Jesus is a Fabrication! discussion

12 views
Family Drama meets Murder Mystery- Giveaway

Comments Showing 1-50 of 60 (60 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) We are giving away Someone to Blame by C.S.Lakin. It was the winner of the 2008 Zondervan Fiction Contest, and is a wonderfully complex Drama Mystery.

In the wake of heartrending family tragedies, Matt and Irene Moore move with their fourteen-year-old daughter, Casey, to a small town. Their goal is to get far away from the daily reminders that leave each of them raw and guilt-ridden. Their hope is to find redemption, repair, and renewal. Instead, the threads that hold them together unravel even more. Breakers, a small community perched on the rocky coast of the Pacific Northwest, is draped with cold isolation that seems to mirror the hearts. As they settle into their new life, old grief settles with them. Matt is always on edge and easily angered, Irene is sad and pensive, and Casey is confused and defiant. They've once more set the stage for calamity. Into this mix comes Billy Thurber, a young drifter with his own conflicts, whose life unexpectedly entangles with the Moores'. His arrival in Breakers parallels a rash of hateful and senseless crimes, and soon the whole town -- eager for someone to blame -- goes after Thurber with murderous intent. Out of this dangerous chaos, however, the Moores find unexpected grace and healing in a most unlikely way. Author C. S. Lakin explores our need to assign reason and fix blame for the pain and grief in our lives. Though the circumstances are fictional, the emotions are real and universal, making Someone to Blame a great and inspiring read.

Come leave a comment for C.S.Lakin on her interview, and win a signed paperback copy.

http://www.christian-fiction-book-rev...

Regards,
John Hileman
Managing Editor


message 2: by Nathan (new)

Nathan You certainly want to give away a lot of crap. And for that, we thank you.


message 3: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) You have quite a wit.


message 4: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Coming from a guy who consistently runs away from discussions with me, that doesn't mean too much.


message 5: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) I've been busy, and there was the whole, "you getting kicked off Goodreads" thing. I don't believe I've ever run away from an argument. There is no need. You are arguing with God not me. And I'm not afraid of being wrong. I don't claim to know everything. I've just been blessed to come to know some profound truths.


message 6: by Nathan (new)

Nathan I've just been blessed to come to know some profound truths.

The same truths that other people of other religions claim to know. Of course, they claim to know things that conflict with your religious beliefs and know them in the exact same way you claim to know them. Hmmmmm.....interesting. So how did you come to know these profound truths? And what are they?


message 7: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) The bottom line is this, Nathan. God chooses to not slide the clouds apart, and reveal Himself to us, because he does not want us to come to him in fear. And we would-- that's just how we are. God would rather unfold history as he has. Allow us to live in our sins, and send a light into the world (that would be Jesus). Those who love the light don't care if it is true or not, they love Him. The miraculous thing is, when I came to the decision that I wanted know Jesus, God opened up all of the hidden secrets I had missed all along. It was as if scales had fallen from my eyes. Until you make that decision, you will fight with me till your dying breath, and I'm not going to take that journey with you. No amount of evidence will quench the mistrust and bitterness you have toward God. Now before you get mad at me, I say this because that is how I felt (that is how many agnostics feel). I hated God because he wouldn't confirm his presence. He wouldn't confirm the Bible as the "only" truth. He wouldn't take away my need for faith. And I hated him for that. I think perhaps you can relate-- maybe I'm wrong.

So don't expect I will spend hours laboring over every little scientific proof with you, because I simply can't break the spell of doubt that has its grip on you. I will however, tackle one question at a time, as I am able. If you are patient, and keep from swearing at me, perhaps we'll work some things out.

Now fight the urge to write a dissertation on my opening statements (because that's what I would have done) and let's tackle one major and helpful topic.


Mitochondrial DNA. We all came from one mother. Scientists have finally come to the conclusion that they cannot deny the existence of a common Y Chromosome that binds all humans. I believe scientists wrongly use established dating theories to conclude that Eve lived 200,000 years ago, but they have rightly calculated the connection between people groups. What are your thoughts? Do you believe we all came from one mother?

Here is an article from National Geographic. I reliable secular science journal. Again, I think their numbers are way off, but they have a lot of things right.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...

Regards,
John Hileman


message 8: by Nathan (last edited Sep 13, 2010 06:11PM) (new)

Nathan God chooses to not slide the clouds apart, and reveal Himself to us, because he does not want us to come to him in fear.

That makes no sense. How would knowledge of his existence make us afraid? Wouldn't knowledge simply make us informed? What kind of God wants us to make an uninformed decision?

Those who love the light don't care if it is true or not, they love Him.

So you don't care if Jesus really is the son of God or not?

Until you make that decision, you will fight with me till your dying breath, and I'm not going to take that journey with you.

Well, the problem is, I did make that decision a long time ago. I was a believer, if you recall. I then made a decision later. That decision was to follow evidence, logic, and rationality.

No amount of evidence will quench the mistrust and bitterness you have toward God.

I have neither. I cannot have bitterness or mistrust for something or someone that does not exist. That is like saying I have bitterness and mistrust towards Santa Clause. It is ridiculous.

I hated God because he wouldn't confirm his presence.

Agnostics and atheists cannot feel this way. Only someone who already believes in God can feel this way. That is rather obvious.

So don't expect I will spend hours laboring over every little scientific proof with you, because I simply can't break the spell of doubt that has its grip on you.

Doubt is a good thing. It keeps you from becoming a credulous fool. I think it is rather a spell that is over you. The spell of wishing and wanting. That makes you believe things that cannot possibly be true and for which there is no reason to believe they are.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe we all came from one mother?

I don't think it matters. Let's say I do. Okay, what would that prove? It would certainly be in line with evolutionary theory. Do you think that means that Eve is real? Here is the real problem. You, like many other Christians, are willing to accept science when it suits you. You say, "I believe science when they say we have a common mother ancestor because it lets me believe Genesis is true. However, I do not believe science when it says she lived 200,000 years ago because it does not let me believe Genesis is true." Okay, great. So what exact criteria do you use for accepting one aspect of the findings while dismissing the other? I know the answer already. You dismiss what you don't like and accept what you like. Pretending that is science or that you have an interest in science is being fraudulent.


message 9: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) There are always a thousand rabbit holes. :)

1. Yes. You would be afraid. God is perfectly holy and you and I are not. He is big and awesome and so far above who we are. The only reason you do not fear him, is because you don't know him. I'm not going to debate the point further. That's pretty much my case.

2. "So you don't care if Jesus really is the son of God or not?" Of course I care. The difference between you and me is I don't demand God prove it to me. I accept his methods. He want me to love him for what he has revealed about himself ... and I do. When I chose to give up my need for proof, God healed my marriage, he healed my bitterness, he healed my children, he healed some friendships. If he is imaginary ... I'm fine with that. :) I'm finally living the life I wanted, but was to bitter at God to attain as an agnostic.

3. Your journey is a personal one. I'm not going to comment on it, because I don't know your specific struggle with church. But I will tell you this, if you had come to truly know Jesus, you would not have departed from the faith.

4. Remind me that you don't believe in God when you are gasping for your last mortal breath, and I'll believe you. You think you are saving us Christians from a life of mental bondage, but the truth is, you frequent these forums to convince yourself of the reality you've chosen to believe. If you can prove Christians wrong, then you must be right, and therefore not in danger of judgment.

5. Agnostics believe you cannot know for sure God exists. But that belief is also their bane. They want to know. They demand to know. But God refuses. And that makes Agnostics very frustrated. Atheists are a different breed. Your statement, "wouldn't knowledge simply make us informed" says it all. You think by denying "what you would consider" adequate proof of his existence, God proves himself to not be real, because, after all, it only makes sense that if he was real, he would do this. God says clearly in his word, that we shall grope for him. Jesus says, "I speak in parables". God gives us every opportunity to "not believe", because he wants people who love him and who love his ways, to be with him in Heaven. I can't make it any clear than that. We may just have to agree to disagree.

6. That is a matter of opinion, and you have a right to yours. I honor that.


Okay. Now for the subject I wanted to debate. First off, if we all have one mother, evolution cannot possibly be true. How could billions of evolving organisms result in one genetic human female?

As for the dating issue. I don't choose what I want to believe and throw away what I don't. The timelines referred too in the article do not relate to DNA markers, they are derived from other bias ridden theories like : the geologic column and carbon dating. The geologic column doesn't exist in its entirety except in a few place on the Earth, and from what I understand, some of the layers are swapped. The strata we find around the Earth is not the result of billions of years, but was formed instead, by a world-wide flood in a very short time.

And here is a website for the Carbon dating thing ... I've gotta get some shut eye.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/artic...


message 10: by Nathan (last edited Sep 14, 2010 01:01PM) (new)

Nathan There are always a thousand rabbit holes.

Yes, because there tend to be in things that are illogical. Christianity is similar to conspiracy theories in that way. They try to explain things in an overly complex, nonsensical way.

1. Yes. You would be afraid.

Here is the problem. People believe in God and are not afraid. So it is irrelevant. They think they know he exists, and yet they are not afraid. Your logic is not sound on this one.

The only reason you do not fear him, is because you don't know him. I'm not going to debate the point further. That's pretty much my case.

Again, your argument falls apart. I never feared him when I believed in him and many people who believe in him do not fear him now.

The difference between you and me is I don't demand God prove it to me.

How silly. If someone told you your wife or girlfriend was cheating on you, I bet you would demand proof. Yet in this situation you are okay with none. It might be difficult for your friend to come up with proof of the affair, but it should be rather easy for God to come up with that which you or I would consider proof. Yet he does not. Hmmmm....either this is because he is very poor with logic or because he isn't there at all. I don't believe in him. He knows what it would take for me to believe in him and it would be simple for him to provide it, but he doesn't do so. Bad God... Bad God... Go to your room!

He want me to love him for what he has revealed about himself ... and I do.

Yet you have no evidence that he revealed anything about himself. Perhaps he healed your marriage, or perhaps you did that yourself. I am glad to hear it is working out. However, convincing yourself that it had anything to do with something outside of your hard work and dedication when there is no evidence of such is a bit of a waste.

But I will tell you this, if you had come to truly know Jesus, you would not have departed from the faith.

The first thing you have said that actually made me mad. It makes me mad because you assume I didn't believe in Jesus with the same dedication that you do now. I did. I just smartened up. And to pretend that you had an inside track on the knowledge of Jesus while I was just swaying in the breeze is presumptuous. Did God not love me enough? Did he love you more than me? Am I just not as important as you? I gave God a shot for many years. You saying I just didn't truly come to know him is asinine. The real difference is that I stopped believing in fairytales while you kept believing in them.

Remind me that you don't believe in God when you are gasping for your last mortal breath, and I'll believe you.

I think it would be odd that you were there while I was dying, but if you are I will. This is another thing I hate about Christians. The "Oh, you'll see. You'll see." It is unfortunate because I really am upset when I realize Christians will never get to see how wrong they are.

Besides, even if I was scared and wanted to turn to religion when I was on my death bed, it would still be out of fear. It wouldn't be out of rationality, logic, evidence, science or any other reason. Just fear. That is what religion does a good job at. Scaring people into believing its nonsense.

You think you are saving us Christians from a life of mental bondage, but the truth is, you frequent these forums to convince yourself of the reality you've chosen to believe.

You have no idea why I choose to frequent them. Instead of assuming, you could ask. I frequent them because I like to argue. When arguing, I like to be right. There is nothing I am more sure of than the fact that religion is nonsense. So I argue mostly in religious groups.

If you can prove Christians wrong, then you must be right, and therefore not in danger of judgment.

Actually the burden of proof is on Christians. They are the ones making the claim for which there is no evidence. It is simple logic, really. I have no fear whatever that I am wrong and certainly to not believe that I will be judged after death.

Agnostics believe you cannot know for sure God exists.

You are labeling an entire group of people and doing so incorrectly. Agnostics say they do not know one way or the other and think it is impossible to know. Most atheists are also agnostics. The terms are not mutually exclusive. There is no extra desire of a wanting to know. Some do, some don't.

You think by denying "what you would consider" adequate proof of his existence, God proves himself to not be real, because, after all, it only makes sense that if he was real, he would do this.

God knows what adequate proof would be, yet he does not provide it. Makes sense that he is either a jerk because of this or that he can't provide it because he does not exist.

God gives us every opportunity to "not believe", because he wants people who love him and who love his ways, to be with him in Heaven.

People can't love him if they don't believe in him. That is idiotic. If I believe in him and still do not love him, that is different. However, I must first be able to believe in him. Much like Satan was given a choice. He knew God existed but he chose not to follow him. Why are we not given the same option? Why? Because that story is a myth and God does not exist.

First off, if we all have one mother, evolution cannot possibly be true. How could billions of evolving organisms result in one genetic human female?

What? Ummmm...your logic is off here. Evolution completely explains that. Things evolve. One human female is the first human female that results from evolution. Before her was something like a human female, but not quite and after her, were many human females.

Lastly, dating is not done through carbon dating alone. There is a thing called radiometric dating. Check your facts. The fact that you reference a source like Answers in Genesis is enough evidence that you are somewhat credulous. Answers in Genesis admits up front that it will not believe anything that goes against the Bible and will dismiss any scientific evidence that goes against the Bible. They are not scientific. They reject science when they don't like it. They admit this freely. Hence they do not do science. Enough said.


message 11: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) I'm going to fight the urge to run around the table with you on the topic of "belief". I've already made my case on each point, and to continue would be an exercise in frustration for both of us.

You yourself have said, we are all transitional species, correct? That means, we are all evolving, right? If we are all evolving, does it make sense that only one modern day female would emerge through natural selection? Wouldn't one sprout up in Africa, another in Brazil, and so on? Why would millions of evolving apes only give way to one human? And how does this happen? Does the one human woman travel to Asia to find the one human man-- so they can have babies that can be reproduced? If a horse mates with a donkey, they can produce a mule, but it cannot reproduce. It is born sterile. If one woman is produced by two mating monkeys, who will the woman mate with? Not quite human monkeys? Kind reproduces according to kind. What do you think, on this topic?


message 12: by Nathan (new)

Nathan If we are all evolving, does it make sense that only one modern day female would emerge through natural selection?

Yes. It makes sense that one would emerge as the modern day female.

Wouldn't one sprout up in Africa

That is where the first one "sprouted up."

Why would millions of evolving apes only give way to one human?

First, they weren't apes. They were ape-like creatures. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. Our common ancestor was not an ape. That wouldn't make sense. But yes, these ape-like creatures would have evolved. Evolution is a long process and it isn't like each member of a particular species goes through the same process of evolution as another. This is what kills me about the Christians who don't accept evolution; they don't actually know what evolution is, how it works, what it claims, or what it means to science. Instead, they and you dismiss it because they don't like it and it doesn't match up to a silly belief in a mythological storybook.

Does the one human woman travel to Asia to find the one human man-- so they can have babies that can be reproduced?

http://ncse.com/evolution/science/evo...

I am sure you won't peruse this article on the explanation of where races came from, but I still gave it a shot.

If a horse mates with a donkey, they can produce a mule, but it cannot reproduce. It is born sterile.

Yup. That is a horse and a donkey. Not all species work that way.

If one woman is produced by two mating monkeys, who will the woman mate with? Not quite human monkeys? Kind reproduces according to kind. What do you think, on this topic?

I can't answer the question because you don't understand the basics of evolution. Two monkeys didn't give birth to a human. I mean, even a small child can understand that. Evolution is a gradual process. Members of the same species can experience evolutionary change without becoming a new species. The change from one species to another is one that takes millions of years and that terminology is a bit of a misnomer.

Read the article above. It is written by an actual scientist, unlike your Answers in Genesis website which is written by...well, a guy who doesn't know much about anything. And really, who needs more evidence on that very website than Ken Ham himself? Tell me that guy doesn't look like a caveman with a suit on....ha ha.


message 13: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) "Yup. That is a horse and a donkey. Not all species work that way."

Can you give me an example? What species don't work that way? What species can mate and have children with the ability to reproduce?

"Humans and apes have a common ancestor"

Can you show me an article that states how Mitochondrial DNA proves the existence of a common Y Chromosome between apes and humans? What is this Common Ancestor you speak of?


message 14: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Can you give me an example? What species don't work that way? What species can mate and have children with the ability to reproduce?

I didn't word this very well. What I meant was that you look at it the wrong way. Things of different species now had common ancestors. When the common ancestors mated, they produce offspring that vary from one another but are not yet different enough from the same species to be called a different species. That takes time. the progressive changes of animals do not disallow mating and reproduction.

Can you show me an article that states how Mitochondrial DNA proves the existence of a common Y Chromosome between apes and humans? What is this Common Ancestor you speak of?

There is a great article on this, but I am having trouble finding it. I know it was written by Eugenie Scott as she was involved with the Dover case against Intelligent Design.

Here is the answer she gave but written by someone else. This is essentially the answer.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_huma...


message 15: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) "When the common ancestors mated, they produce offspring that vary from one another but are not yet different enough from the same species to be called a different species."

But, Nathan, there is no fossil record of any varying species. There is no variance in any species that is not part of that species DNA programming. DNA states what a thing will be. It is a complex organic language, which tells living things what they are. This code is complete at birth. If you are born a rabbit, you are a rabbit. There are different kinds of rabbits, but none of them have antlers. The DNA for a rabbit does not allow for antlers. (or even the beginning signs of the possibility of antler producing follicles to ever form in some distant genetically changing rabbit.) I put that last part in there so you would know that I understand what Evolution is. o.O Every creature is subject to the DNA blueprint inside them.


Ok. Now on to broken GULO genes. My answer to that is ... seriously??? :)

the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene does not prove common ancestry, it proves common design. Y Chromosomes are connected to heredity. I am the son of my mother, and the Y Chromosomes proves that. a shared and broken L-gulonolactone gene, does not prove ancestry-- It proves common design. To say it proves common ancestry is like saying, a bat wing looks like a big hand with webbed fingers, that means humans and apes share a common ancestor. They don't. But they do share a common designer.

But what about the fact that the GULO is broken? Why would a designer make a broken GULO? He didn't. God created everything perfect, and then sin entered the world and broke it. God did not design death. Sin brought death.

And on the subject of death. I can never understand for the life of me how science gravitates to the notion of positive mutations, and happy accidents? Everything is breaking down. The second law of thermodynamics clearly shows that we are in a state of entropy. It is much easier for things to break down into chaos. Yet the Evolutionist, being the eternal optimist that he is, happy theorizes that with enough time, and a grand number of happy accidents, we can develop from a single celled organism into a complex reproducing human.

The difference between you and I, Nathan, is that you believe a box of Popsicle sticks is dumped over enough times, it will eventually fall in such a way, that a log house will form. I believe that no matter how many times you dump the box, it's going to be a pile of Popsicle sticks. (I say this tongue in cheek. It is only a word picture. I don't really believe you think this. But I do believe that you put your trust in the wisdom of man, whereas I believe you would be better served to put your trust in the wisdom of God.) God's stupidest thought is smarter than man's most brilliant.


message 16: by Nathan (new)

Nathan But, Nathan, there is no fossil record of any varying species.

This is true...well, except for the fact that every fossil found is of a varying species. Every species is a transitional form unless it is a form that went extinct.

There is no variance in any species that is not part of that species DNA programming. DNA states what a thing will be.

You have heard of mutations right? I mean, spend a little time getting a flu shot this year. Want to know why you have to get it? Because flu viruses evolve as a result of genetic mutation.

I put that last part in there so you would know that I understand what Evolution is.

Obviously you do not.

the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene does not prove common ancestry, it proves common design.

Ugh... No, it proves common ancestry. If God is a designer, he is the worst architect on the block. All the mistakes of design only make sense in the light of the fact that they weren't mistakes in design, but rather effects of evolution.

To say it proves common ancestry is like saying, a bat wing looks like a big hand with webbed fingers, that means humans and apes share a common ancestor. They don't. But they do share a common designer

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child who believes in Santa Clause. I can give mounds and mounds of evidence for why it was your parents who put the presents under the tree on Christmas Eve, but you continue to say, "Nope. Santa did it!" You pretend to be interested in science and evidence, but the reality is that you don't care at all. You don't like things that refute God's existence. Unfortunately for you, everything refutes God's existence. Even the concept of a Christian God refutes its own existence because the God as Christians view him is an impossibility.

God created everything perfect, and then sin entered the world and broke it. God did not design death. Sin brought death

Wow, sin breaks genes now? WTF? Really? That is the best you have? This argument is getting more and more pathetic.

So God designed everything perfect, but when I point out something that is supposedly his design that isn't perfect (like the coat of fur infants grow in the womb and then shed before birth or the gills they grow in the womb which serve to functional purpose), it is because sin somehow made God's design not perfect? You are pretty desperately grasping for anything you can, aren't you? Do you have no intellectual honesty?

And on the subject of death. I can never understand for the life of me how science gravitates to the notion of positive mutations, and happy accidents?

Odd that you can't understand the simplest concept in biology. I think you should stop getting flu shots. I really do. If you have gotten one in the past, then you should be immune now. Because if mutation doesn't lead to positive outcomes for the organism, then the flu virus must not be able to change and require new vaccines. Good luck with that.

Yet the Evolutionist, being the eternal optimist that he is, happy theorizes that with enough time, and a grand number of happy accidents, we can develop from a single celled organism into a complex reproducing human.

Yup, and every single piece of scientific evidence ever discovered on the subject backs up and supports that claim. Hmmmm.....

The difference between you and I, Nathan, is that you believe a box of Popsicle sticks is dumped over enough times, it will eventually fall in such a way...

No, the difference between you and I is that I trust science and evidence and you trust fairytales and feelings. The other difference is that you make logically fallible arguments. This one for instance:

1) The human body and life on earth is too complex to have happened without a designer.
2) Therefore it must have had a designer.
3) That designer must be God.

Now, I won't get into the fact that even if this were true, it still wouldn't imply who the designer was, but since it is logically invalid anyway, I will just discuss that. Your argument is that life is too complex not to have a designer. Yet, God, by definition, must be even more complex than the life he designed. So your argument falls apart. If you claim that God doesn't need a designer because he has always been, then you can't argue that complexity requires a designer. If you claim that complexity requires a designer, then you must explain where God's designer came from. Sorry, your logic is appalling.

But I do believe that you put your trust in the wisdom of man, whereas I believe you would be better served to put your trust in the wisdom of God

You don't put your trust and wisdom in God. You put it in man. You trust the Bible which was written by men. Your concept of Jesus being God came from whom? You sure didn't think it up yourself. You got that from man. Your idea that God is loving and designed Adam and Eve as the first man and woman came from man too. All your beliefs about god and what he is like come from men. You simply delude yourself into thinking they come from somewhere else.

God's stupidest thought is smarter than man's most brilliant.

This means absolutely nothing at all.


message 17: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) "You have heard of mutations right? I mean, spend a little time getting a flu shot this year. Want to know why you have to get it? Because flu viruses evolve as a result of genetic mutation."

This is micro evolution. Everyone knows micro evolution exists, it is provable in the lab. But Micro and Macro Evolution are entirely different concepts. Micro evolution is simply a variance within a species. One kind of creature has the ability to adapt in many ways. But they are not going outside of their genetic "kind".

Please show me one example of Macro Evolution. Show me one example of how an entire species is moving along, and suddenly two creature mate with each other, and the miracle of evolution produces a new kind from that union. I'm only asking for one example, Nathan. This is a pretty big world, with a lot of history and archeological evidence. There should be at least one example.


message 18: by Nathan (new)

Nathan This is micro evolution.

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. The terms were started by creationists when they could no longer deny the fact that evolution occurs in labs across the globe. "Macro" evolution is micro evolution over a longer period of time.

Please show me one example of Macro Evolution.

You. Neanderthals. Fish. Monkeys. Snakes. Birds. Oh man...I am going to run out of room.

Show me one example of how an entire species is moving along, and suddenly two creature mate with each other, and the miracle of evolution produces a new kind from that union.

As I have already explained, you don't understand evolution. Chickens don't one day give birth to puppies. The process is gradual. Every form is transitional. You remind be of the credulous Kirk Cameron. In a debate he said, "Look. You can't find me even one transitional form. Not one. You can't find me a species that is half way between one species and another. You can't find me a half crocodile and half duck out there. There are no crocoducks." He then says, "Sure you might point out the patypus. That looks half way between two animals. But I tell you, it isn't. God made the platypus that way." So even when presented with animals that meet his criteria, he still won't accept it. You are just like him. All the evidence in the world won't change your mind because you are blinded by the Jesus-juice that has been pumped into your brain. You don't have any interest in evidence at all, so I am unsure why you asked me for any.

Lastly, I can't help but notice taht you ignored the majority of my post. Do I take that to mean that you understand that I am right on all those points? I would like you to answer, if you don't mind, to my assertion that you have faulty logic when it comes to your complexity argument.


message 19: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) You said: "Lastly, I can't help but notice taht you ignored the majority of my post. Do I take that to mean that you understand that I am right on all those points?"

I don't have the abundance of free time you seem to be blessed with. I was attempting to stay on topic, and focus on the main question. I was beginning to see your point about how you would have no problem with there being one genetic Eve. I was looking to focus on that. However ...

You make a fair point on the topic of complexity. If I were only using complexity to prove intelligent design, I would agree with your position. But it is more than complexity-- it is a matter of conscious intent.

When you drop the Popsicle sticks, they will always end up in a pile. It takes intent to position the Popsicle sticks into a structure. We are constructed with conscious intent. I can't speak to the structure of God, because I have never seen him, but the human body is clearly designed by an intelligence. If you understand the laws of probability, and if you have ever studied Chaos theory, you would agree that life in its many shapes and forms defies statistical odds. If you saw a large face carved on the surface of the moon, you would say, someone must have done that. Yet when you look at your own face in the mirror, you have no problem believing it to be the result of random chance.

If I were a random blob, with no symmetry, and a third arm growing out of my chest, I would agree with you. I could then believe myself to be the result of random chaos over billions of years. But every living creature comes from a seed, and in that seed is DNA, and DNA is a language. That language, written by some form of intelligence, tells me what I will look like-- and that I will not look like a duck-- because I am human. It tells me that I will be a little like my father, and a little like my mother, and that I will have the appropriate number of organs in the appropriate configuration. If I do not, it is because of a genetic mutation, which is "always bad" and "always unreproducible". If I am born with 6 toes, my children will not have 6 toes. But if I am born with male pattern baldness, I will pass that hereditary gene on to my children-- baldness is part of the variance of what a human can be, six toes is not.


message 20: by Nathan (last edited Sep 17, 2010 04:48AM) (new)

Nathan I don't have the abundance of free time you seem to be blessed with.

Less to do with free time and more to do with intelligence.

When you drop the Popsicle sticks, they will always end up in a pile.

Here is the problem. We aren't talking about popsicle sticks.

We are constructed with conscious intent.

Really? Okay, then I just have a couple questions. Why does a fetus in the womb grow a coat of fur and then shed it before birth? It serves no purpose whatsoever. Why does a fetus grow gills in the womb? It doesn't need gills to breathe. Those serve no purpose either. Why did God design those? Why did God give us a vestigial tail? We don't use it for anything. Then there is the fact that when we see things with our eyes, our brain has to waste energy flipping the image over. This is a completely unnecessary function if God exists. Of course there is all the useless genes our DNA contain too. Why did God make DNA with genes that are turned "off"? All this useless genetic code in our DNA that our bodies don't use. God wouldn't include that, but it makes sense in light of evolutionary theory.

If you understand the laws of probability, and if you have ever studied Chaos theory, you would agree that life in its many shapes and forms defies statistical odds.

You cannot calculate odds from a sample size of one. However, let's pretend you are correct and the odds were against us all being here. Great. So what? That's the thing about odds. If you wait long enough, the thing that had the odds against it happens.

If you saw a large face carved on the surface of the moon, you would say, someone must have done that.

Only because rock doesn't procreate. It isn't alive. It can't reproduce and change due to genetic evolution.

If I were a random blob, with no symmetry, and a third arm growing out of my chest, I would agree with you.

That's just it. You still wouldn't say that. If you were a random blob, you would say, "Well, maybe if I wasn't a random blob with an arm growing out of my chest, I would say that you might be right." You think because that things are the way they are says something about a creator. What you fail to realize is that simply because they are the way they are does not mean that that is the only way it could have been. You could have ended up a blob, or a giant, or have three arms. In each case you would still be talking nonsense about God having created you.

If I do not, it is because of a genetic mutation, which is "always bad" and "always unreproducible".

The next ridiculous claim of the creationist. Except that, as I pointed out before, it is reproducible and positive every year for the flu virus. Hmmmm....


message 21: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Let me guess, J. is going to ignore all my questions?


message 22: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) Been busy, Nathan. Wish I could spend more time, but it's just not possible.

There is so much I want to say, but all I have time for is your statement on babies having gills.

If I'm not mistaken, that idea came from the now discredited work of Ernest Haeckle. Haeckle drew a number of pictures of embryos and made entirely too much of some physical features.

In fishes, the gill bars that all embryos have actually turn into gills. In mammals, the first gill bar becomes the lower jaw and ear structures, and the rest of the gill bars close up. Mammal embryos never have "gills" as such, though part of their head structure derives from the same starting point as fish gills.


message 23: by Nathan (new)

Nathan In fishes, the gill bars that all embryos have actually turn into gills. In mammals, the first gill bar becomes the lower jaw and ear structures, and the rest of the gill bars close up. Mammal embryos never have "gills" as such, though part of their head structure derives from the same starting point as fish gills.

All of my research perusing through articles on the Internet shows that embryos develop gill slits. Well, except for my research on creationist websites. They just say it is "all nonsense." At any rate, let's say that you are correct and that the slits form into the different parts of the jaw. Okay...what about the nice coat of fur developed in the womb? I mean, you answered one question, but not the rest. Why is that? Perhaps if you spent a little less time talking to yuourself with your hands crossed, you would have a little more time to defend your belief in creationism.


message 24: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) Hahahahahaaaa. Talking to myself with my hands crossed?

As for defending my beliefs, I am. I'm sorry it can't be on your timetable. None of your presuppositions takes much to refute, but there is an article on "lies in the textbooks" I would like to look at before addressing all of what you said.


message 25: by Nathan (last edited Sep 17, 2010 02:13PM) (new)

Nathan Hahahahahaaaa. Talking to myself with my hands crossed?

So you don't cross your hands when you pray?

None of your presuppositions takes much to refute

Only if you close your eyes, plug your ears and shout, "God is real, God is real! La la la la la!"

If they don't take much to refute, then why don't you refute them? You haven't addressed much of what I have said. I understand that some things you may wish to consult your creationism handbook before answering, but let's not pretend that you don't have time to refute things if they don't "take much to refute."

By the way, you are the one who makes presuppositions. I actually look at evidence and see what answer is most likely. You presuppose that God exists and then find the most ridiculous ways to explain away facts that refute such a claim. I don't presuppose. You do.

You know what you should do? Pray for God to help you answer these questions of mine in such a way that it will prove that he exists. Let's see if he helps.


message 26: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) The fur coat babies shed is not "useless". And it is, most certainly, not a hint or remnant of an apelike heritage. It is called lanugo, and this is what the University of Michigan Medical School has to say about it.

The fine hair on a newborn infant is known as lanugo. It helps to anchor vernix caseosa (“cheese-like varnish”), a waxy substance that protects the fetus from maceration by the amniotic fluid.

http://www.med.umich.edu/lrc/coursepa...


And that waxy cheese-like varnish ultimately protect the baby from scratching him or herself.


message 27: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) And for the record. If there were no identifiable use for such a fur, I would not have leapt to the conclusion that it was useless. There was a time when appendix and tonsils were considered useless throwaway organs. Now we know that they are a valuable part of our immune system.


message 28: by Nathan (new)

Nathan And that waxy cheese-like varnish ultimately protect the baby from scratching him or herself.

Good, good. So why is it there? It reminds me much of the horse in Animal Farm who talks about why he has a tail. Another animal says "why it is to swat the flies away with." He replies, "Well, if you got rid of the flies, you could get rid of my tail."

Why is the baby at risk of being scratched? Couldn't God just make it so the bay does scratch himself by, let's say, making his nails softer. Seems like a lot of expended energy to accomplish something that could have been easily accomplished another way.

Aslo, what is with male nipples? And the tailbone? And wisdom teeth? I mean, most people have to get their wisdom teeth yanked out? Why did God put those in there? And what about all that useless genetic code which is switched to "off"?

And here is some other good stuff for you:

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.n...


message 29: by Nathan (new)

Nathan If there were no identifiable use for such a fur, I would not have leapt to the conclusion that it was useless.

No, you'd jump to the conclusion that "Jesus did it for a reason!"


message 30: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. One of the most mentioned is the coccyx. My answer to this is ... seriously??? Is that the best you can do? How about why do men have nipples? Why do Ostriches have wings? If you want to push the vestigial topic, go for the gold baby!

Here is my answer: common design.

An ostrich is a bird, and thus it carries the characteristics of a bird. To say wings on a flightless bird are vestigial is foolish, because they have musculature. They don't just hang there useless. Flightless birds use their wings for all kinds of things: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the ribcage during falls, mating rituals, scaring predators, sheltering of chicks, etc.

The same is the case with male and female humans. The embryo has a template: Humans get nipples. A woman's nipples just happen to have a far more useful functionality.

Men and women both start off with an identical sexual organ, but as they develop, they become very different.

Like "kinds" have similar design. And if flightless birds did have useless wings, I would think it do to a "loss of genetic information" and not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution.


message 31: by Nathan (last edited Sep 17, 2010 03:46PM) (new)

Nathan My answer to this is ... seriously??? Is that the best you can do? How about why do men have nipples? Why do Ostriches have wings?

I did ask about nipples. You can read, right?

The same is the case with male and female humans. The embryo has a template: Humans get nipples. A woman's nipples just happen to have a far more useful functionality.

You didn't answer the question except to lend support to evolution. It makes sense evolutionarily that men and women have nipples. Nipples harm none and, therefore, were not selected out for men. And they serve a purpose in women. But God doesn't need to use a common template. He can make men and women completely different. Even from scratch if he likes. Your argument falls apart when simply analyzing your own words.

And wisdom teeth...you said nothing about those. Do you still have your wisdom teeth? I don't. Mine had to be removed. You know, like millions of other people.


message 32: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) I was writing my post when you posted yours. I hadn't read it. But I find it funny that you went straight for the nipple argument. Good job.


message 33: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Funny? Not really. And I countered your ridiculous argument that God needs a template. Is he like a production plant? You know, like when the different car models have the empty spots where cruise control can be put it because it is cheaper to make all stearing wheels the same at first and add changes later.


message 34: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) I'd like to go way back to how you were wrong about gills and baby fur. *thinks nostalgically* Those were good times.


message 35: by Nathan (last edited Sep 17, 2010 10:40PM) (new)

Nathan I'd like to go way back to how you were wrong about gills and baby fur. *thinks nostalgically* Those were good times.

So you don't have answers for very simple questions? I guess your Jesus ain't all he is cracked up to be. By the way, I wasn't wrong about the gills. Perhaps I was wrong about the fur, but even so, you can't answer the simple point that the fur is still pointless. It's like God giving a knight an extremely sharp sword to practice with before he is even able to use it for fighting. Because he has this dangerous sword, he must also wear heavy armor to protect himself. But wait...if God just gave him a dull sword, he could avoid giving him the armor. So why did God give these little babies pointless fur armor? Let me guess....no answer? Of course not. Why? Because your head is chock full o' Jesus juice.

All my supposedly easy to refute questions and you, who supposedly has all this inner knowedge of the universe, doesn't have any answers. How unimpressive. If you are on God's side for his defense, he needs better defenders.


message 36: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) I don't drink Jesus Juice; I prefer Mountain Dew. That having been said, I don't find it helpful to argue with you about whether or not God's design is up to your exacting standards. I give you fact, and you give me opinion. My facts are: babies do not have gills in the womb- they are not gills nor do they function like gills, and the fur- as you call it- is not useless it has a use. You come back with, "God's way of doing things is stupid, therefore there is no God." And then you call me stupid, because I don't answer your questions fast enough. I think maybe you need a little self reflection. You require a lot from others. Are you like this with your family?

Oh, and for the record, you're critically wrong if you think God needs to defend himself against the insignificant accusations of mortal man, and even more so, if you think he need me to plead His case.


message 37: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) As an example of why would shouldn't take this road you seem bent on traversing, I will give you my "opinion" of wisdom teeth, and so called "useless" genetic code that is turned off in our DNA. (I really wish I could be in the room to see your head spin around on your neck when I tell you this)

Before the fall of man, we were created perfect. All of our DNA was switched on, and useful. After the fall, it was necessary to shut some things off. We live in a fallen, broken, world. Everything God created has had to adapt to sin and entropy. I could write a thesis on the importance of God's words in the old testament where he said, "man shall work by the sweat of his brow all the days of his life." It sounds like a punishment or judgement, but as with all things God does, it was also vital for our good. We MUST work in order to combat the effects of sin, so that we may live as high a quality of life as we are able to live. If we do not work, we succumb to the effects of sin and entropy, and enter into a slothful misery filled state of existence.

The reason wisdom teeth don't fit properly, is because we are no longer the size we were before the flood.

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/pic...

Okay, now all of that is opinion. I would prefer to talk facts. I'll send some things your way tonight-- that's assuming your head hasn't exploded from the frustration of reading this post.


message 38: by Nathan (last edited Sep 18, 2010 07:42PM) (new)

Nathan That having been said, I don't find it helpful to argue with you about whether or not God's design is up to your exacting standards.

They aren't my standards. They are the standards of logic and the standards of what a perfect God would do. Perfect Gods don't make mistakes. And they certainly don't make so many.

And then you call me stupid, because I don't answer your questions fast enough.

Really? Here I am looking through my posts and I can't find a spot where I called you stupid. Huh...imagine that.

Are you like this with your family?

Intelligent? Yeah, I am intelligent with everyone.

Oh, and for the record, you're critically wrong if you think God needs to defend himself against the insignificant accusations of mortal man, and even more so, if you think he need me to plead His case.

I think that is true. How could he need that? He doesn't exist.

I really wish I could be in the room to see your head spin around on your neck when I tell you this

Yeah, my head will spin about as much as it did the first time I read The Cat in the Hat. I do so love fictional stories.

All of our DNA was switched on, and useful. After the fall, it was necessary to shut some things off.

What? Holy crap. You are absolutely out of your mind. Why would God need to use DNA? Doesn't he have magic so he can make people without it? And even if he decided to use DNA, he could just make the DNA get rid of all that "dead" code. COuldn't he do that?

I could write a thesis on the importance of God's words in the old testament where he said, "man shall work by the sweat of his brow all the days of his life."

You sure could. It would be about as valuable as an invisible picture.

We MUST work in order to combat the effects of sin, so that we may live as high a quality of life as we are able to live.

Really? Why did God create sin then? I mean, he created everything right? He could have just made a world without sin. Adam and Eve could not have sinned if sin did not already exist as a concept. That concept must have been created by God. Why is God so mean?

The reason wisdom teeth don't fit properly, is because we are no longer the size we were before the flood.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! You creationists sure do try hard. I will give you that. It makes no sense, of course because the bone in the photo isn't even real. Sure they claim they found one, but ummm...where is it? Anyway, if a person were actually that big, our mouths with wisdom teeth intact would be far too small! The mouth and teeth wouldn't be big enough. So either the teeth shrank too, and it still doesn't make sense that wisdom teeth don't fit, or there never were giants and it doesn't make sense that the wisdom teeth don't fit.


message 39: by Nathan (last edited Sep 19, 2010 06:37PM) (new)

Nathan I don't find it helpful to argue with you about whether or not God's design is up to your exacting standards.

Almost forgot this. You making a statement like this is the equivalent of this conversation:

Bob: "Why the heck did you just push Jane off of the cliff so that she smashed her head on a rock and died?"

Bill: "God designed that rock so that it was perfectly pointed so that it could crack open a human head like a hammer cracking a walnut. I pushed Jane so it would fulfill God's plan."

Bob: "What? Why would God design a rock just so it could crack human heads open? Why would Jane's head being split open by that rock be part of his plan?"

Bill: "Who are you to question God's plan?!?!?!?"


Kate (theshortone) (katetheshortone) Sorry but I don't get this conversation if you love Jesus than you should follow His example...as in try not to sin, do not start criticizing people (I hardly ever fulfill this...we all sin)....and if you beilieve in Jesus you must believe in the Bible or you would think Jesus was an ordinary man or a myth.


message 41: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Sorry but I don't get this conversation

You don't need to, but I do not believe in Jesus or God.


message 42: by John (new)

John Hileman (johnmichaelhileman) Yeah. Nathan's an atheist. We are working on that.


message 43: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Yeah. Nathan's an atheist. We are working on that.

Keep on truckin'.


Kate (theshortone) (katetheshortone) Why are you a mod then? Let me guess you became mod. so you can never get deleted and so you can delete others? Or did you bcome a mod since no one else was one.


message 45: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Why are you a mod then? Let me guess you became mod. so you can never get deleted and so you can delete others? Or did you bcome a mod since no one else was one.

The original mod left the group and there was no mod. I thought I would become the mod so that the group would have one.


Kate (theshortone) (katetheshortone) Well why are you even on his group?


message 47: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Well why are you even on his group?

Why are you?


Kate (theshortone) (katetheshortone) Because I love Jesus of course. But why are you?


message 49: by Nathan (new)

Nathan Because I love Jesus of course. But why are you?

But that isn't really an answer. Many people love Jesus, but they aren't required to join a group called "We Love Jesus." So why did you join?


Kate (theshortone) (katetheshortone) Um...because I love jesus its the logial step to join a group called I Love Jesus.....and I want to tell other people on here about it.. And yes those people don't have to join it but I did so it is still a real answer....I wasn't required to join yet I did.


« previous 1
back to top