[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Hi Bogdana Alkeav

before I answer any more of your points, I would like to know what you thought of the answers I gave so far?
Do you agree with what I said, or not?

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

I would like to know what you think also about my comments on the scientists. Do you think what I said is rational, reasonable?
Also about Satan as ruler of the earth?
Why the bears came out and killed those children?
Also the meaning of the mountain?

[Bogdana Alkeav]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

I would like to know what you think also about my comments on the scientists. Do you think what I said is rational, reasonable?
Also about Satan as ruler of the earth?
Why the bears came out and killed those children?
Also the meaning of the mountain?

You're a bit impatient, aren't you? I wasn't even online, why leave multiple posts telling me to respond? But anyway, I gave you my opinion already. They are flimsy excuses. You've already made up your mind that the Bible is right, and so you will ignore and justify everything you can in order to go on thinking that way.

Your points about science and the Bible being compatible are not true, in the least. The Bible demands we take a literal interpretation of the events of Genesis. There is a genealogy listing from Jesus to Adam. Jesus died to get rid of the original sin caused by Adam and Eve. The New Testament writers refer to all the events in the Old Testament as real historical events. The Sabbath day was placed as the day of worship because God created the world in seven days, which means days. When "Evening passed and morning came", that is not referring to some very long era. And not the tiniest word about evolution in there. All the animals were made fully formed.

-Satan as ruler of the earth? Yes, there's plenty of verses that say that, I already knew. But you don't address why the Bible then goes on to say,

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

And

1 Peter 2: 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

-And no, your excuse for your God murdering those children did not make it sound any better, sorry. Your egomaniacal God who demands everyone worship Him, lest they all be killed, doesn't really appeal to me.

-Meaning of mountain, also flimsy. 2 Peter 1:17-18 is referring to when Jesus transfigured on top of a mountain and Peter saw it. Not a figurative mountain at all.

Psalm 68, again, referring to an actual mountain, Mount Bashan. Not surprising that the Ancient Israelites, like many in the ancient world, believed that their God literally lived at the top of a mountain, as this suggests. After all, they also thought God lived on top of Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. (Or are those figurative mountains also?)

Isaiah is the closest one, but again, it's referring to the temple on the literal Mount Zion. Yes, they are figuratively saying it will rise above all other mountains, but there is nothing in the passage in Matthew to suggest these kind of grand allusions. He did after all take him literally to the top of the Temple, right? Or did Satan just take Jesus figuratively to the top of the temple to jump off?

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

You're a bit impatient, aren't you? I wasn't even online, why leave multiple posts telling me to respond? But anyway, I gave you my opinion already. They are flimsy excuses. You've already made up your mind that the Bible is right, and so you will ignore and justify everything you can in order to go on thinking that way.

Your points about science and the Bible being compatible are not true, in the least. The Bible demands we take a literal interpretation of the events of Genesis. There is a genealogy listing from Jesus to Adam. Jesus died to get rid of the original sin caused by Adam and Eve. The New Testament writers refer to all the events in the Old Testament as real historical events. The Sabbath day was placed as the day of worship because God created the world in seven days, which means days. When "Evening passed and morning came", that is not referring to some very long era. And not the tiniest word about evolution in there. All the animals were made fully formed.

-Satan as ruler of the earth? Yes, there's plenty of verses that say that, I already knew. But you don't address why the Bible then goes on to say,

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

And

1 Peter 2: 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

-And no, your excuse for your God murdering those children did not make it sound any better, sorry. Your egomaniacal God who demands everyone worship Him, lest they all be killed, doesn't really appeal to me.

-Meaning of mountain, also flimsy. 2 Peter 1:17-18 is referring to when Jesus transfigured on top of a mountain and Peter saw it. Not a figurative mountain at all.

Psalm 68, again, referring to an actual mountain, Mount Bashan. Not surprising that the Ancient Israelites, like many in the ancient world, believed that their God literally lived at the top of a mountain, as this suggests. After all, they also thought God lived on top of Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. (Or are those figurative mountains also?)

Isaiah is the closest one, but again, it's referring to the temple on the literal Mount Zion. Yes, they are figuratively saying it will rise above all other mountains, but there is nothing in the passage in Matthew to suggest these kind of grand allusions. He did after all take him literally to the top of the Temple, right? Or did Satan just take Jesus figuratively to the top of the temple to jump off?

Actually science and the bible are in harmony. You seem to think that this is not true, and you made an assumption about evolution. Evolution was not mentioned in the bible because it doesn't exist. Evolution is in the scientists minds and found nowhere else. And animals could only be fully formed it could not happen any other way.
You have also made an assumption, about days and time periods. But your assumption is wrong. There is nothing in the bible that says a 'day' has to be 24 hrs. Actually the bible talks about many different lengths of time for a 'day'. Also many things in the bible have greater fulfilments than just the happenings of a historical date. But there is more to that.

The scientists are full of assumptions, that is the only way they can come to any other conclusion than creation.
So why do you think the scientists and bible are not in harmony? After all if you don't believe that God created everything, but believe instead what the scientists say, it would not be rational for me try to convince you using the bible which you don't believe is really truth.

[Katander]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Because He was testing us.

For someone advocating rational thinking, you sure don't seem to use any. God created a lot of poisonous plants too. Does that mean we should all go out and eat them?

What sort of test is this... God creates Adam and Eve as a couple of ignorant, uneducated stupid people who cant tell right from wrong and then God is shocked when they make the wrong decision

This tells me that not only does God hate rational thinking, but he does not use it himself...

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

This tells me that not only does God hate rational thinking, but he does not use it himself...

And why should He. He is God, He can do whatever He pleases.

[Bogdana Alkeav]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Actually science and the bible are in harmony. You seem to think that this is not true, and you made an assumption about evolution. Evolution was not mentioned in the bible because it doesn't exist. Evolution is in the scientists minds and found nowhere else. And animals could only be fully formed it could not happen any other way.
You have also made an assumption, about days and time periods. But your assumption is wrong. There is nothing in the bible that says a 'day' has to be 24 hrs. Actually the bible talks about many different lengths of time for a 'day'. Also many things in the bible have greater fulfilments than just the happenings of a historical date. But there is more to that.

The scientists are full of assumptions, that is the only way they can come to any other conclusion than creation.
So why do you think the scientists and bible are not in harmony? After all if you don't believe that God created everything, but believe instead what the scientists say, it would not be rational for me try to convince you using the bible which you don't believe is really truth.

Thanks. Your own words can prove much better than anything I could say that the Bible and Rationality have nothing in common. I'm sure in your mind, that's not true. But I prefer to live in this place called reality.

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Thanks. Your own words can prove much better than anything I could say that the Bible and Rationality have nothing in common. I'm sure in your mind, that's not true. But I prefer to live in this place called reality.

Yes OK. But the rational about this is, I find most people do not know what the scientists are really saying , about the start to life and ' evolution'. And the scientists have not thought this through. It is impossible for a cell for instance to come about on it's own.
There are 3 facts that all have to agree with:
Life comes from life.
Dogs always produce dogs.
There is design in life.
This is rational. That is what we see, and have evidence for. But the scientists go against this rational, and say that life magically popped out of the ground, and to become more and more interesting things.
Yet there are no transitional animals in the fossil record. ( which even Darwin knew) Scientists have never seen a dog become another kind of animal that is no longer a dog. There are no almost humans ,... or can scientist can tell us what we are 'evolving' into, that we are no longer human.
The truth is that there is no rational thought in on the subject of life and the variety see we, from the scientists.The scientists gave created a myth.
Also the bottom line is that scientists can not prove that we were not created.
So if you don't really want to talk about the scientists, stories, that's OK.
But that still leaves, how did we get here?
The only other option is creation. The question is who is the creator. There is no evidence that people came from some other world. The scientists, went to Mars to find Martians, but found none. Some scientists say the universe is so large that there has to be other 'earth's', but they have no evidence for saying that.
So creation is the only possibility.
Is that not rational thinking?
So if you don't believe the bible is God's word, then what is your answer to this?

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

As for 'days' in the bible.
The bible says a day for a year.
It also says a 1,000 years for a day.
We also use the word day to mean just the daylight.
I also uses the wording we use today, when we say in Noah's day.
The bible also uses the word day, to just mean a period of time.
The bible uses uses all 6 of the creative days as just a day. ( including them all in one day.)
Also a 'day' can also be used as a measure of distance. As in how far a person could travel in a day.
If you look at Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There is no time stamp to this, it is just a simple statement. So this could have taken millions or billions of years.
There is also no time period mentioned in the bible about how long each creative day was. They could have been just, time periods that it took to get certain things done.

So there is no conflict with the scientists guess, of how long it took to get where we are now.
The science supports the bible, the scientists support their own myths.

Is this not rational?

[Samuel Coleridge]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Yes OK. But the rational about this is, I find most people do not know what the scientists are really saying , about the start to life and ' evolution'. And the scientists have not thought this through. It is impossible for a cell for instance to come about on it's own.
There are 3 facts that all have to agree with:
Life comes from life.
Dogs always produce dogs.
There is design in life.

Fundies still spouting that claptrap.

The Miller-Uray Experiment was almost 60 years ago where the scientists showed that the building blocks of life could come from inorganic materials.

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Fundies still spouting that claptrap.

The Miller-Uray Experiment was almost 60 years ago where the scientists showed that the building blocks of life could come from inorganic materials.

There are 2 things here.

The precursors to life are on the earth. The bible says that God made man from the dust of the ground. So the science confirms the bible, in that the materials for life are on the earth.

The second thing is that the Miller experiment was intelligence playing with the 'dust' of the ground, to try and create life. That is creation. And it's already been done.

I have a little illustration.

It is about a loaf of bread.
If scientists get the material from the earth to make bread, and take it into a lab and make a loaf of bread, is that not creation? It doesn't prove that bread just happens on it's own. It only shows creation. For scientists to prove a loaf of could happen on it's own they have to find it doing that, some place.
It is the same with the creation of all things. The scientists could even come up with a lot of theories on how bread could just happen. But these theories would be just myths.
The bottom line is the scientists, can not prove life happened on it's own in a lab or with their input. They just have to find it happening some place. That's why the trip to Mars.
So if scientist do at some point create life, it would have taken a lot of years of research and special equipment to do that. That is creation.

Is this not rational thinking?

[Bogdana Alkeav]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Yes OK. But the rational about this is, I find most people do not know what the scientists are really saying , about the start to life and ' evolution'.

Actually, I think you don't know what they're saying. Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life. Rather, it is just the observation that species tend to change over time.

The science of how life came to exist is called biogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that life sprang from inorganic matter. This is a controversial theory. Very few scientists actually claim to know how life started. But except for the scientists who are fundamentalist Christians, none of them deny the evidence of life evolving over billions of years.

And the scientists have not thought this through. It is impossible for a cell for instance to come about on it's own.

Which again is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Dogs always produce dogs.

But dogs do not always produce the same dog. They don't pop out a clone of themselves. Do you know what genetic mutations are?

There is design in life.

If there is, it is a very poor designer.

Argument from poor design

Yet there are no transitional animals in the fossil record.

List of transitional fossils

( which even Darwin knew)

Yes, because there was just so much archeology available for Darwin in the 1850s, right?

Scientists have never seen a dog become another kind of animal that is no longer a dog. There are no almost humans ,... or can scientist can tell us what we are 'evolving' into, that we are no longer human.

You do realize evolution to another species would require millions of years to observe, right?

There are no other "almost humans" because they have gone extinct. We do however, have bones of these almost humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

And humans are still evolving. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....till-evolving/

Also the bottom line is that scientists can not prove that we were not created.

Evolution has nothing to do with proving life was not created. It is merely observing what nature shows of life.

The only other option is creation. The question is who is the creator. There is no evidence that people came from some other world.

I don't believe we were created aliens, but your logic is quite faulty here. I don't think you quite understand how large the universe is.

The scientists, went to Mars to find Martians, but found none.

"The scientists" (you say, as if all scientists in the world have the same beliefs and goals) did not go to Mars to find Martians. It was already known there was no intelligent life on Mars. Mars might as well be as close as your face to your computer if you knew how huge the universe is.

Some scientists say the universe is so large that there has to be other 'earth's', but they have no evidence for saying that.

Some Christians say life is so complex that there has to a creator, but they have no evidence for saying that.

So creation is the only possibility.
Is that not rational thinking?

Yes, of course. When you don't know the answer to something, you should assume an invisible, all-powerful magical person in the sky did it. How rational.

I bet God creates lightning bolts too, right?

So if you don't believe the bible is God's word, then what is your answer to this?

Let's say there is a creator. Why assume that the Bible is true?

There have been thousands of religions throughout time in the world, and thousands of stories people have told about how the world came to be. They are all very different. A lot of them are a lot older then the Bible. Here is just a small list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Why should I believe in your creation story over any of the other ones (especially since the Bible itself contains two different creation myths gathered from two different cultures).

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Actually, I think you don't know what they're saying. Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life. Rather, it is just the observation that species tend to change over time.

The science of how life came to exist is called biogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that life sprang from inorganic matter. This is a controversial theory. Very few scientists actually claim to know how life started. But except for the scientists who are fundamentalist Christians, none of them deny the evidence of life evolving over billions of years.



Which again is abiogenesis, not evolution.



But dogs do not always produce the same dog. They don't pop out a clone of themselves. Do you know what genetic mutations are?



If there is, it is a very poor designer.

Argument from poor design



List of transitional fossils




Yes, because there was just so much archeology available for Darwin in the 1850s, right?



You do realize evolution to another species would require millions of years to observe, right?

There are no other "almost humans" because they have gone extinct. We do however, have bones of these almost humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

And humans are still evolving. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....till-evolving/



Evolution has nothing to do with proving life was not created. It is merely observing what nature shows of life.



I don't believe we were created aliens, but your logic is quite faulty here. I don't think you quite understand how large the universe is.



"The scientists" (you say, as if all scientists in the world have the same beliefs and goals) did not go to Mars to find Martians. It was already known there was no intelligent life on Mars. Mars might as well be as close as your face to your computer if you knew how huge the universe is.



Some Christians say life is so complex that there has to a creator, but they have no evidence for saying that.



Yes, of course. When you don't know the answer to something, you should assume an invisible, all-powerful magical person in the sky did it. How rational.

I bet God creates lightning bolts too, right?



Let's say there is a creator. Why assume that the Bible is true?

There have been thousands of religions throughout time in the world, and thousands of stories people have told about how the world came to be. They are all very different. A lot of them are a lot older then the Bible. Here is just a small list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Why should I believe in your creation story over any of the other ones (especially since the Bible itself contains two different creation myths gathered from two different cultures).

Hi Bogdana


Abiogenesis, the theory is getting closer to creation all the time. They just haven't figured out the creation part of it yet. You are correct scientist do not know or have any good theories about how life started. The problem is that even a so called simple cell is not simple and it all has to be together before any of it works.

Researchers who supports the teaching of evolution, say: It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first. RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) is astronomically low, regarding theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, they say: none of the researchers have provided scientists with a very satisfying story about how this happened.
In reality this is a catch 22 situation.

But dogs do not always produce the same dog. They don't pop out a clone of themselves. Do you know what genetic mutations are?

The statement was dogs always produce dogs. In your statement you agreed with that. But there is a large variety of dogs. This comes about from natural means by breeding ,and intelligent means, with a goal in mind. But they are always, dogs. Darwin observation of Finch's reveal, that Finch's are always Finch's . Though adaptability, can play into this , depending on conditions.

If there is, it is a very poor designer.

This of course is the opinion from scientists don't even know how life could get started and are just in the infancy of understanding how the world and universe work. And that really have no evidence on the theories they now have. I would rather that advice on something real.

Now on transitional fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Those are not transitional fossils. they are completed animals. The transitional ones are the ones that have partially formed legs for example. These bits and pieces , placed in wrong area's of the body. Legs coming out of the back , or head or where ever 'Evolution' is not planed, it's a mutation, which means it's a mistake that has to be tried out, to see if it helps the host. So 'evolution' doesn't know it needs 2 eyes the correct distance apart to see depth of field. Now when it comes to an eye for example, the bone structure for another eye has to be in the correct place. But that is totally different than the eye ball and muscles, for the eye it also has to be placed correctly with the bone structure. This also has to be wired for the brain and brain has to know what to do with this. This all had to happen correctly the first time or it is useless.
What all this means is that this should all be in the fossil record. But it is not there. Even Darwin knew this, and said if these transitional fossil were not found , his theory would not stand up.
Today with many more fossils found, there still is no transitional ones. Scientists say they will likely never be found , because these transitional fossils should be in a much larger number than completed animals. And the fossil record should show that percentage now.
The interesting part of this is that what the scientists have found in the fossil record, supports creation, because what you would expect to find in the fossil record is completed animals. That is what is found.

Something else should be noted. If you are a creator and you are going to create millions of animals and many of them with very similar traits, would you not use DNA make an animal and make a slight change and make another? ( scientists do that with computer programs now) Why would you start over from scratch, for each animal?

[epignosis]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Actually, I think you don't know what they're saying. Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life. Rather, it is just the observation that species tend to change over time.

The science of how life came to exist is called biogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that life sprang from inorganic matter. This is a controversial theory. Very few scientists actually claim to know how life started. But except for the scientists who are fundamentalist Christians, none of them deny the evidence of life evolving over billions of years.



Which again is abiogenesis, not evolution.



But dogs do not always produce the same dog. They don't pop out a clone of themselves. Do you know what genetic mutations are?



If there is, it is a very poor designer.

Argument from poor design



List of transitional fossils




Yes, because there was just so much archeology available for Darwin in the 1850s, right?



You do realize evolution to another species would require millions of years to observe, right?

There are no other "almost humans" because they have gone extinct. We do however, have bones of these almost humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

And humans are still evolving. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....till-evolving/



Evolution has nothing to do with proving life was not created. It is merely observing what nature shows of life.



I don't believe we were created aliens, but your logic is quite faulty here. I don't think you quite understand how large the universe is.



"The scientists" (you say, as if all scientists in the world have the same beliefs and goals) did not go to Mars to find Martians. It was already known there was no intelligent life on Mars. Mars might as well be as close as your face to your computer if you knew how huge the universe is.



Some Christians say life is so complex that there has to a creator, but they have no evidence for saying that.



Yes, of course. When you don't know the answer to something, you should assume an invisible, all-powerful magical person in the sky did it. How rational.

I bet God creates lightning bolts too, right?



Let's say there is a creator. Why assume that the Bible is true?

There have been thousands of religions throughout time in the world, and thousands of stories people have told about how the world came to be. They are all very different. A lot of them are a lot older then the Bible. Here is just a small list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Why should I believe in your creation story over any of the other ones (especially since the Bible itself contains two different creation myths gathered from two different cultures).

And humans are still evolving. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....till-evolving/

If that is the case where are the very close almost humans? And where are the almost humans that are not human any more. What are we 'evolving into, so that we are no longer human?

There many creation myths , and you can add a couple more, abiogenesis, and 'evolution'. ( created by the scientists)


There is something else, you should think about.
The reason abiogenesis or any other theory like that, was because, the 'evolution' theory can not explain the start to life. So some theory had to be made up. But even the ones the scientists have, do not explain life.

So what you have is a theory ... 'evolution' that has no real evidence for it. Demanding another theory to explain how 'evolution' could get started. The interesting thing is that the 'evolution' theory has to have, by, it's own 'workings' needs a start to life that is not creation. This is called circular thinking.
The reason this is so is that if creation had part in the start to life, you have to find the creator for that, and you would have to find out if all the life we see was programmed into that first bit of life.
But that is not the 'evolution' the scientists are promoting now.

So where is the rational thinking of the Scientists?

But this very rational for creation.

[Samuel Coleridge]

Re: God HATES Rational Thinking!

Abiogenesis, the theory is getting closer to creation all the time.

I would say it's quite the opposite. Many more Christians are accepting evolution and that the earth is billions of years old in the face of overwhelming evidence.

.We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children..."

Researchers who supports the teaching of evolution, say: It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first. RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

The statement was dogs always produce dogs. In your statement you agreed with that. But there is a large variety of dogs.

Take the example of the zebra, horse and donkey. They can still interbreed, but their offspring are almost always sterile.

They were at one time the same species.

For crying out loud. Humans still have the remnant of a vestigial tail. We still have the same number of teeth as other primates though our mouth no longer fits them all (wisdom teeth). We are one of the very few creatures on the planet that cannot produce its own vitamin c.