a case for christ

[Mattnxtc 0]

I think that's all 8. I accept some of the answers, but others have explanations too big to swallow. Rather than dispute them, I'll move on with some more whever I feel like it.And of course no one's mind has been changed....and I'm not sure how many seeds of doubt have taken root....oh well.

I woudl love to hear some of the ones u had problems with?

no, but hopefully the seed of thinking more logically and objectively about supposed physical evidence for christian belief (such as that presented in stroble's book) has been planted in a lot of minds - minds that would otherwise be accepting that supposed evidence blindly just because it seems to support what is already believed (through faith).

Again i would love people to think logically...it makes believing so much easier...Philosophy is a great way to strengthen your belief in God

[crowTrobot 2]

Again i would love people to think logically...it makes believing so much easier...Philosophy is a great way to strengthen your belief in God

philosophy has nothing to do with determining whether the bible is reliable as literal truth.

[Mattnxtc 0]

philosophy has nothing to do with determining whether the bible is reliable as literal truth.

and i didnt say anything about it doing so did i? I said it makes believing so much easier

[crowTrobot 2]

and i didnt say anything about it doing so did i? I said it makes believing so much easier

you used logic and philosophy in the same context - they are not the same thing. philosophy often intentionally goes against physical logic.and yes, philosophy does make brainwashing yourself into believing nonsense so much easier

[Mattnxtc 0]

you used logic and philosophy in the same context - they are not the same thing. philosophy often intentionally goes against physical logic.and yes, philosophy does make brainwashing yourself into believing nonsense so much easier

logic is a branch of philosopy...so is knowledge...study up on them

[crowTrobot 2]

logic is a branch of philosopy...so is knowledge...study up on them

it is not a "branch" that can be used to prove anything metaphysical. to do that requires philosophy of anti-logic. you should study up on that.

[Mattnxtc 0]

it is not a "branch" that can be used to prove anything metaphysical. to do that requires philosophy of anti-logic. you should study up on that.

actually metaphysics is another branch...u disagree they are branches? walk into ur local college and ask them if they have the following classes:1. Logic2. Epistemology3. rationalism4. May or may not have something on metaphyicsThey are not the same but it appears u are trying to group them as the same.

[Guest Guest_natewood3_*]

Facts are mute. Strobel can give all of the facts about Christ that he can possibly give, but no one is going to believe based simply on the facts. Everyone has presuppositions, a standard by which they judge everything. Everyone takes things for granted and assumes things to be true, things they no longer question in their approach to the world, standards by which we can discover more truth, presuppositions that limit what they think can be real. No one operates without a philosophy of life that they take for granted that tells them what the standards for discovery are, and the limits of reality.Hence, the facts do not speak for themselves. Facts are always going to be interpreted by our presuppositions of what the facts can be. Most atheists who read Strobel are going to assume that the facts cannot prove that Christ is who He said He is. Hence, they are not going to be convinced. They are already assuming that Christ is not who He said when trying to decide whether or not He was who He said! It is the same way for all people...Outside a Christian, Biblical worldview, how is it that there can even be laws of logic or laws of morality? What basis and justification do people have for even debating about the existence of God or the truth of the claims of Christ? By doing so, you are already presupposing the the laws of logic, morality, and objective truth. I just don't see any justification for using those things...Nate

[herokid7 0]

nothing personal, but this is the most BS loaded post i've seen yet here on this subject. virtually everything you said is incorrect or misrepresented.you don't have to repeat evolution to see evidence for it, that's not how science works. in any case we CAN see short time-scale adaptive, selective evolution happening in nature all around us, and can using normal logic extrapolate what is most likely to have happened long-term and in more extreme environmental changes. the fossils are just supporting evidence.i think that's false about space dust on the moon, and even if it were true the orbit of the moon could have shifted (probably has) further out since it broke off from the earth so tidal forces could have been even greater in the past. and also the moon like the earth on a long-term time scale certianly has been absolutely bombarded by meteors and comets probably sending a lot of its mass far enough out to where the earths gravity would capture it.the life cycle of stars is pretty complicated, but to put it simply stars with the mass of our sun have a long relatively stable, balanced period where they don't burn their mass that quickly, about 8 billion years in this case. in another ~4 billion years our sun will relatively quickly lose the balance (lose enough mass to reach a critical point where it can't sustain the gravity it needs for balance) and baloon to a red giant engulfing earth, but for now there is certainly a long-term stable orbital slot for the earth to be in (obviously).scientists use atomic beta-decay and other methods to age both strata and fossils. they only age one based on the other when the age of one is already proven from other methods, typically by multiple methods that give the same result. there is nothing circular about it.what's silly is using arguments like yours to support religeous belief, because you're assuming you have complete information about the subjects, when you're actually dealing with grossly oversimplified creatonist propaganda.

Anybody with any question regarding Creation and Evolution should check out www.drdino.com. This is a site by Dr. Kent Hovind who can scientifically disprove evolution.

[crowTrobot 2]

Anybody with any question regarding Creation and Evolution should check out www.drdino.com. This is a site by Dr. Kent Hovind who can scientifically disprove evolution.

that isn't even a very good creationist site - it's obvious propaganda designed to appeal to the simple-minded and ignorant, not even attempting to appeal to someone who knows anything at all about science. i don't believe in creationism and i could make up better arguments for it.anyway:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.htmlhttp://skepdic.com/creation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolutionhttp://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evo...EVcontents.htmlhttp://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

actually metaphysics is another branch...u disagree they are branches? walk into ur local college and ask them if they have the following classes:1. Logic2. Epistemology3. rationalism4. May or may not have something on metaphyicsThey are not the same but it appears u are trying to group them as the same.

i'm not trying to group anything. i'm saying whatever you define it as you can't use a "philosophy" of physical logic to support belief in something metaphysical because the very nature of the attempt is contradictory. this whole thread is moot.

[Guest Guest]

i'm not trying to group anything. i'm saying whatever you define it as you can't use a "philosophy" of physical logic to support belief in something metaphysical because the very nature of the attempt is contradictory. this whole thread is moot.

maybe we are misunderstanding words here...When I saw philosopy i mean philosophy...When i say logic i am point directly to the philosophical study using logic...Metaphyics is one of the more difficult of the 3 but it still in no way proves anything against the bible. Neither does logic

[baritonick 0]

Common error I've seen on this thread:"Religion is bad".Religion is not, in and of itself, bad. Throughout history, there have been those who have abused religion and its power to mislead people. They do this by capitalizing on general ignorance and/or fear of the population. Some are even overcome with a misplaced sense of righteousness. Some people overcomplicate or overanalyze religious texts and lose the original spirit of what the lesson is to be learned. These are human faults, not religious faults.Personally, I am an atheist.That being said, I can appreciate the lessons of the Bible (the religious text with which I am most familiar), and especially the lessons of Jesus. Debate the existence or accuracy of Jesus all you want. Personally, I believe that when push comes to shove, if the message carries water, the messenger is moot. I saw "The Passion of The Christ". To me, it was irrelevant if Jesus ever existed, or if He existed in the way that Christianity claims. The message in that movie was powerful, and the idea that someone could have so much faith in the human potential that they would die for it moves me considerably. It sets a supreme example that humanity would serve itself well to pursue.For those of us who feel we have "outgrown" religion, I would advise us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Though we may feel as though we don't need the "crutch" (when bad things happen to us) or "disciplinary figure" (when we are going to do bad things) that religion and God offer, we need to accept the greater responsibility that is presented to us. Without God and the sense of community that comes with a Church there to help us through our rough times, are we going to have a secular community to support us, or will we fracture and isolate ourselves, convinced that this is "our" problem to face alone? We live together in amongst our fellow people for a reason- we are community-based organisms. Working with others helps us to maximize our strengths and protect us from our weaknesses (as we improve upon them). I do not know how to make shoes, so someone else makes them, and I pay them for the service. It is a give-and-take. So why deny community? It doesn't make sense, yet I see such denial everywhere within secular society. This is not to say that religious communities are perfect (cliques, self-righteousness, etc.) but in times of crisis, they come through- with either moral or financial support.Romantic relationships are another victim of secular society. Without God to frown upon divorces (making it more difficult for Christians to choose divorce), people are no longer mired in dangerous, abusive relationships. This is a good thing. But the bad? People simply do not TRY to maintain relationships nearly as much as they did before. Without God to keep people together, we're reduced to relying on this vague concept of "love" to keep us together. Of course, most people can't differentiate between "love" and being "in love", so when the gleam of being "in love" dulls, couples often see no reason to stay together, and continue the fickle cycle with someone else. I'm not saying that there aren't some people who just aren't compatible; I'm saying that people aren't bothering to try enough to better know.The bottom line is that though religion imposes beliefs based on what we (as atheists) take to be a false premise (the existence of God), it possesses a lot of good ideas and practices that when explored, have real, concrete reasons to follow. We cannot allow or inability to believe in God hinder our ability to learn the important lessons that religion can teach us. In other words, we have to accept the increased responsibility and accountability that comes with "not having someone else tell us what to do".

[PokerJoeVIP 0]

Personally i like theoretical physics and many of the newest ideas such as hyperdimentional math and string theoryAs far as God...yes the sum of all good...exists...parts in every one of us...the battle of good and evil is waged in every mans heart...in god is where the souls of those who fought for goodness gather for eternity

[crowTrobot 2]

Personally i like theoretical physics and many of the newest ideas such as hyperdimentional math and string theory

you're in a dwindling minority. string theory is rapidly on its way out of favor.

[copernicus 0]

To those who have read the origin of the species, what does darwin remark about the development of certain organs such as the human eye?He makes particular reference to it. Check it out.

You do realize how old "Origin of the Species" is and that it was one of the first studies of how nature might work?You do realize that science questions its hypotheses, tests them, if they are demonstrably wrong they are discarded or refined?You obviously dont realize that the evolution of the human eye from less complex organs is now well documented, nor that the human eye is not even close to the most effective eye in animals. It what be one fubar god who intentionally gave birds better vision than the creature he made in his own image.

[timwakefield 68]

You do realize how old "Origin of the Species" is and that it was one of the first studies of how nature might work?

Regardless, the Darwin quote about the eye is that complex traits such as this make it seem wildly impossible that they were created through evolution. Darwin's point is that the theory may be hard to swallow, and may seem insuffiecient in its ability to explain the more complex organs....however, it is not. It's this last bit that the creationists leave out.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Regardless, the Darwin quote about the eye is that complex traits such as this make it seem wildly impossible that they were created through evolution. Darwin's point is that the theory may be hard to swallow, and may seem insuffiecient in its ability to explain the more complex organs....however, it is not. It's this last bit that the creationists leave out.

however, as your pointed out a long while ago, when dealing with tryin to explain the eye from an evolutionist point of view, we can only conclude that there was some X. Now we have no evidence of X or any real set of possible choices for X but X had to be there. If thats not a case of putting faith in something you cant prove then I dont know what is. cheers

[timwakefield 68]

however, as your pointed out a long while ago, when dealing with tryin to explain the eye from an evolutionist point of view, we can only conclude that there was some X. Now we have no evidence of X or any real set of possible choices for X but X had to be there. If thats not a case of putting faith in something you cant prove then I dont know what is. cheers

I'm not putting my faith in "X." X is a way of explaining how the eye COULD have evolved. Certainly we have fossils of animals which do not have eyes.

[copernicus 0]

I'm not putting my faith in "X." X is a way of explaining how the eye COULD have evolved. Certainly we have fossils of animals which do not have eyes.

You understood what he's saying? Translate it to English for me, please?max, take this X and put it where the sun dont shine. I would love to trap you but im too lazy so note : In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species

[Mattnxtc 0]

I'm not putting my faith in "X." X is a way of explaining how the eye COULD have evolved. Certainly we have fossils of animals which do not have eyes.

but in order to believe in the evolution of eye you have to believe that X existed. Without X the theory of evolution of complex organs falls apart. Therefore you do in fact put your faith in the idea of X. As for your example of animals your theory still doesnt fit. Why? B/c the marginal gain of a little bit of site is far outweighed by other factors. Thats why we see with blind people that they have a heightened abilities with their other senses. Therefore we would actually expect mutations of something other than the eye since other mutations are of a greater necessity. We think eyes are a necessity b/c for us they are. But for a creature without eyes, they wouldnt be a necessity nor necessary so we wouldnt expect them to help out following your line of reasoning. We can look at a shark. It is well established that they cannot see well and that they are very old creatures some think they were around during the time of the dinosaurs. Yet we know they cant see well but other senses are heightened. Under your theory the eyes should have evolved and the time period certainly is long enough. But what we know is that it isnt the case. The eye hasnt evolved for them especially not in an sort of meaningful time period. Therefore again yoru theory falls flatWhat i find ironic is that when a christian puts out the builder story, they are laughed at yet this is the exact same reasoning you must use in order to believe in evolution.

[copernicus 0]

but in order to believe in the evolution of eye you have to believe that X existed. Without X the theory of evolution of complex organs falls apart. Therefore you do in fact put your faith in the idea of X. As for your example of animals your theory still doesnt fit. Why? B/c the marginal gain of a little bit of site is far outweighed by other factors. Thats why we see with blind people that they have a heightened abilities with their other senses. Therefore we would actually expect mutations of something other than the eye since other mutations are of a greater necessity. We think eyes are a necessity b/c for us they are. But for a creature without eyes, they wouldnt be a necessity nor necessary so we wouldnt expect them to help out following your line of reasoning. We can look at a shark. It is well established that they cannot see well and that they are very old creatures some think they were around during the time of the dinosaurs. Yet we know they cant see well but other senses are heightened. Under your theory the eyes should have evolved and the time period certainly is long enough. But what we know is that it isnt the case. The eye hasnt evolved for them especially not in an sort of meaningful time period. Therefore again yoru theory falls flatWhat i find ironic is that when a christian puts out the builder story, they are laughed at yet this is the exact same reasoning you must use in order to believe in evolution.

The bolded statement proves you dont have the vaguest idea what evolution/natural selection is all about. You are ignored until you learn. You are a caricature of the half-assed scientists who try to disprove evolution with bad math and faulty logic. It aint that pretty at all.

[timwakefield 68]

We think eyes are a necessity b/c for us they are. But for a creature without eyes, they wouldnt be a necessity nor necessary so we wouldnt expect them to help out following your line of reasoning.

Certainly some vision is better than no vision, unless you live in a dark cave and are never exposed to light.

The eye hasnt evolved for them especially not in an sort of meaningful time period. Therefore again yoru theory falls flat

I don't remember saying that eyes should and will always evolve towards greater and greater vision.

What i find ironic is that when a christian puts out the builder story, they are laughed at yet this is the exact same reasoning you must use in order to believe in evolution.

????

[Mattnxtc 0]

The bolded statement proves you dont have the vaguest idea what evolution/natural selection is all about. You are ignored until you learn. You are a caricature of the half-assed scientists who try to disprove evolution with bad math and faulty logic. It aint that pretty at all.

haha no...the bolded statement is pure logic. Sorry you have learned it yet. But it is correct and you are wrong.

Certainly some vision is better than no vision, unless you live in a dark cave and are never exposed to light.I don't remember saying that eyes should and will always evolve towards greater and greater vision. ????

Yes some sight is better than no sight at all...but is it marginally better than say improved other sense? The answer is obviously no and we can turn to modern species such as a shark to see that. If these creatures are products of evolution then we can assume that sight is less important than other things and since evolution is about survival you shoudl expect that the marginally better option will win out. common sense unless you deal with evolution where you must change these rules. Whats ironic is your two statements. You say certainly some vision is better than no vision yet in the very next statement you say vision doesnt evolve. Therefore you either contradict yourself or more likely will make the argument that evolution doesnt predict it. But again. that seems to say evolution is just a random thing. The builder story is the story that a christian will use where they says: If we see a painting we know there was a painterIf we see a building we know there was a builderIf we see creation we know there was a creator. Same logic you use with the eye but yet christians are foolish...its ironic dont yah think

[copernicus 0]

haha no...the bolded statement is pure logic. Sorry you have learned it yet. But it is correct and you are wrong.Yes some sight is better than no sight at all...but is it marginally better than say improved other sense? The answer is obviously no and we can turn to modern species such as a shark to see that. If these creatures are products of evolution then we can assume that sight is less important than other things and since evolution is about survival you shoudl expect that the marginally better option will win out. common sense unless you deal with evolution where you must change these rules. Whats ironic is your two statements. You say certainly some vision is better than no vision yet in the very next statement you say vision doesnt evolve. Therefore you either contradict yourself or more likely will make the argument that evolution doesnt predict it. But again. that seems to say evolution is just a random thing. The builder story is the story that a christian will use where they says: If we see a painting we know there was a painterIf we see a building we know there was a builderIf we see creation we know there was a creator. Same logic you use with the eye but yet christians are foolish...its ironic dont yah think

Pure hogwash, not pure logic:Therefore we would actually expect mutations of something other than the eye since other mutations are of a greater necessityMutations are random and if they happen to enhance an organisms ability to survive then that organism is more likely to succeed and proliferate. Evolution doesnt decide what is or isnt of necessity.Stop embarassing yourself.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Pure hogwash, not pure logic:Therefore we would actually expect mutations of something other than the eye since other mutations are of a greater necessityMutations are random and if they happen to enhance an organisms ability to survive then that organism is more likely to succeed and proliferate. Evolution doesnt decide what is or isnt of necessity.Stop embarassing yourself.

so they are random now? that would contradict others who say its not random...yall really need to decide what yall are going to stick with.