admit that due to my position as an individual on a specified time line, many things will always remain beyond my understanding, and I always have to be careful not to allow an 'assumption' to become a 'fact', or the reverse. It's amazing how much money can be made through ignorance. Just ask a salesman. Facing people who pretend they know what they want, while not having a clue what it is they're buying. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel

Okay, points well taken. I expect all of you to grasp the nuances of any complex theological arguments I offer on here. I don't want to hear one whine. I want sustained logical engagement.

I assume, since you all are masters of sophisticated nuances, that you recognize that the above clips do not represent the sum total of the argument of those recognizing the foolishnes of Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general. You do know that, right?

Because this guy does not grasp the finer points, does not mean that no one else with his view does, either. Agree or not, you all do recognize that there are tons of Darwin rejectors whose intellects would put your's to shame, right?

That'...

Okay, points well taken. I expect all of you to grasp the nuances of any complex theological arguments I offer on here. I don't want to hear one whine. I want sustained logical engagement.

I assume, since you all are masters of sophisticated nuances, that you recognize that the above clips do not represent the sum total of the argument of those recognizing the foolishnes of Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general. You do know that, right?

Because this guy does not grasp the finer points, does not mean that no one else with his view does, either. Agree or not, you all do recognize that there are tons of Darwin rejectors whose intellects would put your's to shame, right?

That's because this isn't about who is smarter. It's about who/what you have faith in. I'll wager not one of you has conducted the first experiment in support of the precious theory. You have lab-coated priests.

I appreciate that Christ has built His Church with all sorts of people. Some very simple, some with breathtaking intellects. Most somewhere in between.

His truth is at once simple enough for a child, and complex enough to ponder for an eternity.

Well, that is the disagreement. Evolutionary theory is very much about faith, just as theology is very much about proof. The great irony is that evolutionary theory is itself untested and untestable, and therefore a matter of faith, not proof.

*Assuming* you even could prove that a catfish became an anteloupe after untold billions of years, that would *prove* nothing about the origins of the universe. To make that leap is faith. See?

Furthermore, there is no possible way to prove anything about the origins from empirical evidence, because of its inherent untestability. That is the essence of the scientifc method--developed and refined, by the way, predominantly by Christians who fully...

Well, that is the disagreement. Evolutionary theory is very much about faith, just as theology is very much about proof. The great irony is that evolutionary theory is itself untested and untestable, and therefore a matter of faith, not proof.

*Assuming* you even could prove that a catfish became an anteloupe after untold billions of years, that would *prove* nothing about the origins of the universe. To make that leap is faith. See?

Furthermore, there is no possible way to prove anything about the origins from empirical evidence, because of its inherent untestability. That is the essence of the scientifc method--developed and refined, by the way, predominantly by Christians who fully believed in the biblical account of Creation with no contradiction.

The scientific method presumes an orderly universe, a presumption which the Bible teaches, but which is not possibly scientific, also because of its untestability. You remove the biblical presumption of order and uniformity, and you remove the basis for any scientific inquiry.

If you mean "change" when you say "evolution" I do not disagree.

If you mean "evolutionary theory for the origin of life" when you say "evolution," then you are mistaken. It is not even possible to see this in a laboratory.

Assuming *arguendo* you could take some sludge, mix it with some cosmic stardust and make a man in a laboratory, you have done nothing but show what could be done with a given set of circumstances at a given time. You have not observed what actually happened, nor can you.

Scientific method as we know it does not predate Christianity, though some rudiments and component parts did appear in some pre-Christian thinkers such as Aristotle and some Muslim thinkers, who, w...

If you mean "change" when you say "evolution" I do not disagree.

If you mean "evolutionary theory for the origin of life" when you say "evolution," then you are mistaken. It is not even possible to see this in a laboratory.

Assuming *arguendo* you could take some sludge, mix it with some cosmic stardust and make a man in a laboratory, you have done nothing but show what could be done with a given set of circumstances at a given time. You have not observed what actually happened, nor can you.

Scientific method as we know it does not predate Christianity, though some rudiments and component parts did appear in some pre-Christian thinkers such as Aristotle and some Muslim thinkers, who, while not Christian, did accept similar basic presuppositons about the nature of the universe.

I have to disagree with your suggestion that scientific is "not about an ordered universe." Without this fundamental and unprovable presupposition, there can be no scientific method.

How could you test a hypothesis if you had no reason to expect similar results in similar conditions?

You can't even do science without borrowing from the Christian understanding of the universe.

I'm happy to provide a laugh, being disposed to laughter myself. I think it's hilarious that people think science is possible apart from Christian presuppositions, too.

See, we do agree on something! Let's clink mugs.

Ratilfar--
Um...yes it is! An ordered universe most definitely is a Christian thought!

Which ideas are "borrowed," and on what grounds do you identify the borrow*er* from the borrow*ee* ?

The idea of an ordered universe is older than time, literally, being necessary by the very nature of God Himself!

Human recognition of that fact began with time itself, or more precisely, with humanity's creation shortly thereafter. Those thoughts are part of Christian thought, an...

I'm happy to provide a laugh, being disposed to laughter myself. I think it's hilarious that people think science is possible apart from Christian presuppositions, too.

See, we do agree on something! Let's clink mugs.

Ratilfar--
Um...yes it is! An ordered universe most definitely is a Christian thought!

Which ideas are "borrowed," and on what grounds do you identify the borrow*er* from the borrow*ee* ?

The idea of an ordered universe is older than time, literally, being necessary by the very nature of God Himself!

Human recognition of that fact began with time itself, or more precisely, with humanity's creation shortly thereafter. Those thoughts are part of Christian thought, and predate all post-Fall civilization.

I'm not suggesting that folks from other views or peoples don't say similar things about some of this stuff. It's only recently that God-haters began to deny one of the most obvious facts of all facts--that of a Creator and a creation, after all.

But to say that an ordered universe and the uniformity of nature is not Christian is a historical mistake.

Maybe I'm being too picky, though. If you mean to say that it is not *exclusively* a Christian idea, then I may be willing to concede, just like "murder is a capital crime" is not an exclusively Christian ethical position.

Although--the nature of the supposed "order" of the universe is greatly affected by which Order*er* is doing the order*ing*. I would maintain that present conceptions of these ideas gained most of their substantive content from Christian thinkers.

Do you suggest that the universe only *appears* to have order and uniformity?

Your question about what follows from order is a good one, and I'm frankly not sure.

If there appears a car in my driveway, does it follow that someone built a car? I would tend to say yes, but why would you say "No?"

From a syllogistic standpoint, I am unsure whether it is a logical necessity, I'll have to ponder.

But certainly from an empirical inductive standpoint (scientific, in other words), it seems that a car in my driveway *at least* raises a very strong presumption that someone made a car...a presumption that won't be rebutted easily. The universe is infinitely more complex than a Dodge.

"Diff...

Do you suggest that the universe only *appears* to have order and uniformity?

Your question about what follows from order is a good one, and I'm frankly not sure.

If there appears a car in my driveway, does it follow that someone built a car? I would tend to say yes, but why would you say "No?"

From a syllogistic standpoint, I am unsure whether it is a logical necessity, I'll have to ponder.

But certainly from an empirical inductive standpoint (scientific, in other words), it seems that a car in my driveway *at least* raises a very strong presumption that someone made a car...a presumption that won't be rebutted easily. The universe is infinitely more complex than a Dodge.

"Different areas of human consciousness" What the heck are you talking about?

"Science begins with the Question, religion with the Answer." Really? How do you know this? Did Science observe it to be, or are you pushing your religion on me?

What is the "The Question," and what is "The Answer?"

You can't even ask a question without assuming a whole bunch of answers. For instance, you have to believe in laws of logic, laws of grammar, purposeful communication, the possibility of asking an intelligible question, the possibility of receiving an intelligible answer, that something exists, that it is knowable, and on and on I could go.

Science does not start purely from a question, but asks a variety of questions from a starting point that assumes a host of propositions, all of which are based upon Christian understanding of things.

Thank you and the Supreme Court for granting me permission to believe in God; I'm sure He will be quite relieved to know that y'all have not made Him obsolete. (two winkies in one comment may be too much sarcasm)

I keep hearing you and others *declare* my view unscientific and illogical, but I have seen no *proof,* so from a scientific and logical standpoint, I should reject that hypothesis as untenable.

Oortcloud--Maybe you didn't read the earlier comment to which I responded. Ratilfar proposed the argument that the existence of an Orderer does not follow from the fact of an ordered universe. I questioned this logically and scientifically. That is not, in fact my main argument, though.

I'm familiar with the watchmaker arguments pro and con, and there are worthwhile arguments against the design argument critique, which you articulated.

If you assail my belief in God, then you are the one who bears the burden of proof.

The onus is not on me, because God's existence is the most obvious fact in the world. It's like saying "prove that something is."

Curious--what would prove God's exist...

Oortcloud--Maybe you didn't read the earlier comment to which I responded. Ratilfar proposed the argument that the existence of an Orderer does not follow from the fact of an ordered universe. I questioned this logically and scientifically. That is not, in fact my main argument, though.

I'm familiar with the watchmaker arguments pro and con, and there are worthwhile arguments against the design argument critique, which you articulated.

If you assail my belief in God, then you are the one who bears the burden of proof.

The onus is not on me, because God's existence is the most obvious fact in the world. It's like saying "prove that something is."

Curious--what would prove God's existence to you?

Also curious--what makes you think He has any obligation, or for that matter desire, to prove His existence to you?

What proves God's existence is that He made me and loves me and sent His only Son to die a brutal death as a substitutionary payment for what my sin deserved. He provides for me and teaches me, and shows His tender mercies to me each and every day...not through the absence of pain and suffering, but in the midst of it. He is strong in my weakness, and comforts in the face of bitter disappointment and fear.His Word gives me life and hope and peace, and His Son is my glorious King, gracious Saviour and closest and sweetest friend. He is true truth, and faithful to every promise He makes. He brings low the haughty and elevates the lowly. He speaks to me in the thunder and the whisper in the Ge...

What proves God's existence is that He made me and loves me and sent His only Son to die a brutal death as a substitutionary payment for what my sin deserved. He provides for me and teaches me, and shows His tender mercies to me each and every day...not through the absence of pain and suffering, but in the midst of it. He is strong in my weakness, and comforts in the face of bitter disappointment and fear.His Word gives me life and hope and peace, and His Son is my glorious King, gracious Saviour and closest and sweetest friend. He is true truth, and faithful to every promise He makes. He brings low the haughty and elevates the lowly. He speaks to me in the thunder and the whisper in the Georgia pines outside my window with His tree frogs throating their praises all around. He gave me two of His own precious ones to steward as their earthly father, and I feel His delight for His creation when they glide through the room, dancing and jumping and giggling. I am not worthy for these joys, yet He heaps them on me every day. Today, I saw the gift of a new son in my wife's womb, and His undying love washed over me all over again. I am stunned and in tears as I recount His blessings in cursory form for you as proof of His existence, His love, His mighty power, His majesty, His truth, His providence, and His unspeakable holiness. My God lives and reigns, and He may be found. He does bid you seek Him. Seeking Him is not the same as haughtily demanding that He bend His knee to your intellectual arrogance (or anyone's). It is puny. We know nothing and cannot begin to comprehend His thoughts. I'm reminded of Job's response when the Lord rebuked him for questioning Him: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know...therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

Peace.

If you assail my belief in God, then you are the one who bears the burden of proof.

It is religion that continues to interfer in the political process from putting "in god we trust" on our cash to attempting to force children to learn the non-science of Intelligent design. It is religion that pushes its beliefs on gay marriage rights.

I assail your belief because you (either directly or indirectly by non action) continue to stick your nose into the lives of everyone else. This forces me to examine your claims to determine their worth. I have determined that your claims are worthless. So when you attempt to influence my life and justify that interference with your religion the...

If you assail my belief in God, then you are the one who bears the burden of proof.

It is religion that continues to interfer in the political process from putting "in god we trust" on our cash to attempting to force children to learn the non-science of Intelligent design. It is religion that pushes its beliefs on gay marriage rights.

I assail your belief because you (either directly or indirectly by non action) continue to stick your nose into the lives of everyone else. This forces me to examine your claims to determine their worth. I have determined that your claims are worthless. So when you attempt to influence my life and justify that interference with your religion then I must stand forth and point out falseness of your faith.

Curious--what would prove God's existence to you?

For starters, that claims made by the bible where true. Any tiny bit of investigations shows how christianity is nothing more than plagerized paganism. There isn't any real evidence of christ in history. You'd think that at least some of the major historians of the time would have noted all the miracles and resurection surrounding Jesus. At best he gets a noted mention and his name is even spelled wrong because of his minor importance.

Mathew 17:20 - the faith of a mustard seed and you can do anything ... not true. Suffering still exists and tragedies still happen - I think that at least 1 person in the world with a mustard seed amount of faith would work to make things better.

You attempt to make it sound like I am denying proof. It is easy to say "its obvious" because you simply believe and have made the decision that no matter what you won't change your mind - but that is blindness, not enlightment. You believe because you want to believe, not because the story has been shown to be true.

what makes you think He has any obligation ... to prove His existence to you?

If i have to make the right choice or face eternity in torment, then he

damnable screwy editor - cut my words off again..

what makes you think He has any obligation ... to prove His existence to you?

If I am to face an eternity in torment because I have not followed the right path as declared by a creator and there are umpteen thousand different religions to choose from, then yah, he owes me to prove that he exists.

Every religion claims to have the truth and if there is only one path then how can such a being allow this confusion. Your faith and your reverance to your god is a pittance compared to others of faith to different gods. They have the same, if not more, zeal and dedication that you do and they truly believe that they are serving their ...

damnable screwy editor - cut my words off again..

what makes you think He has any obligation ... to prove His existence to you?

If I am to face an eternity in torment because I have not followed the right path as declared by a creator and there are umpteen thousand different religions to choose from, then yah, he owes me to prove that he exists.

Every religion claims to have the truth and if there is only one path then how can such a being allow this confusion. Your faith and your reverance to your god is a pittance compared to others of faith to different gods. They have the same, if not more, zeal and dedication that you do and they truly believe that they are serving their god and creator. They WANT to be a loyal servant to their master. They were simply taught differently than you.

All god has to do is step forward and show himself. The argument of a hidden god is an illogical argument. He has shown himself in the past (according to the scriptures) as proof of his power. If people are willing to believe and want to believe and simply have the wrong message then his not showing himself damns them.

Do you truly think that any god wanting everyone to find salvation would allow such confusion? I think not. I think it more likely that these are yet more stories created to provide excuses for those that simply fear discovering that what they believe is simply fictional.

Everytime I look into the reality of god I find origins from myths and legends of other religions as a source to christianity and even thinking through all the dogma and doctrine the things people say about god simply do not make sense. When you simply accept that people made god up, then wow, suddenly everything makes sense.

Your god is a tiny thing when compared to the enormity of reality.

This argument is moot. Neither evolution, nor membrane theory nor geology and geophysics "disprove" the existence of God.

They speak to an understanding of process. Since that understanding of process seems to differ from a literal reading of Genesis, some people have gotten their panties in a wad over it.

But far more are using that as a means to encourage a distrust of critical thinking, inductive reasoning and fearless inquiry.

This is not a theological or a scientific argument and never has been. It's about "If the people question the authority of the Bible, what else might they start questioning? The authority of the Pope? The Divine Right of Kings? Horrors!"

I should add that as ...

This argument is moot. Neither evolution, nor membrane theory nor geology and geophysics "disprove" the existence of God.

They speak to an understanding of process. Since that understanding of process seems to differ from a literal reading of Genesis, some people have gotten their panties in a wad over it.

But far more are using that as a means to encourage a distrust of critical thinking, inductive reasoning and fearless inquiry.

This is not a theological or a scientific argument and never has been. It's about "If the people question the authority of the Bible, what else might they start questioning? The authority of the Pope? The Divine Right of Kings? Horrors!"

I should add that as an American citizen, I am mandated by the constitution to Question Authority. And there's a quiz every two years.

Oortcloud--Surely you jest about Christianity interfering. Do you mean to suggest that faggots and evolutionists are not the ones who forced themselves down our country's throat, using every device conceivable, even violence?

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the clamor for faggot "marriage" is not a prime example of a few moral degenerates forcing their perversion on a people obviously resisting? Practically every state is doing its utmost to pass laws against it.

And evolutionists do all they can to keep parents and everyone else from having any say about their children's education. They fire professors and teachers who dare question their precious dogma. That's not...

Oortcloud--Surely you jest about Christianity interfering. Do you mean to suggest that faggots and evolutionists are not the ones who forced themselves down our country's throat, using every device conceivable, even violence?

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the clamor for faggot "marriage" is not a prime example of a few moral degenerates forcing their perversion on a people obviously resisting? Practically every state is doing its utmost to pass laws against it.

And evolutionists do all they can to keep parents and everyone else from having any say about their children's education. They fire professors and teachers who dare question their precious dogma. That's not forcing? Get real.

Participating in public activity as a Christian is not forcing anything. It is doing one's duty. Your religion would tell me that I can't be a Christian or think like a Christian unless I'm in my closet or my ghetto. That's forcing, my friend, and I will resist the attempts unapologetically and with all my might.

You are probably right about my faith and my zeal not being what it ought to be. I am convicted. I pray God will make me a better man.

What makes you assume that God wants everyone to find salvation? You won't find that in His Word, where Jesus expressly says that He speaks in parables so that some of His audience would not understand, lest they repent and believe.

The fear that your belief is fictional seems to lie with you, not me.

People made God up? I agree that many people's gods are, as the Bible says, vain imaginations. But the one true God has revealed Himself more than adequately, your professed unbelief notwithstanding.

My God is not a tiny thing, and your statement to the contrary merely indicates your complete ignorance of Him, since however big Reality is, as you call it, He made it and controls it.

There's some other things I may address later, but time constrains me at the moment. My apologies for cutting it short.

laceym--Actually I popped it because someone said that's the thing to do on here when you add a comment. Just trying to be nice, actually, as usual.

Perhaps you ought not toss "bigot" around too hastily.

Ratilfar--I don't mind disagreements at all, but y'all should really try to read a bit more carefully. I have done anything but take a "victim position." That's a joke.

I simply sought to rebut someone *else* trying to pretend that Christians actually being Christians publicly is somehow "forcing" themselves onto him/her.

Here, I'll cut and paste what I was responding to, so you don't have to do it yourself:

Oortcloud wrote--"It is religion that continues to interfer in the poli...

laceym--Actually I popped it because someone said that's the thing to do on here when you add a comment. Just trying to be nice, actually, as usual.

Perhaps you ought not toss "bigot" around too hastily.

Ratilfar--I don't mind disagreements at all, but y'all should really try to read a bit more carefully. I have done anything but take a "victim position." That's a joke.

I simply sought to rebut someone *else* trying to pretend that Christians actually being Christians publicly is somehow "forcing" themselves onto him/her.

Here, I'll cut and paste what I was responding to, so you don't have to do it yourself:

Oortcloud wrote--"It is religion that continues to interfer in the political process from putting "in god we trust" on our cash to attempting to force children to learn the non-science of Intelligent design. It is religion that pushes its beliefs on gay marriage rights."

Seriously, read more carefully. I spend more time pointing out stuff like this (not just you), then actual substantive discussion.

When someone breaks into my home and I shoot them, I don't want to hear a bunch of whining about me forcing my property and self-defense rights on them.

Acknowledging the presence of an aggressor does not require assuming the position of victim, but I may be confusing you with thoughts you haven't considered.

I think "gay" and "scientific" is poor word choice, too.

"Faggot" and "evolutionist" are intended to convey the truth. A faggot is a stick for burning, and without repentance, that will be the unhappy result.

Even temporally speaking, "burning" is a very common way to describe one who is a slave to lust. Hence "faggot" is apropos. Pretending that is happy is not very helpful, ...

When someone breaks into my home and I shoot them, I don't want to hear a bunch of whining about me forcing my property and self-defense rights on them.

Acknowledging the presence of an aggressor does not require assuming the position of victim, but I may be confusing you with thoughts you haven't considered.

I think "gay" and "scientific" is poor word choice, too.

"Faggot" and "evolutionist" are intended to convey the truth. A faggot is a stick for burning, and without repentance, that will be the unhappy result.

Even temporally speaking, "burning" is a very common way to describe one who is a slave to lust. Hence "faggot" is apropos. Pretending that is happy is not very helpful, in my opinion.

Evolutionary theory is a philosophical commitment, therefore evolutionist is an accurate term. Similarly, a belief in papal infallibility is a theological commitment, therefore one adhering to that commitment is accurately called a "papist."