You know, I made a rule against these sorts of comments in the second part of this. Seriously, it's not beneficial, it just makes you look like a jerk.

that's not very nice of you...... (:( 

OCK,
This defies common sense and reason becasue the universe is made up of finite things each had a beginning. The universe points to Almighty God, the first Cause of all things visible and invisible.

What you actually said was:

What I was responding to were the links left by others.  See the difference?

You know what, if you consider me a jerk, then why do I feel like my job is done?

Oh, so the 'nice' dynamaso actually gets a little back.  I'm not trying to upset everyone, just those who use quasi-intelligent arguments without the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

You do realise that I cannot be stopped in my beliefs. The only way to shut me up is to shut me down. I'll keep on limping. You cannot provide anything that specifically refutes anything we say. You don't even answer most of the comments, just flood past them.

Of course, you can't refute something that's not valid.

~Zoo

I take it you are referring to me.  The only thing I can think of that will take a beating and 'keep on limping' is a zombie.  And that is a fictional character.  As for refuting anything you say(as opposed to the 'we' you use), provide some intelligent, articulate points and you might get a response.  And with regards to commenting, I only comment on those points that interest or disturb me.  Just in case you're in doubt as to which one of these you are, you're the latter.

Nice to know that I'm just another ordinary guy. (Reference to Ordinary by Thousand Foot Krutch)

I listen to heavy-metal (Demon Hunter), play tabletop games (D&D) style. I do lots of things that everyday people do, I don't need to be perfect to be saved.

I know 3 doctors (Counting theology, 5). Two of them are non-theology degrees I met at church. The other is my physical doctor.

If you wish to argue that religion is a crutch, shall I point out that the strongest people in the world are Christians, and their success frequently waves when they leave God behind and do what they feel is best, not what the Bible ordains.

A. It's not heavy metal, it's metalcore. Huge difference.

B. It's not metalcore, it's Christian metalcore. There's no metal in 'Christian metal'.

And what does you being ordinary or having occasional association with doctors have anything to do with the validity or lack thereof of your supposed 'argument' for Intelligent Design?

Don't get your panties in a bunch, just because we've pointed out that your 'argument' isn't such, it's mostly empty vapid talking points without substance.

But by that statement right there. (See bold) If everything points to having a beginning, then how can there be an exception? It would make the entire point of everything having a beginning, null and void. Think about it, if, as you state, common sense and reason says that everything has to have a source, then what about God? Was there a God before him? How about before that one?

I mean, doesn't science tell us that things cannot come from nothing? (Right Zoo? SC?)



Religion, like everything else, is what you make of it.

He's got a point, and it's not just confined to JU either.

Sorry about the link that wasn't a link with no explanation.  I realize that copying and pasting is tremendously arduous.

 

It's a link to the first of 8 parts on YouTube of an interview between the Associate Producer of Expelled and some of the editors of Scientific American magazine.  I particularly like the part in Part 2 where the Associate Producer says that a particular scientist and evolutionary biologist who is known for his Christianity was exempted from the film because it would needlessly confuse the issue.  It's at about 8 mins 10 seconds in to Part 2.

    I disagree with that. As we do not know how the world was specifically created, it always helps to have more opinions.

That's fine...but you see, the issue is that OPINIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!

~Zoo

I meant on the Creation. Not evolution or whatnot. Evolution is an opinion.

No, it's a theory...actually, it's more of a model these days. The only people that doubt it with such veracity are people that have absolutely no understanding of it.

~Zoo

that's hoaky....to be nice......

Then you explain what it is, KFC.  I'd like to see exactly what your definition of evolution is...not a textbook one, but what your working definition of it is that causes you to doubt 150 years of development and research...excuse me, not doubt...but vehemently deny 150 years of research and development.

~Zoo

If it's wrong, I will deny it.

OH MY GOOD CRAP you've done it. You've convinced me. You've converted me from someone with an open mind, who sees the evidence that points heavily in the direction of evolution into a Young-Earth-Creationist/Zealot, with one simple turn of phrase.

You sir, are a master debater, a true rhetorician. Congrats.

So you seem to think evolution is wrong.  Forgive me for even bothering to question...but, uh...how?

~Zoo

 

Gosh, come on Zoo, don't you know it's all about the monkeys!! Says in a part Jerry Falwell, part Pat Robertson voice, "God did not make man in the form of monkeys!" (He mad them in the form of complete oddities...) ( Couldn't resist.)

But seriously, if we're "made in the image of God," then damn. God must of some similar (puzzling) issues as we do.

Evolution is a theory and a model system for a lot of scientific research. It is also an opinion, because it has not yet been proven to be a fact. Until evolution becomes a law, it will remain an opinion. The number of people who's personal beliefs align with the
opinion doesn't add credibility to it.

The majority of science is opinion that contains experimental data to back that personal belief. It's very difficult to call something a fact in science.

But you're wrong when you say: "The only people that doubt it with such veracity are people that have absolutely no understanding of it."

Many athiest scientists have a good understanding of evolution and also strongly doubt it- Many of them are still compelled to use an evolutionary model because the only other viable alternative is belief in a Creator.

And we can't have that now can we?

When you say opinion, do you mean: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof? Because...evolution has a lot of knowledge and substance behind it. It's the evidence that leads to the model. Just like gravity and atomic theory. Let's take gravity...it hasn't been "proven" per se, but we're pretty sure it exists based on the concept of...well, things falling.

Do you know what the difference between a theory and a law is in science?

A scientific theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A scientific law is: A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

The only difference here is time and acceptance. A law is merely the beefed up version of a theory in science. A scientific law is not a fact. However, it used to help us make predictions about the world...and most often they are completely and utterly correct. If you want to be so picky about facts, then abandon all science and mathematics because they operate primarily on theories and laws. "Facts" are things that are readily observable...they are the evidence which leads to theory and law. The facts are that organisms change over time, the theory for that process is evolution.



We can have that if there's evidence for it...everything we've ever collected has pointed to the evolution of a cell. Chemistry, biology, genetics...all the data collected strongly supports the idea of evolution. Not once has there ever, ever, ever been something that correlates to some "designer." If there was, then we'd be investigating the crap out of it. Science is about finding answers, not appealing to one's own sense of belief. There are rules and procedures we follow to eliminate personal bias in our experiments and our conclusions. We NEED evidence and tests to confirm or refute our suspicions. To submit untestable, unobservable mythology(Christian or otherwise) as science is a fundamental raping of our scientific method.

~Zoo

So wait, you're confirming what I'm saying. Evolution is a raping of the scientific method.