Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2
- Status
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
hedonistic... walking through the right
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Oooh s**t.....you let me down
- May 1, 2016
- 28,746
- 55,988
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #8,353
Banana argument
The banana argument is a specific teleological argument for theism based on the form and function of natural objects — specifically in this case the banana. According to Ray Comfort, the banana is "the atheist's nightmare", as he considers its ease of use, nutritional value, and "colour-coding"...
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
try and quell my passion.. it is hard but we Hawks aint got much more to go for...
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Didn't Ray Comfort use the fact that a banana fits perfectly in his hand as evidence of god?Banana argument
The banana argument is a specific teleological argument for theism based on the form and function of natural objects — specifically in this case the banana. According to Ray Comfort, the banana is "the atheist's nightmare", as he considers its ease of use, nutritional value, and "colour-coding"...rationalwiki.org
My penis fits perfectly in my hand too. Are penises an atheists worst nightmare?
- May 1, 2016
- 28,746
- 55,988
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #8,356
This got freudian real quick.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Nope. Don't plan to either.
I'm not opposed to watching intelligent debates/discussion with Christians involved. Ray Comfort is a joke.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I have a ****ed up imagination...so was picturing myself walking up to the pulpit and unzipping to prove that god is real.
- Banned
- #8,359
Anyone read this?
read.amazon.com.au
Thinking of getting it. Would appreciate your thoughts if you've read it.
Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design
Shared via Kindle. Description: What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola.<br />It all started when a student loaned the Finnish scientist a boo...
read.amazon.com.au
Thinking of getting it. Would appreciate your thoughts if you've read it.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
So many red flags come from a quick read of the link.Anyone read this?
Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design
Shared via Kindle. Description: What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola.<br />It all started when a student loaned the Finnish scientist a boo...
Thinking of getting it. Would appreciate your thoughts if you've read it.
If you don't understand the theory of evolution, I'm sure the arguments will sound convincing. Please read it and share your assessment here.
- Banned
- #8,361
I understand the theory. Studied it at University level as did many of the hundreds of scientists listed here .... https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/creation-museum/creation-scientists-and-teachers-comment/
Darwin’s theory of evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Birds and bananas, fishes and flowers - all related. Particles to people in a nutshell. The magic ingredient allowing all of these fantastical things to happen? Time .... and lots of it.
Understanding the theory is not an automatic death knell to faith. As I've relayed earlier in the thread there are other things capable of being far more injurious to one's faith.
Currently watching this video from the Talks at Google series. Quite interesting so far.
Last edited:
Historically and tragically that is not an irregular occurrence in houses of worship.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,746
- 55,988
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #8,363
What it does do, though, is (via the theory of Natural Selection) completely obviates any need for a creating force, which while not an automatic death knell for faith certainly undermines it considerably.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Have you tried praying?
Linking answers in genesis?!! Tell me more about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark...
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Come on everyone knows they’re only a few thousand years old. They mentioned beasts in some part of the bible and of course they were talking about dinosaurs. Now Noah was smart enough to take two of every 700 species of dinosaurs but of course they all died post the flood from disease and stuff.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Fundamentalist Christians who have tertiary qualifications in science are often intellectually dishonest in that they'll reinterpret data and scientific theories through the assumption that the bible is absolute truth and to be read with a literal interpretation. They're not viewing the evidence through an objective stance approached using a scientific mindset.
Have a read of the AIG mission statement and see for yourself.
- Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
- The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
- The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
- By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Didn't even have to scroll much.
M.C., Retired Physician, Researcher; M.D.—I have found that careful examination of quality scientific data supports a young earth creation model. Therefore, I believe creationists are the better teachers and scientists
LOL. People think one with a phd in physics automatically means he's a scientist, well ben carson is a scientist, deepak chopra is a scientist, plenty of scientists "validating" quoran as a scientific book as well etc etc. I am surprised people don't understand the difference between science and people calling themselves scientists.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
There are many tricks that fundies play which is a sure sign they're not interested in 'the truth' of which they claim ownership.
We all know that being a top AFL footballer doesn't automatically make you an expert in tennis, yet fundies don't seem to understand that a MD has little if any formal education in the theory of evolution.
Who believes in Young earth creation in this day and age, that should be right up there with flat earth. I wouldn't even call them dimwits, that will be an insult to dimwits.
I do. At least to an extent, anyway. I don't claim to know how old the earth is, how long ago anything became extinct, but no one else can reasonably make that claim either because we quite simply do not know. We can use tools, testing methods, all sorts of things to get an idea or an estimate but at the end of it all, no one really knows with certainty do they.
- Moderator
- #8,372
They can reasonably make a claim.
Geochronologists date fossils younger than around 50,000 years old using radiocarbon dating.
To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of isotopes such as potassium and carbon which occurs at known rates. Measuring isotopes typically involves lasers and mass spectrometers and sometimes even nuclear reactors. By examining the existing elements, geologists can calculate the initial quantity of a radioactive element, and how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock.
The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneiss in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. Rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion years. Samples from Western Australia are 3.4 billion to 3.6 billion years old.
Define 'certainty'. I would be suggesting that the empirical evidence for the earth being billions of years old is far stronger than a "young earth creation".
Well I'm not an expert on carbon dating so I'm not going to pretend to be and I can respectfully acknowledge that the people who specialise in those fields of science obviously know and understand a lot more than what I do, but I know that layering and things like that are used in some cases for estimating how long certain geographical or geological structures took to form but those methods don't allow for things like natural disasters - ie. something like Mount St Helens took a few hours to create the sort of geographical features that would by most scientific conventions take thousands or millions of years to form naturally.
- Moderator
- #8,374
In which case the natural radioactive decay of isotopes would be measured as minimal, indicating young, recently formed rock. There is NO scientific evidence in support of a "young earth creation."
Last edited:
That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
