Why and how did life come about?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 193
#61
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,085
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
As someone who is not an evolutionist
I'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true. 
Well I guess it depends on what you think is the Christian Faith.  And it also depends upon what evolution is as well. Many of the different sciences you lay out below are not dependent upon evolution in the manner by which Darwin posited it.  Although you state it is a unifying theory - you are simply incorrect. 

Perhaps however before we continue that aspect of our discussion, you might provide a definition of what you think the Christian Faith is and also what you define as the theory of evolution.  I suspect that your presumption of contrived presumption won't stack up. Still, I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not. 
I use both terms in the traditional sense.  It's your OP and you used the terms, if you have different definitions than the rest of us, you need to let us know what you are talking about.  Make your case, what is it about evolution that contradicts Christian faith?
What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.
Not at all. It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be.  We need to see what you think are the basic tenets of Christianity are before we can draw such a conclusion. 
No we don't, if you want to challenge what I'm saying, you need to say why you disagree, you can't just say you're wrong and expect me to tell you why you think I'm wrong.    

But it is absolutely central to science.

Totally disagree. I perform scientific experiments of a sort everyday without using or applying evolution. 
Yeah, well my comments are accurate for the rest of the scientific community.


The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is. Change is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. The maturing process is not evolution. Yes, I know evolutionists consider that these are part and parcel of evolution. Yet those opposed to evolution in its narrow definition believe that such things as change and adaption and the maturing process are able to be satisfactorily explained without the theory of evolution. 
Nope, on what basis do you "oppose evolution",  and if it is on the basis of some kind of special definition of evolution, then please let us know what that definition is. 
Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.
It appears that you take a very broad definition of evolution.  Applying it to all sciences.  I never said the theory of evolution is non-scientific in this thread. I said I am not an evolutionists.  I can certainly propose that evolution defined narrowly is not related to any other aspect of science.  I disagree that the world of science is held together by evolution. That would be an atheistic position. And it couldn't be a religious one held by someone who holds to the tenets of Christianity. 
Nonsense, evolution is a scientific theory, it establishes the context within which the unified sciences operate, it doesn't speak to theology, and it is nonsense to say that the scientific consensus is an atheistic position, any attempt to make it into an atheistic position is contrived and agenda based.

And I just don't see why anyone would want to do that. I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your contention here. In order to support the belief that evolution is false, you accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God, don't you?
Yes, you have said that and are now repeating yourself.  At least in the first part of that paragraph. Your final sentence presumes much without any evidence to support the same. Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly. 
All of you sentences presume much without any evidence.

You would need to propose a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age with the overwhelming evidence of "evolution" occurring in creation as a trick or something. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.

I disagree.  There is are many different topics that could be explored in that paragraph.  But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity - and for the theory of definition and then we can go from there. Thanks by the way for your response.  
Lets go with with the topic I addressed, your concept of a deceptive God, explain to me why you think that is a tenet of Christianity?  I know my Bible, perhaps you can provide some scriptural reference to support this trickster God concept, I sure don't find it in the Bible.  I'm also comfortable that the Bible supports my position on this evolution matter, maybe you can provide some scripture to support the argument against evolution.
  
#62
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Would you agree with the notion that we are all created from star stuff?

We have heavy metals in our construction that are only formed in super nova.

If a God created us, he had to use naturally created substances and in a never ending evolving reality, a God is not required to create life. God becomes redundant.

That is what makes Gnostic Christian views of reality better than most. 

It is science driven.

The Gnostic Christian reality.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
 
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
 
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
 
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
 
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
 
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
 
As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.
 
Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?
 
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
 
That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.
 
Regards
DL


















#63
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,283
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your reasoning ability is severely lacking. 

Why was Louis Pasteur's demonstration against abiogenesis approved when it did not address the conditions required for abiogenesis in the first place?

It met the conditions for abiogenesis as it was then understood. It was widely believed that signs of decay, like maggots and mold, spontaneously generated. Pasteur showed it wasn’t so.














#64
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,283
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Pasteur didn't really disagree with the modern concept of abiogenesis because it hadn't been proposed in his day.
Prior to the work that Pasteur did, it was common to believe in the concept of spontaneous generation, which held that life arises spontaneously in certain conditions, for example frogs appearing suddenly when it rains, or maggots arising nowhere in rotting meat. The idea had already been challenged by earlier demonstrations that showed it to be untrue in particular cases, but Pasteur's work put it to bed altogether.
That led to the adoption of a concept called biogenesis, which holds that living organisms are only produced by parents of the same species reproducing, which is still the current thinking, with a small correction for evolution.
In the modern sense, abiogenesis just means life arising out of non-living matter. No-one proposes that modern, complex organisms arise spontaneously from basic chemicals, but since there was a time before life existed, it must have arisen from non-life at least once.
#65
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,340
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
...but since there was a time before life existed, it must have arisen from non-life at least once....
In an eternally existent Universe, that concept may not be valid.

Naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed.  See 1st law of thermodynamics.


Topic's author
#66
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,364
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker

I'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true. 
Well I guess it depends on what you think is the Christian Faith.  And it also depends upon what evolution is as well. Many of the different sciences you lay out below are not dependent upon evolution in the manner by which Darwin posited it.  Although you state it is a unifying theory - you are simply incorrect. 

Perhaps however before we continue that aspect of our discussion, you might provide a definition of what you think the Christian Faith is and also what you define as the theory of evolution.  I suspect that your presumption of contrived presumption won't stack up. Still, I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not. 
I use both terms in the traditional sense.  It's your OP and you used the terms, if you have different definitions than the rest of us, you need to let us know what you are talking about.  Make your case, what is it about evolution that contradicts Christian faith?
Well that doesn't answer the question. It's a side step.  Ok. Christian faith requires certain doctrines which are difficult to accomodate evolution.  The fall of humanity requires a first human who was created as a  new thing. Not evolved. Without this first human - and the first fall, then there would be no need for Christ or the cross. Traditional Christianity would fall apart.  It would fall apart in the sense that people are not born with sin and in need of a saviour. It would also provide no historical explanation of why there is separation between humanity and God. Now I concede - that many Christians in our world, believe in Evolution and remain Christians.  Believing in evolution doesn't stop our faith. Yet it provides fuel for skepticism and this is abundantly evident in society. As people become more and more inclined towards evolution the decline in Christianity occurs. And the move by Christians towards a more liberal Christianity reliant more upon good works, social activism, and a pursuit of happiness. It also explains a greater move towards inclusion and diversity of views about religions per se. There are significant groups set up by Christians - such as the biogenesis group led by Walton and others that have now suggested that the original sin and a first human is unnecessary for the Christian faith. And perhaps in a Christianity which believes in the power of humanity to forge one' own faith this is possible - but it runs against the teachings of both the Reformation and of the early church.  The point is - without original sin and the doctrine of total depravity, there is no need for the Cross - and no need for God to send Jesus to deal with sin. It would be the classic case of overkill. There is also the further question of death before the fall as Romans put it.  Evolution requires an entire body of skeletons in the closet.  Now I am not saying there was no death before the fall - but certainly there was no human death prior to the fall.  And that implies - humanity was a new thing. Not just something that came about as a result of evolution.  The latest species of humanoids in a long history of humanoid type creatures before. The entire notion of humanity being just another animal destroys the picture of humanity's role as steward and priest and representative of God to the creation. The other interesting thing here is that like Adam was a new thing - Christ also was a new thing. Christ was born of humanity and of divinity. If Adam was not a new thing - then it clearly makes the question of Christ moot.  Hence, the question of the virgin birth. Why was this necessary if sin is not transmitted covenantally genetically? 

Evolution as a theory came about because Darwin visited an island and made observations about birds.  His theory was specifically and narrowly based in biology. It was not broadly defined to include things outside of biology.  Today in law - we speak of the evolution of the law. In economics we talk about the evolution of ideas. In society we do the same thing. What was once called development is now called evolution. The two are not the same thing although I concede it has become part of our language. Yet it conflates the two ideas.  Where once evolution specifically and narrowly was talking about biological matters, now the term has become more broadly used - to the point that now everyone - including myself uses it - even if I am only talking about he development of an idea. 


What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.
Not at all. It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be.  We need to see what you think are the basic tenets of Christianity are before we can draw such a conclusion. 
No we don't, if you want to challenge what I'm saying, you need to say why you disagree, you can't just say you're wrong and expect me to tell you why you think I'm wrong.    
I raised a question in my opening piece precisely because I wanted to know what others think. It was not to say they were wrong. It was not to express my own opinion. It was to hear ideas and then to engage with it.  You are the one who picked up on a couple of words I wrote - saying I was not evolutionist and then decided to use that as a way of saying I was wrong. Yet you didn't give reasons for that. You just proceeded to presume - and then dismiss my non evolutionary position as nonscientific. You asserted much without evidence.  



But it is absolutely central to science.

Totally disagree. I perform scientific experiments of a sort everyday without using or applying evolution. 
Yeah, well my comments are accurate for the rest of the scientific community.
Just saying so - doesn't make it true.  The scientific method - doesn't require evolution to make it true. It is not central to the scientific method. Observation, formulating hypothesis, conducting tests, drawing conclusions - none of these require evolution.  It may be that by using the scientific method - one might conclude evolution is correct. Yet that is the result of science - not the central aspect of the scientific method. Do you know the difference between cause and effect ? 





The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is. Change is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. The maturing process is not evolution. Yes, I know evolutionists consider that these are part and parcel of evolution. Yet those opposed to evolution in its narrow definition believe that such things as change and adaption and the maturing process are able to be satisfactorily explained without the theory of evolution. 
Nope, on what basis do you "oppose evolution",  and if it is on the basis of some kind of special definition of evolution, then please let us know what that definition is. 
So Just to be clear - you are not prepared to give a definition of evolution.   Put simply, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection can be described as "descent with modification."  Dictionaries tend to provide a couple of definitions.

    1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
           2. the gradual development of something.  "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution".               

The first one is narrow - and the second is broad.   


Nonsense, evolution is a scientific theory, it establishes the context within which the unified sciences operate, it doesn't speak to theology, and it is nonsense to say that the scientific consensus is an atheistic position, any attempt to make it into an atheistic position is contrived and agenda based.
I never said it wasn't a scientific theory. So will you be using it in its narrow sense or broad sense? Above you seem to use it both ways - applying it both biologically and then much broader into other areas of science. 

Yes, you have said that and are now repeating yourself.  At least in the first part of that paragraph. Your final sentence presumes much without any evidence to support the same. Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly. 
All of you sentences presume much without any evidence.
You did repeat yourself.  The evidence is in the posts.  You said several times that evolution doesn't challenge any of the basic tenets of Christianity. not once have you provided any definition of what basic Christian tenets are.  Or what denomination you are coming from? And now you accuse God of being deceptive.  Tell me - is it more deceptive to write that he created humanity from nothing in one day or to let scientists think that the world is actually a lot older?  Why is one more or less deceptive than the other?  I assume you read OT Hebrew since you must be able to explain why God would deceptively use the language - in the first chapters which describes historical narrative - you know using the waw consecutive as opposed to other language signals that could easily just describe it as poetry.   I am looking forward to why you think that language is not deceptive. 


I disagree.  There is are many different topics that could be explored in that paragraph.  But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity - and for the theory of definition and then we can go from there. Thanks by the way for your response.  
Lets go with with the topic I addressed, your concept of a deceptive God, explain to me why you think that is a tenet of Christianity?  I know my Bible, perhaps you can provide some scriptural reference to support this trickster God concept, I sure don't find it in the Bible.  I'm also comfortable that the Bible supports my position on this evolution matter, maybe you can provide some scripture to support the argument against evolution.
Hmmm, I don't think God is deceptive. I think the heart on the other hand is deceptive above all things. I also think that when scientists start with false assumptions that they will draw false conclusions.  I am pleased you think the bible supports your evolutionary theory.  Where did I say God was deceptive? In fact it appears that you are one who thinks that.  Or are you simply trying to turn this into the burden of proof is on me.  Which is ironic considering this entire topic is not for people to put burdens of proof down - - but to provide an explanation.  That is what I asked for - and although I thank you for your question and it is interesting - it is a clear derailing of the OP. 
#67
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,435
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The heart is a lump of muscle that pumps blood.

And theists don't start with false assumptions and draw false conclusions? Pull the other one.

And Gods aren't deceptive, because they're make believe. People are deceptive.

And you've largely ignored answers to the OP.

Which might suggest that you are being deceptive.

And science starts with evidence and seeks to understand, proposing, testing and rejecting theories along the way. Science is all about the burden of proof.

Whereas Christianity accepts Middle Eastern Folk Tales as undeniable fact without question. So for sure, the burden of proof isn't burdensome if you completely ignore the burden.

Conditioned ignorance is bliss I suppose.

#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,355
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
zedvictor4 wrote;

@ Tradesecrete: And you've largely ignored answers to the OP.

Which might suggest that you are being deceptive.


Yep, true to form. You did't expect any other kind of responses, did you Vic?

He hasn't even gone up the gear column with the deceit he is capable of , he's only in first.
#69
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker


Sidewalker,

YOUR QUOTE IN POST #61: "I'm also comfortable that the Bible supports my position on this evolution matter,"

Huh?  Therefore, are you ever going to address this post of mine directed to you: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366/post-links/362130

.
#70
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET ONCE AGAIN SHOWS HER BIBLE STUPIDITY!


MISS TRADESECRET QUOTE IN HER POST #66: "Hmmm, I don't think God is deceptive."

As we all know, you don't get the prize for being the #1 Bible stupid fool like Miss Tradesecret is within this Religion Forum, without her proving this fact from day to day!   Deceptive definition: tending or having power to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid : tending or having power to DECEIVE.


In the following passages, our brutal serial killer Jesus, as God, was in FACT deceptive, therefore showing Miss Tradesecret ONCE AGAIN in being Bible stupid!

"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."  (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." (Ezekiel 14:9)

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." (Jeremiah 20:7)
 
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people." (Jeremiah 4:10) 

“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1 Kings 22:23)


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT DOESN'T KNOW THE BIBLE ANYMORE THAN HER BIBLE IGNORANT COHORT "YOUFOUND_LXAM" WILL BE ...?


.
#71
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,355
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRET QUOTE IN HER POST #66: "Hmmm, I don't think God is deceptive."

As we all know, you don't get the prize for being the #1 Bible stupid fool like Miss Tradesecret is within this Religion Forum, without her proving this fact from day to day!   Deceptive definition: tending or having power to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid : tending or having power to DECEIVE.


In the following passages, our brutal serial killer Jesus, as God, was in FACT deceptive, therefore showing Miss Tradesecret ONCE AGAIN in being Bible stupid!

"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."  (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." (Ezekiel 14:9)

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." (Jeremiah 20:7)
 
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people." (Jeremiah 4:10) 

You beat me to it, Brother D.
I guess we have to wait for Tradesecret's definitions of deceit , deceive & deceptive?


#72
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

MISS TRADESECRET PROVING TO THE MEMBERSHIP THAT SHE DOESN'T FOLLOW OR UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE!

Can you believe that our resident #1 Bible stupid Miss Tradesecret would even make a thread like this in the first place in essentially questioning Jesus' 2 contradicting Creation stories in how He MADE ALL THINGS to begin with, therefore her long-winded Satanic posts relating to her candy-assed quote of; "why did the non-life evolve to a life form" are all for naught!

Because of her Bible stupidity is getting worse, it is hard to keep track of all her stepping in the proverbial poo by being Bible dumbfounded, therefore I may have to hire a secretary to help me keep track of all her Bible missteps!  

.






#73
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,355
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Can you believe that our resident #1 Bible stupid Miss Tradesecret would even make a thread like this in the first place?

Yes I can Brother.

There is no cure for stupid. And the narcissist  has no sense of their own stupidity.
#74
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THE #1 BIBLE STUPID FOOL OF THIS FORUM, MISS TRADESECRET: "I guess we have to wait for Tradesecret's definitions of deceit and deceive."

You are forgetting the fact that Miss Tradesecret has to block us to use as an excuse so as not to respond to us anymore, remember? In this way, then Miss Tradesecret can run away from our posts in making her the continued Bible fool, nonetheless, these posts still remain upon her thread!  As usual, and as explicitly shown ad infinitum, we own her outright Bible idiocy with ease!

 I just truly feel sorry for her congregation that doesn't know in how Bible dumbfounded she truly is, as in the "like attracts like" adage.  Where they are being fleeced by her and not knowing that what she is teaching them is wrong, as we have proven upon this Religion Forum.

I suppose that there will always be a Tammy Faye Bakker that Miss Tradesecret represents in the Christian community, where she will pay for it in the end, praise Jesus' revenge!  “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

.
Topic's author
#75
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,364
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution is the development of matter from start to finish.
In a very broad definition.  Yet historically, this term was never used prior to Darwin for such development. 

Darwin was only concerned with one bit.
So what? Yes he took a narrow definition. 

But, out of species evolved intellect, science and unscientific pseudo hypotheses, namely theism.
Theism is a progressive view. Is that what you are saying?  Primitive animals and other systems haven't evolved to being religious. So are you primitive or progressive? There's an interesting take. 

And out of science came real answers.
Science is a wonderful tool.  Like most other things this tool can be used or abused? It shouldn't for example be used as a guide for what is right and what is wrong.   It provides facts, not interpretation. 


And out of intellect and science evolved technology.

And so on.

Refer to this process as GOD if you like.
Not sure what your point is of course.  But I am sure you will be happy to enlighten us. 


But someone who fucks a virgin and gets her pregnant is a philanderer or a rapist.

So if you want to worship a rapist. Well, that's your choice.

God didn't have sex with any human.   There simply is no evidence of this.   Did he produce life in Mary? Well the bible says so. It also says he produced life in every human.  Some - like Adam and Eve and Jesus were special examples. But the rest of humanity is pretty special as well. 

God did not rape anyone.  The definition of rape is quite clear - and it includes more than not having consent.  There needs a physical act of some kind. The bible never suggests any physical act, in fact the Holy Spirit is - Spirit. Not flesh.    There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise. Even if for the sake of your argument - Mary did not consent - which I suggest by her song is clearly not the case. Yet even if it were the case - this still doesn't qualify as rape.  Hence, your "out there" statement is simply ridiculous. 
Topic's author
#76
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,364
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The heart is a lump of muscle that pumps blood.
yes. 

And theists don't start with false assumptions and draw false conclusions? Pull the other one.
I never denied that some do that. But are you suggesting that atheists NEVER do that? Surely not.

And Gods aren't deceptive, because they're make believe. People are deceptive.
I don't think God is deceptive. I agree many people are deceptive.  God is not imaginary. The fact that you exist proves God exists. 


And you've largely ignored answers to the OP.
I've answered a few. I have Stephen and Brother on block at the moment. A permanent block until either apologise for their stupidity. I expect both are too stupid to do that - so it will remain a permanent block.   I won't engage with them. But given neither know really how to engage - nothing is lost. 


Which might suggest that you are being deceptive.
I suppose it could mean that. I answer questions when I can and I have the time.   


And science starts with evidence and seeks to understand, proposing, testing and rejecting theories along the way. Science is all about the burden of proof.
Actually science starts with observation.  Then it moves onto a hypothesis which it either confirms or rejects.   If it was about the burden of proof, then why are so many people worried that I am trying to switch the balance of proof?  Why not just assert and then prove your proofs? 


Whereas Christianity accepts Middle Eastern Folk Tales as undeniable fact without question. So for sure, the burden of proof isn't burdensome if you completely ignore the burden.
I don't actually know anyone who accepts anything without question.  Is that how you operate?  I do believe the bible, this is true.  Yet there are sufficient inner and outer evidences which support its reliability.  And this has been scientifically demonstrated by many in that field. Not sure what you mean by burden of proof here.  If someone accepts the bible as true - that is a matter for them and their conscience.  Most things in life- that people do - are never scrutinised by science - and have no need to.   Do you have to do a scientific test to know whether to go a pub and have a beer? Or do you just decide that it sounds like a good idea. And when you listen to the people in the pub telling stories - do you have to test each story by scientific test before you laugh or not - or do you just listen and consider whether it's funny or not?  And when you are hungry do you have to do a scientific test to know whether you really are hungry or not before you open a fridge to find something healthy or not in the fridge to eat? Do you do a scientific test on each bit of food before you eat it? Or do you go on experience or intuition? 

I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool. It can be used and abused.  it provides for me a way of looking at the world. It doesn't stop me from looking at the world through modern eyes either.  But overall it's a pretty valuable book and has shown that over the years.  Yes there is some stuff in there that freaks me out at times. But so what? There are some things in Harry Potter that freak me out too. And some things in our political halls that freak me out. and some things in our court systems that freak me out as well.  All of us come to the situations we are in from a perspective. That is a truism. 

To say that people just believe the bible blindly or without thought or without question is really the ramblings of a person who has actually never thought about it very much. I don't think you have actually ever questioned the person who told you that nonsense.  


Conditioned ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Well I agree with that. the heart of every evolutionist is ignorant bliss.  Don't question it.  And many scientists will never question it. Oh yes they might question aspects about it. But not the theory of evolution itself. It is sacrosanct. It is the holy grail. It is untouchable.  How do I know? Because I observe every time that anyone dares to questions its validity, people come out of the woodwork and swear that is untouchable. You my friend are one of these people. 


#77
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,355
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@TRADESECRET I doubt Vic is too interested in who you have or have not blocked. 

@ Zedvictor4 I have Stephen  on block at the moment. A permanent block until either apologise for their stupidity.
"untill"!?
That will be permanent in my case then.

But haven't you already made it "crystal clear" to me that you had blocked me "permanently" anyway?

You must have missed my last post to you Reverend. I don't care about you "permanently" blocking me and  there was no  condition or requirement of an apology either. 


Tradesecret wrote: I didn't want to do this. But I am going to put both you and Brother on permanent block. #389


Stephen wrote:  you do as you please. But do not be a coward by responding to anything I write where I cannot respond to you directly in return. It is an extremely cowardly practice carried out by a few here..... and  a habit that  I am confident that you will not be able to resist practicing yourself.

#78
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,435
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Material evolution is progressive by definition, and everything that occurs falls within the remit of progressive materialism/evolution. 

So Darwin, primarily studied the organic bit, but material progression starts way before the organic and may well exceed the organic. 

Modern popular religion only popped up a few thousand years ago, relative to the development of hominid cognition, and is based upon the typical concept of an unknowable force that governs humanity and it's environment. A concept borne of an evolving/progressive intellect, albeit naive by modern standards.

So in that respect deism is theoretical, albeit naive by modern standards, but primarily based upon a fantastical assumption.

A fantastical assumption by definition cannot be subjected to real scientific scrutiny.

And no, a GOD didn't rape a virgin. If anyone did impregnate a virgin named Mary, it certainly wasn't a fantasy GOD. It was more likely to be the human philanderer.

And the product of that relationship spent his life promoting the ancient Hebrew fantasy GOD concept. Promoting himself as the son of that GOD, which in that hypothetical context  is not an absurd suggestion.

Eventually falling foul of the governing authority though, paying heavily for his insurrection.

Perfect martyr material for the oppressed people of Roman occupied "Holy Land". And so it's therefore no wonder that succeeding literature was correspondingly exaggerated.


Though give them their due, the Romans clearly decided that Mary was a cracker. Just like the philanderer did.

#79
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,283
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The earliest life forms we know of were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signals of their presence in rocks about 3.7 billion years old.
#80
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4


.

MISS TRADESECRET,

Regarding your comical Bible missteps once again in your post #75, how sad you remain the #1 Bible stupid fool upon this Religion Forum.  :(


YOUR QUOTE ABOUT JESUS IN HAVING SPIRITUAL INCEST WITH HIS MOTHER MARY:  “God didn't have sex with any human. There simply is no evidence of this.”

Well, we do have to accept the biblical evidence wherefore Jesus, AS GOD,  “spiritually and celestially impregnated” his own mother Mary through none other than godly incest. When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being God to begin with. Furthermore, Jesus became a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father. 2+2=4.

Another important factor in Jesus’ birth, that you still fail to comprehend in the past, is the FACT that our serial killer Jesus WAS BORN INTO SIN, and therefore could never be sinless!  This is simply true because Eve transgressed FIRST in the Garden of Eden and ate the forbidden fruit before Adam did, and therefore understood good from evil. Then she handed the fruit to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:14) 

Therefore, Jesus is not without being born in sin from EVE’s womanhood as the FIRST SINNER as described above.  Notwithstanding, Psalm 51:5 shows ALL are born into sin anyway, including Jesus from Mary’s deliverance of Him through childbearing!  Get it Bible fool?  In addition, Jesus being God at the time of His birth, *cough,* gave Eve the first sinner punishment for her transgression with severe pains in childbearing and painful labor she will have with the birth of children, and to other women to this day! (Genesis 3:16)


Miss Tradesecret, the above biblical FACTS and Logic 101 is the starting point of our later to be a brutal serial killer God known as Jesus!  What a start for the Christian religion to believe in, eh?  LOL!


.
#81
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7


.
MISS TRADESECRET,

Once again I will address your Bible stupidity in front of the membership AGAIN within your pitiful post #76,


YOUR QUOTE ABOUT JESUS: “I don't think God is deceptive. I agree many people are deceptive.  God is not imaginary. The fact that you exist proves God exists.” 

Dear, when you state AGAIN that you don’t think that Jesus as God is deceptive, whereas I have already “schooled you" upon this topic where Jesus as God was DECEPTIVE in your thread in the link below,  get it?  Therefore, when are you going to learn this FACT to save yourself from further embarrassment?! Huh?


Your statement that zedvictor4 exists proves that Jesus as God exists, is therefore proving that God exists in having a penis, an asshole, and He has to eat as well crap in heaven because of this biblical axiom:  “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, …… So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;  (Genesis 1:26). 

Barring the FACT that our Hebrew God Jesus said “in OUR image,” signifying that there was more than one God present in heaven, which you NEVER answered in previous posts of mine to you, as usual, then I as a TRUE Christian, and you as a mere pseudo-christian, have to accept that Jesus as God in heaven had the above human attributes of the man He created as Adam,, understood Bible fool? Huh?  Our serial killer Jesus proved this FACT when He was born in spiritual godly incest when Mary delivered Him, get it Bible fool?


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN “WOMAN” LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE ON THIS RELIGION FORUM IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-12, WILL BE …?

.
#82
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET,


YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN YOUR POST #76 RELATIVE TO "ALL" OF THE BIBLE'S GODLY PROPOSITIONS: “I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool.”
 
As a TRUE Christian, our primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bible is a useful tool in following  ALL of Jesus’ inspired words within the scriptures as shown below:


1. BEATING YOUR CHILDREN:
How many times have my many children ran from me when they went against the Christian family rules within the household, where when I brought out the “rod” to beat them, they were scared! 

JESUS AS GOD SAID: ”Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)



2. SELLING YOUR DAUGHTERS INTO SLAVERY:
 Since I was told by Jesus, as God, to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), we sometimes had to many children with the many wives that I have had over the years, 9 to this point, therefore we had to sell off some of our daughters into slavery:

JESUS AS GOD SAID: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)

 Since all of our daughters pleased the men we sold them too, and we did not sell them to foreigners, it was a win-win situation, praise Jesus’ biblical axioms! 



3. EATING YOUR CHILDREN IF IN DISTRESS:
Since Jesus told us to sell all of our possessions and give to the poor to be able to follow Him (Luke 12:33-34), and to make it worse, we had no money at the time. But Jesus’ words came to the rescue where He said we could eat our children for food  because our enemies, in the same vein as in the passage below, were the banks because we couldn’t make the mortgage payments!  Then essentially, said banks were going to seek our lives to exist because the money was gone until the finances were corrected, praise Jesus!

JESUS AS GOD SAID: “And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’ (Jeremiah 19:9)

In following Jesus' words above, we had many BBQ's of our children since Jesus as God said it was acceptable, praise!



4. MURDERING YOUR CHILDREN THAT CURSE YOU AS A PARENT:
Concerning the biblical axiom that I could murder my offspring if they cursed me, or my many 9 wives over time, which they did, this was a hard edict of Jesus’ words to follow. Therefore, unknowingly to the children that cursed us, we took them out to a steep cliff setting on a very windy day to play with their toys on the cliff’s edge.   Lo-and-behold, eventually the strong winds blew them over the cliff to their ungodly death, where in essence, we were following the passage shown below:

JESUS AS GOD SAID: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.  (Matthew 15: 3-4)

As myself being a TRUE Christian, even if I did murder my children in this respect, I am ALWAYS forgiven for any sins if I confess them that may occur in my lifetime, essentially saying that there is no incentive not to sin, praise Jesus!

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:9)



MISS TRADESECRET, did you as well follow any of the above biblical axioms over your life time in being a Bible stupid pseudo-christian, that you would like to share with the membership? Yes?  Come on, be truthful for a change, okay? LOL!

.
#83
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7


.
MISS TRADESECRET,


YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN YOUR POST #76 RELATIVE TO "ALL" OF THE BIBLE'S GODLY PROPOSITIONS: “I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool.” 
 
As a TRUE Christian, I have to agree with Miss Tradesecret in that our primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bible is a useful tool in following  ALL of Jesus’ inspired words within the scriptures as shown below with additions to my post #82 above, praise!:


5. TRUE CHRISTIANS HAVE TO HATE THEIR PARENTS TO BE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS:
As I have shown in dealing with my many children over the years in my post #82 above, it was easy for them to hate me and my many wives because I had to follow Jesus' teachings in BEATING THEM with a rod when they got out of line to Christian principles.

JESUS AS GOD SAID: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)



6.  TRUE CHRISTIANS CANNOT LOVE OUR FAMILY MEMBERS MORE THAN JESUS:
This was a hard concept when my father was dying, where he said that he loved me so much, and where I had to tell him that I am sorry but I don't love you as much as you love me, because to be worthy of my brutal serial killer Jesus, I love Him way more than I love you!  At that point, my father had a heart-attack and  died instantly. Oh, well, I guess I really upset him with the Bible truth! 

JESUS AS GOD SAID:  "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37)



7. I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT JESUS ORDERED THE MURDERING OF INNOCENT INFANTS
Even pseudo-christians like the Bible dumbfounded "YouFound_Lxam" have to ask themselves, why did our serial killer Jesus as God, want "innocent infants" to be brutally murdered along with men, woman, children, sheep, camels, and donkeys?  In other words, "innocent infants" had nothing to do with waylaying Israel in going out of Egypt!   Can you hear their little infant screams as they were being brutally murdered by Jesus as God ordering their murders, and wondering why this was happening to them?  Sure you can.  :(

JESUS AS GOD SAID: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15:2-3)



8. I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT JESUS IS AN ABORTIONIST
When I found out this biblical FACT years ago that Jesus, as God, was an abortionist, then I had to quit going to Family Planning Clinics in picketing their business' because I didn't want to become a Hypocrite since Jesus was an abortionist as well!  We all know what Jesus thought about hypocrites; Matthew 6:5, 7:5, 22:18, 23:23!!! 

JESUS AS GOD SAID: “The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.  AND IF THEY GIVE BIRTH, I WILL SLAUGHTER THEIR BELOVED CHILDREN.  (Hosea 9:11-16) 


As any non-believer to our primitive Bronze and Iron Age belief in Christianity, it is very hard to keep this membership going as shown in my treatise of having the Bible as a tool to follow, just like Miss Tradesecret's quote shown above: "I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool.”

.
#84
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,355
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
 Tradesecrete wrote: “A ship in a harbor is safe, but it is not what ships are built for.” -John A. Shedd

What do you think, Brother D.....dry dock?
#85
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen, MISS TRADESECRET,

 Tradesecrete wrote: “A ship in a harbor is safe, but it is not what ships are built for.” -John A. Shedd

What do you think, Brother D.....dry dock?

Yes,  or no dock at all!  As shown before, and in this case, when very astute members pertaining to science bury her "perceived knowledge" upon the topic at hand, Miss Tradesecret has to go into HIDING again for some needed time off.  We've seen her runaway hiding before many times subsequent to easily Bible Slapping her Silly®️ because of her outright Bible stupidity!

When I took it to heart in agreeing with Miss Tradesecret regarding her quote "I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool," and then showed my situations where it was a great tool in my posts #82 and #83, I hope that these instances didn't upset or scare her!  Without question, I was just following and showing the inspired TRUTHFUL words of Jesus when doing so!   

I have added to Miss Tradesecret's list of EXCUSES in why she won't address members posts to her, and that is her new excuse of banning a member!   Isn't it an irony that she says we don't know how to engage her, whereas for the last 3 years we have engaged her in discussion the same way as we do today!  Duh.

I have had to hire a part time secretary to  keep track of Miss Tradesecret's horrific Bible missteps that are always there when she returns from her "time-out vacations," because my Greyhound Bus Ministry is taking a lot of my time in preaching the TRUE Gospel.

.





#86
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker


.
Sidewalker,

Jesus and I are disturbed in that you didn't recognize my correction to your assumed knowledge that evolution does not upset the tenets of Christianity, where it most certainly does as shown in my link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366/post-links/362130

Put this knowledge in your quiver for the next time, you're welcome.


.


#87
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,085
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Sidewalker,

Jesus and I are disturbed in that you didn't recognize my correction to your assumed knowledge that evolution does not upset the tenets of Christianity, where it most certainly does as shown in my link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366/post-links/362130

Put this knowledge in your quiver for the next time, you're welcome.
I don't like to feed trolls, and I don't believe you are a Christian.

Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak faith that is threatened by the theory of evolution. 
#88
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker


Sidewalker,

YOUR WANTING QUOTES THAT ARE IRRELATIVE TO WHAT I AM OR NOT!: "I don't like to feed trolls, and I don't believe you are a Christian  .....  Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak faith that is threatened by the theory of evolution."

I am not a troll just because the pseudo-christians upon this Religion Forum need to be "Bible Schooled" by me, and in this process, they lash out with more Bible stupidity that I have to address with fervor, therefore, call the Bible stupid pseudo-christians trolls!

Heads up, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, and at times it can get "testy" with the members involved, therefore ALL members can be "trolls" at times, understood?

You still don't understand that a Christian cannot believe in evolution because of the Creation Stories AND where the chronological order from Jesus as God creating Adam, and the universe to the present day, is approximately 6000 years.  Therefore, your perceived knowledge upon this concept goes severely wanting at your embarrassing expense which I was trying to help you out. 

At your leisure, REREAD this link of mine to prevent you from further embarrassment in positing that Christianity is a weak faith if it is threatened by the theory of evolution, which it CANNOT accept in the first place, as described above.  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366/post-links/362130. You can thank me later.

.


#89
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,065
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Backing

8 days later

#90
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

OMG, should we worry about the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, Miss Tradesecret, because it has been 11 days thus far that she has disappeared from this thread of hers, where our posts to her might have been just too much biblical FACT for her AGAIN to try and respond too?  You remember the last times she had to go into HIDING because she couldn't address our godly factual material to her, and I am wondering if this is another one of those times. :(

WAIT, maybe she is taking this long time off in researching through Satanic Pseudo-Christian Apologetic Books in just how to deal with Biblical axioms that we present to her in showing her to be the continued fool?  You have to agree, at least Shila knew when to "exit stage right" forever to prevent her from further embarrassment within this Religion Forum!

It would be a sad say if Miss Tradesecret leaves this forum because we need her here to show people in what a Christian is NOT to act, or look like, regarding Jesus' true teachings, praise!


.