Your Vote, Your Reasons

[TheMadHatter]

But isn't your claiming to know about texts being thrown out at certain events just as invalid, then?

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I liken it to you trying to prove to me that Bigfoot exists. If you can't provide me with evidence and facts that Bigfoot exists I can say that your claim is false. It doesn't mean I can't disprove Bigfoot's existence, it just means that your claim is false.

[timvp]

. There you go again with your ASSumptions.

The point I'm trying to discuss with Extra and other conservatives is whether or not the historicity of Jesus as indicated in the NT Gospels can be trusted. He believes so, I don't. We debate. You make asinine comments and inferences. Life goes on.

Classic Freudian slip within that post

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.

[ElNono]

You acknowledged the possibility of you using your toes. yes or no? Yuor original question was how many fingers, there were no toes mentioned in the original question then we go from 10 possible answers in your original question to 11. that increase from ten to 11 comes from the added toe variable not in your original question.

None is a valid answer too, and it's implicit in the question. There's nothing tricky/loaded about it in the way the question was proposed. I don't need to propose toes, or dictation or using a pen with my mouth to imply that 'none' is also a valid answer.

Let me give you an example you're gonna start adding new things not in the original question, how do i know you didn't hold onto a pencil with three fingers type it out with the eraser end of said pencil. And then you could argue you typed it out with zero fingers or three.

There's ZERO ambiguity in the question. Absolutely NOTHING was added to the original question. What happened is that rascal tossed a theory that the response would need to be a number between 1-10. His theory is wrong in that the response needs to be a number between 0-10, and I gave him an example to sustain that 0 is a valid answer too. Unlikely? sure, but as the question was posed, absolutely valid.

The problem with you is that you made a stupid comment and now that you've been called out for it, don't have the balls to agree that you were wrong. And your whole premise of science being stupid because they pull out the 'we dont know' card, comes down crashing when you use pull out the exact same card every day in life.

But if you want to keep amusing us, please go ahead, and defend your 'loaded question' position one more time.

[JoeChalupa]

Blessed are those....oh, never mind.

[ElNono]

Uhm... I'm pretty sure "none" is a valid answer. Maybe somewhat of a "trick" answer, but surely still valid.

How is it 'somewhat of a trick' answer? I mean, we could argue it might be non-obvious, but as the question was presented, it's an entirely valid answer.

[ElNono]

Exactly that "trick" part is what makes it a loaded question, because a loaded question is meant to trick. He quotes me saying i'm an idiot, because i call him out on it's loaded capacity, and you a 3rd party see that the possibility is there.

What part of 'valid answer' from his post you didn't understand? Really...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

deleting is bad.

[LnGrrrR]

How is it 'somewhat of a trick' answer? I mean, we could argue it might be non-obvious, but as the question was presented, it's an entirely valid answer.

Trick as in non-obvious.

[ratm1221]

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I liken it to you trying to prove to me that Bigfoot exists. If you can't provide me with evidence and facts that Bigfoot exists I can say that your claim is false. It doesn't mean I can't disprove Bigfoot's existence, it just means that your claim is false.

If I told someone that I was going to create a new planet. On this new planet I'm going to create a new race of people. I'm going to let them run around aimlessly for a while and let them fight amongst themselves and kill each over about how they think they got there. Then I'm going to impregnate one of them, and I'll have my son tell them that I created them but I'm not going to give him any proof of it. I just want to see who believes him and who doesn't. Those that choose to believe him, I'm going to give them a reward. Those that choose to question him and not blindly follow him, I'm going to set them on fire.

"Sound good buddy?"

They would probably call me an asshole. Just sayin'.

[romad_20]

I hope you are joking. Geddy Lee would probably kick your ass if he found out you said he looks like David Koresh.

Or he would play Tom Sawyer and make your head explode.

I would go with the latter. He is Canadian, ya know?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I agree, but in all fairness to Stout I'm not getting the feeling that he's trying to prove to you anything definitive about Jesus (in this thread, there could be a lot of history I don't know). To me, his posts are all about explaining the current official position of the church which is something that can be proven.

"Jesus was the son of God" - Can't be proven.
"The Church currently maintains that Jesus was the son of God." - Easily proven.

Am I spectacularly missing it?

[Jesus]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.

[romad_20]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.

I know for a fact that the real Jesus isn't a Kings fan.

[AntiChrist]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.

Oh crap! I'm outta here.

[angel_luv]

A question Angel_Luv, if I may: Is there a threshold for things that you think are important enough to pray about?

I'm genuinely curious because I'm not religious at all.

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

[TheMadHatter]

I agree, but in all fairness to Stout I'm not getting the feeling that he's trying to prove to you anything definitive about Jesus (in this thread, there could be a lot of history I don't know). To me, his posts are all about explaining the current official position of the church which is something that can be proven.

"Jesus was the son of God" - Can't be proven.
"The Church currently maintains that Jesus was the son of God." - Easily proven.

Am I spectacularly missing it?

Actually I believe Extra's position on the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts as stated in the NT Gospels are accurate. He can correct me on this if I am wrong though, I don't want to speak for him.

[Tully365]

Biblically speaking, wrong equates to sin, therefore to be right one must refrain from sin. Regarding salvation, the focus for Christians in their quest to share this message should not be on dealing with the right or wrong of any one particular sin, but sin in general. True conversion (that is, a realization or enlightenment that we are all sinners; a redemptive, confessing and cleansing from those sins), once obtained, instills within the heart of man a rather clear sense of what is right and what is wrong, there should be no conflict with the morality, or absolutes that abide in Scripture.

The emphasis from a Christian to the unenlightened should not be to hammer them about their sinful life, nor to heap condemnation upon them (indeed, we are born into sin), but to inform them that the Christ was "sent into the World, not to condemn, but to bring salvation to the World.

We don't get caught up in trivial arguements such as "is smoking a sin, is drinking a sin", etc., those are side issues or distractions from the Gospel's thrust which is to release us from the burden and condemnation of all sin.
When we fall short, and we all do on a daily basis, we know it, the reflexive realization of that sin leads us to seek forgiveness, and that forgiveness is uncondition and immediately there upon asking, we then move on from there.

I don't get caught up in arguments about what is and what is not sin on minor issues, there are ample opportunities each day to talk to and encourage those who are earnestly seeking God, or who have sincere and honest questions about God and Christ.

But again, terms like "wrong" and "sin" are extremely and maybe entirely subjective. Amish Christians think it is wrong to drive a car. Mormons are opposed to consuming alcohol. Quakers refuse to serve in the military. And it seems to me that all Christians pick and choose what rules are relevant. The Old Testament mentions a few times that a man should not share a bed with his wife while she is menstruating, but I have never in my life heard a single Christian preach or follow that law. But when the same book has a few sentences about sexuality, entire legions are ready to change the way they vote, the schools they send their children to, and the neighborhoods they live in.

If by some bizarre twist of fate, our country became dominated by Amish mayors, governors, and presidents, would you happily adhere to their proposed restrictions on driving, dancing, colorful clothing, and the use of electricity? Or would you say that they were fanatics and fight them as often as possible in order to live your life as you see fit?

[TheMadHatter]

But again, terms like "wrong" and "sin" are extremely and maybe entirely subjective. Amish Christians think it is wrong to drive a car. Mormons are opposed to consuming alcohol. Quakers refuse to serve in the military. And it seems to me that all Christians pick and choose what rules are relevant. The Old Testament mentions a few times that a man should not share a bed with his wife while she is menstruating, but I have never in my life heard a single Christian preach or follow that law. But when the same book has a few sentences about sexuality, entire legions are ready to change the way they vote, the schools they send their children to, and the neighborhoods they live in.

If by some bizarre twist of fate, our country became dominated by Amish mayors, governors, and presidents, would you happily adhere to their proposed restrictions on driving, dancing, colorful clothing, and the use of electricity? Or would you say that they were fanatics and fight them as often as possible in order to live your life as you see fit?

Couldn't have phrased it any better myself.

[temujin]

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

Very human.

I think you believe in gods, not in God.

[angel_luv]

Very human.

I think you believe in gods, not in God.

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

[Phenomanul]

Say what? A theory is inherently not factual until all the claims have been verified. You can't apply that little magical 'faith' dust to it, and all of a sudden believe it's fact. That's not the scientific method. You need to apply rigorous testing to it. THAT, is the scientific method.

So then what makes your belief in abiological origins any more valid than my belief in a supernatural GOD?

In the meantime continue to wait for validation of said theory...

Oh... and don't pretend to lecture me on the scientific method.

What the ? The fact that it requires further study means that the theory requires further study. How the heck you arrived to the conclusion that it has a major flaw, if you did not conduct the 'further studies'? What you just said makes no sense AT ALL.

You're the one going in circles. Quit trying to suggest that I've somehow made a blanket statement against all science.

I'm not debating the principles behind belief in scientific theories. I'm debating the skewed nature of the 'evidence' being used to validate the theory of abiological origins... the burden of proof in this case does not fall on me, it falls on those trying to substantiate the claim that life sprung out of no where.

My claim was that belief in abiological origins requires a certain amount of faith. Why? Because as of right now that claim is only an unproven theory. You stated that much yourself, I don't know why admission of that statement is so difficult for you to accept. Also, just because you have acknowledged it as a theory doesn't mean that the mainstream audience considers it as such. They have come to accept it as fact because it was taught to them that way; most aren't even aware that this particular theory has yet to be proven.

Furthermore, I believe there is a disconnect between our use of the word "faith". To me, faith is to believe in something without having physical proof of its existence. There is no spiritual connotation involved. Your rebuttals leave the impression that I'm somehow not disassociating the two premises.

What is being taught is evolutionary theory (emphasis mine).
That is a theory that is testable and can be scrutinized. Not a single scientist that knows how the scientific method works will tell you it's a irrefutable scientific fact.

Evolution equals not abiological orgins....

One is a biological model that defines the dynamics for speciation. The other, well... attempts to define how life itself began.

The theory of evolution (lower case enphasized) is supported by much geological and empirical evidence. But it doesn't address the origins question.

It could have been an exceptional event. I can see an impact of two bodies generating both the heat and pressure differentials in the time you have suggested. What are the odds of that exceptional event happening? Without further research, I don't know. But to lazily disregard it as 'impossible' without actually conducting testing is not the scientific method.

Who says I've disregarded the research??? I've read through 65+ years worth of articles on the subject. It kind of comes with the territory of attaining a degree in Molecular Genetics.

Collisions like the one you're suggesting would incinerate living organisms - not sprout life. Without its protective enzymes DNA would denaturalize (at temperatures slightly over 200 deg F). I believe this line of reasoning was abandoned in the early 80's because it was found that most of the 'organic' compounds required to produce amino acids would crack and oxidize. Furthermore, the concentration gradient required to keep the products from thermally breaking down after the reaction couldn't be overcome by any known natural process. As soon as amino acids were formed they would revert to lower energy states by breaking down into their cons uent species.

Also, the production of right-handed amino acid species in those experiments curbed subsequent attempts to grow polypeptide RNA chains longer than 5 amino acid bases - that is because all known biological molecules use the left-handed version of enantiomers, right-handed ones essentially 'stop' the growth of any growing polypeptide chain.

So you see, the lab setting is an essential participant in the quasi-successful creation of 'life in a flask' - don't disassociate the two. The reactions can't proceed without our deliberate intervention. More specifically, we eliminate all the physical (natural) constrainsts that would otherwise negate the reaction towards viable genetic material - and even when finally produced the molecules don't survive very long.

For example, the environment required to form the sugar-phosphate backbone polymer is radically different from the enviroment required to produce amino acids (5 of which also act as DNA/RNA polypeptide bases). Neither is sufficiently stable in solution... Labs are hence required to bring the two together. Undermining the effects of human interaction, however convenient, is what would be 'intellectually dishonest.'

The problem with your take on this is that you don't have factual proof that it's not possible. That's why it actually warrants further testing.

You don't see me lobbying against ins utions who are seeking answers to the origins question? As I said earlier, "[let them] have at it". Why repress such research? Let them surprise me.

I stated earlier that I haven't built a strawman around the origins of DNA... I stand by that comment.

It would require you to have an education or google. Whatever is more handily available. Once you are educated, then you have the answer to your question. Faith didn't enter the equation at all.

hardy har har... nice little red herring. Faith would undeniably be required if you wanted me to believe that something as complex as a simple desk sprung out of a tree. Of course I know who makes them. You missed the point entirely. Intelligent design is also required, as the wood pieces alone don't assemble themselves into the desk.

One problem is that you discount exceptional events, like I stated above.

Or that you have placed your faith in such events? Same difference... hmm where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... this "big fella in the sky," AKA GOD created the Universe and all Life as we know it... sounds like a pretty exceptional event to me!

The other problem with your argument is that you believe science is entirely restricted to this planet. How do you know another planet does not have the preconditions to create such polymers?

While mathematically possible it is not really plausible. Those polymers were 'designed' and created by man.

Look, I've already played the numbers game with Random Guy before. Ultimately, creation of DNA from pure chance alone was on the order of 10^-289... or some ridiculous number that was for all intents and purposes zero. But no, he admitted that he would rather hold on to that statistical chance than to ever admit that belief in GOD was more likely. At least I'm aware of the numerical chances that people such as yourself have willingly chosen to hinge their disbelief to.

What you naively forget is that the bag was shaken for millions of years, and that the 50 piece lego figure built is only a part of a million different sets inside the bag. The odds are actually not as small as you think they are.

No, I didn't forget it. The odds would be staggering (check your math), which is why I used it as an example. For that matter, the number wasn't chosen randomly as 50 represents the amount of base pairs of the smallest known, genetically significant RNA sequence; a segment comparable in size to a prion (en ies which borrow their replicative enzymes from pre-existing DNA/RNA organisms). Anyways, a 50 base polypeptide strand, while small, retains an entropic order beyond belief.

Wrong again. The supernatural doesn't attempt to explain or substantiate anything. Thus, it's not a theory at all.

So says the atheistic sector of the scientific community.

Answer me this then - since no one around here has attempted to answer the question in the three years that I've been a member of this forum. What differentiates a recently deceased corpse from a living person? I mean, the corpse has every necessary biological component and element required to live. Why then is it dead? The DNA is still there, no? Shouldn't life be there too then? We all know this is not the case, as corpses just wither away.

IMO life is not a physical attribute. It is a gift from the spiritual realm. So until that realm is physically defined, I will continue to believe that life itself is by very definition 'supernatural'.

Why would I want you to believe it came from a natural process, when both you and I factually know it was built by humans? I mean, there's factual evidence to that. All it takes you is education to know, not faith.

Yeah it's absurd. About as much so as belief that one of the most complex biological molecules suddenly sprung out of a chemical broth. Except I'm not ignoring the 'big elephant' in the living room... I acknowledge the Creator's hand was involved. I mean, could you imagine if someone tried to prove that it was mathematically possible for construction materials to transform themselves into the Empires State Building??

I'm glad you engaged in the conversation anyways. Thanks!

[Creepn]

Actually I believe Extra's position on the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts as stated in the NT Gospels are accurate. He can correct me on this if I am wrong though, I don't want to speak for him.

Wait a minute, are you saying that the gospels are accurate about the whereabouts of Jesus Christ?

[Creepn]

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

Thats the equivalent of saying of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I DONT WANNA HEAR IT! LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

[dg7md]

Thats the equivalent of saying of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I DONT WANNA HEAR IT! LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

I agree, but it's a free country and she has the freedom of religion much like we do. She's not forcing anybody onto her religion so let her have her peace.

[Creepn]

I agree, but it's a free country and she has the freedom of religion much like we do. She's not forcing anybody onto her religion so let her have her peace.

GRR but its so annoying!!!! Your totally right though.