Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

[Sentoguy]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
fleeben wrote:
It is amusing how every [insert religious sect here] sees themselves as the one true line of belief, handed down from [insert questionably historical prophet here] and everyone else as pretenders.

IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE POSSIBILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL BEING, YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECENT CREATION. PERIOD.

So do you basically believe that all the fossils in the ground were put there as a test of your faith? Philosophically speaking, there are very few things(if any) that you can absolutely know, but to use that as leverage for not accepting the truth of evolution is simply disingenuous(which means dishonest).

Um… I think you saw one line and then imagined a bunch of stuff that wasn’t in my post.

It is disingenuous (I hear that means dishonest) of the guy in the video to play to the religious people saying science canâ??t comment on god and that god is still a very real possibility, then say recent creation is disproven.
[/quote]

Not really. Saying that creation is disproven would be dishonest, or even saying that it’s proven that God didn’t create the universe would be dishonest. But saying that God didn’t didn’t create the earth 6,000 years ago, or that Genesis isn’t a literal account of the creation of the universe isn’t being dishonest as both have pretty much been disproven.

So, creationism hasn’t really been disproven (meaning God created the universe), but a literal “Creationism” in accordance with Genesis has been.

FACTUALLY, if you are going to assume what we know about physics to remain true going backwards in time (what he is doing with evolution), matter must have always existed. But then again, matter not having a cause also goes against scientific theory.

Why does it violate scientific theory?

The guy is essentially saying all matter poofing into existence as a singularity, then spontaneously (and scientifically impossibly) expanding outward forming the universe in its present state through the guidelines of invisible forces is a reasonable for all people including scientists to believe. BUT a bunny pooffing into existence, only an idiot could believe that.

I don’t recall him saying that the universe spontaneously poofed into existence. He actually mentioned several competing theories (including an infinite number of expanding and contracting “Big Bangs” and “Big Crunches”, a one time erruption from a string theorists dimensional rift, or even having been created by a super natural being/God).

What we do know for a fact though is that the universe is at present expanding, meaning that it was closer and closer together the further back in time we go. So, at some point, it’s a logical conclusion to believe that if we go back far enough all of the matter in the universe must have been very close together and that at some point something caused it to begin expanding.

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution though.

It is complete hypocrisy. Neither answer is any more logically legitimate.

Not really. And no, the idea that Genesis is a literal account of creation or that the earth is only 6,000 years old (which has no physical evidence to support it whatsoever) is not as legitimate as the theory of evolution which has huge amounts of evidence to support it.

[mattfelts]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
Ok…care to expand on that. Believe me i can see why one would be cynical to religion and the bible, but why specifically do you see it as a false doctrine.

Because people makes great claim about the origins of human ethics without searching for proof. If the Bible was such a great book of morals, we’d see unruly children and adulterers stoned to death. That’s why people picked it up in such huge numbers after Jesus, he preached (for the most part) kindness and tolerance and they glossed over the genocide. But they neglect that fact that the Old Testament is still meant to be followed.

How many of our laws actually came from the Bible? Where does the ability to cherry pick the good parts come from? Who even follows the 10 commandments?[/quote]

Actually to the Christian the Old Testament is not meant to be followed. You see the Old Testament or the “Old Covenant” is a collection of books that shows that we could never live up to the rules that God laid forth in the Ten Commandments, that was the point. The New Testament or the “New Covenant” is Jesus becoming the sacrifice that we could never be. He is the fullfilment of the Law.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Follow up: Sento, you or anyone else can’t “disprove” something, anything, that happened in the distant unobservable past. Have you not assimilated what Duce has been saying? Where do you come up with some of these grandiose ideas about certitude?
[/quote]

Plenty of evidence has been gathered to disprove the “young earth” model. You simply don’t seem to want to admit to any of it.

But again, let’s see some evidence to support it, and maybe you’ll have a foot to stand on.

Even if we want to assume that the numerous kinds of radioactive dating methods (which all produce a strikingly similar age for the earth and fossils) are flawed and that radioactive decay does not occur at a constant rate throughout time, we still have to admit that humans are a relatively young animal species in comparison to things like fish, reptiles, and crustacians. Yet, Genesis says that God created all three of those things on the same day, hence the literal interpretation of Genesis (what many define as “creationism” is false) has indeed been disproven.

And since we actually have proof of civilization existing longer than 6,000 years ago, it’s pretty safe to say that the earth itself is older than 6,000 years.

This is EXACTLY what I have been talking about all along. You (inadvertently) keep on keepin’ on when it comes to exhibiting faith. It’s uncanny.

All of what I have written is based on evidence and logical conclusions drawn from that evidence. No, that’s not the same thing as proving that those conclusions are the absolute truth, but it’s not “faith” either as there is evidence to support those conclusions.

Edit: In all fairness neither I nor other creationists can “disprove” evolution (again FTR we are talking evolution on a grand scale as I have been required to repeat ad nauseum) for the exact same reason I mentioned above. You can’t prove or disprove something that has never been observed or tested.

See, if it weren’t a valid theory though, then it could be disproven. That’s how science works. It comes up with methods to test logical hypotheses based on evidence to either validate or invalidate those hypotheses. If the tests come back showing that the hypothesis was wrong, then the theory is considered to be disproven. If it comes back showing that the hypothesis was right, then it is considered valid and more tests are done to either support or invalidate it.

Evolution isn’t a new theory, and since it’s introduction, the more evidence gained on the subject (from scientific fields like genetics, chemistry, taxonomy, paleontology, and biology) the stronger the theory becomes.

If it weren’t valid, then why does all of the evidence say that it is?

Again, post some evidence to support that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the creatures of this planet were created as is.

You CAN say that you believe it logical to extend the known credibility of adaptation to the unknown of macro-evolution. By the same token I can say it’s logical to me that it hasn’t happened in the past (or present). Neither one of us can truly claim “science is on my side, dummy,” when it comes to distantly historical, unobservable, untestable events that may or may not have happened.

You still seem to be under the incorrect impression that your “belief” that evolution didn’t happen holds the same weight as the huge amounts of objective evidence which supports that it does, has, and is.

Let’s see some evidence to support the theory of Creationism.

[quote]
Why can’t you be intellectually honest and concede this?

You know why.

F
A
I
T
H

and

D
O
G
M
A

won’t allow you.[/quote]

If real, objective evidence disproves the theory of evolution, then I will gladly admit that it is an invalid theory. Until then, all of the evidence seems to point to it being valid. That’s not the same thing as dogma though, nor does faith really have anything to do with it.

[fleeben]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Quick, explain a situation where causation is not self evident.

It has been confirmed and assumed by every experiment ever. When investigating ANYTHING in science it is always assumed there is a cause. If you don’t consider it self evident, you have to throw out all of science, which is essentially the pursuit of assigning cause to effect.
[/quote]

How about quantum entanglement? To be honest I think you would be hard pressed to find a single ‘cause’ in the actual universe, especially considering that causes of one event are rather fractal in nature(you could go down to the quantum level to look for them) and themselves are the effects of prior causes. I submit, as does science, I believe, that our ideas of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ are merely categories imposed on the natural world by our minds, and not an intrinsic part of nature itself.

All physics does is tell you how a system will (probably) evolve given [initial conditions] according to [set of physical laws].

[Sentoguy]

I hope my edit shows up on the above post, but if it doesn’t I apologize if I came across as hostile or condescending Push. It hasn’t been a great day and I let myself get little overheated while writing the original post. I don’t want this to degrade back into a name calling or mudslinging match, as at least recently I think we’ve actually been having some decent civil debate over this subject. I hope we can keep it going.

[Makavali]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
If real, objective evidence disproves the theory of evolution, then I will gladly admit that it is an invalid theory. Until then, all of the evidence seems to point to it being valid. That’s not the same thing as dogma though, nor does faith really have anything to do with it.[/quote]

This.

Faith is believing in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Let’s say I have “faith” pushy doesn’t lift. Let’s ignore the evidence to the contrary and rely on faith to back up that assertion.

Doesn’t work, does it? See even if I haven’t met you in real life push, I’d like to think I’ve seen enough “evidence” (by way of photos of your home gym, you lifting in them, and that remarkable strippers pole) to say, yes this man lifts (and is one lucky sonuvabitch). Evolution has more evidence than you can shake a stick at, and yet you deride it as “faith” and “dogma”.

Science relies on new evidence to back up or disprove existing theories, creationism is “right” because the Bible (a book written by Bronze Age stoners) says so.

[orion]

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
Makavali wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
Ok…care to expand on that. Believe me i can see why one would be cynical to religion and the bible, but why specifically do you see it as a false doctrine.

Because people makes great claim about the origins of human ethics without searching for proof. If the Bible was such a great book of morals, we’d see unruly children and adulterers stoned to death. That’s why people picked it up in such huge numbers after Jesus, he preached (for the most part) kindness and tolerance and they glossed over the genocide. But they neglect that fact that the Old Testament is still meant to be followed.

How many of our laws actually came from the Bible? Where does the ability to cherry pick the good parts come from? Who even follows the 10 commandments?

Actually to the Christian the Old Testament is not meant to be followed. You see the Old Testament or the “Old Covenant” is a collection of books that shows that we could never live up to the rules that God laid forth in the Ten Commandments, that was the point. The New Testament or the “New Covenant” is Jesus becoming the sacrifice that we could never be. He is the fullfilment of the Law. [/quote]

So an all knowing God creates beings and gives them laws he knows they wont be unable to follow.

After throwing one or two tantrums like drowning almost all of creation he begins to see that he kind of dropped the ball on that one, but cannot simply change the rules, oh no, he must be born as his own son so that by being tortured to death he can finally forgive us for his mistake and change the rules.

Gargl?

[mattfelts]

[quote]orion wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
Makavali wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
Ok…care to expand on that. Believe me i can see why one would be cynical to religion and the bible, but why specifically do you see it as a false doctrine.

Because people makes great claim about the origins of human ethics without searching for proof. If the Bible was such a great book of morals, we’d see unruly children and adulterers stoned to death. That’s why people picked it up in such huge numbers after Jesus, he preached (for the most part) kindness and tolerance and they glossed over the genocide. But they neglect that fact that the Old Testament is still meant to be followed.

How many of our laws actually came from the Bible? Where does the ability to cherry pick the good parts come from? Who even follows the 10 commandments?

Actually to the Christian the Old Testament is not meant to be followed. You see the Old Testament or the “Old Covenant” is a collection of books that shows that we could never live up to the rules that God laid forth in the Ten Commandments, that was the point. The New Testament or the “New Covenant” is Jesus becoming the sacrifice that we could never be. He is the fullfilment of the Law.

So an all knowing God creates beings and gives them laws he knows they wont be unable to follow.

After throwing one or two tantrums like drowning almost all of creation he begins to see that he kind of dropped the ball on that one, but cannot simply change the rules, oh no, he must be born as his own son so that by being tortured to death he can finally forgive us for his mistake and change the rules.

Gargl?[/quote]

The Subtle Danger of Legalism
Judaizers â?? it has an ominous tone to it, donâ??t you think? I can almost hear the theme from Jaws in the background as I write. Who are the Judaizers and what do they have to do with you?

They were the legalists of Paulâ??s day. They are the ones who came to the grace walking Christians at Galatia with a new slant on things. Their focus was all about behavior, about doing the â??right thingsâ?? that they contended were necessary to move forward in the Christian life.

Theirâ??s was a sinister and subtle plot against the church. The truth is that Christianity is Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less. Being a â??good Christianâ?? doesnâ??t revolved around a list of doâ??s and donâ??ts. Being a good Christian means understanding that Jesus Christ is our life and allowing him to live through us. The gospel, then, is a person named Jesus not a performance. Itâ??s a relationship, not a list of rules.

These Judaizers were sneaky. Their message came to the Galatians sounding something like this: â??Youâ??ve trusted Jesus Christ? Good for you! That is so important, but now you want to be a good Christian, donâ??t you? Hmm? Sure, you do. Well, the way you become a good Christian is to follow this list of rules that we want to give you â?? itâ??s Godâ??s Law and you have to keep these rules in order to really grow and move forward. Now that youâ??re saved youâ??ll want to get started right so weâ??re going to tell you the things you need to do in order to become a really strong and good Christian.â??
Like Paul, I find myself wanting to shout back through history into the Galatian church, â??Watch out! Run! Theyâ??re trying to fool you! Donâ??t fall for it!â??

Thatâ??s why Paul wrote the book of Galatians. He is shouting to them, â??No! A thousand times no! Christianity is not about rules! Christianity is about a person named Jesus. He is the only source and subject of the gospel. As you live out of your union with Him, your behavior will take are of itself. Donâ??t be deceived!â??

This same scenario, played out nearly two thousand years ago happens in churches all over the world today. People come to Christ. They love Him and live for Him as naturally as they breath. Then the religious mafia comes along and they are hit with legalism.

â??You must read your Bible,â?? they are told, â??every day!â?? â??You should tell your friends about Christ,â?? they hear. â??You ought to pray,â?? they are commanded, as if they arenâ??t already doing that.

Little by little, the new Christian finds that the actions which, until now, have been normal expressions of who he is becomes religious obligations, responsibilities that take on a different life than they have had until now. Actually, to be exact, they donâ??t take on a different life. Instead they begin to smell of death.

The new Christian who has all along been glorifying Christ through his behavior without even thinking about his behavior now stops focusing on Christ and starts focusing on his behavior. The face of Jesus fades into the background and a list of religious rules emerge as the focal point of the new Christianâ??s life, at which point the modern-day-Judaizers smugly pat each other on the back on move on in search of another victim.
In their wake they leave a mass of sincere believers who are now trying to achieve something they can never achieve â?? victorious Christian living. Victory in Christ can only be received by faith. It cannot, now or ever, be achieved by following the rules of legalistic lunacy.

Paul went after legalism with a vengeance. Listen to the strength of his words: â??I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospelâ?? (Galatians 1:6).

He didnâ??t see this matter of legalism as an honest difference of opinion between Christians. It wasnâ??t â??a matter of semantics,â?? as some have suggested at times. He told them that they were deserting Christ if they followed the way of legalism. Make no mistake about it â?? when our lives are more grounded in religious rules of behavior than in an intimate relationship to Christ, we have abandoned Him.

Letâ??s understand what the gospel is not and what it is. The gospel is not a message which tells you that you have to trust Jesus Christ and then live according to certain rules. That is not good news. The gospel is that Jesus Christ has come to give himself to you, to express his love to you, and to express his life and his love through you.

When Jesus is expressing his life through us, there is where real quality of living comes. But if youâ??re staring at a list of rules that dictate behavior, you are missing intimacy with Jesus Christ because you canâ??t be looking at a list of rules and staring in the face of Jesus at the same time.

Since understanding that Christ is life, I have come to discover that those things that used to be rules to me were never meant to be viewed that way. I do those very things now, not because I have to, but because it is the desire of my heart to do them. As long as I focused on rules, I stunted my own spiritual growth.

Did you do anything to get saved other than to receive his life? Was it anything other than the grace of God that caused you to enter into salvation? Well hereâ??s what the Scriptures say: â??As you have received the Lord Jesus Christ, so walk ye in him.â?? You see, you simply received salvation through Godâ??s grace. You trusted. You just believed, and that was it. You believed what God said, and you were saved.

The Bible teaches that in order to move forward in the Christian life you just need to do the same thing. Just believe what God says about his life in you; understand who you are and trust in him and him alone; donâ??t start focusing on a bunch of rules. You say, â??Oh, but Iâ??m scared about how Iâ??m going to live if I donâ??t focus on the rules.â?? Well, you donâ??t have to be afraid of that. Donâ??t insult the Holy Spirit of God who is in you! When you focus on Jesus Christ I promise you, He will not fail you. He wonâ??t fail you. As you focus on him and fall in love with him, he will express his life through you. Enjoying Jesus Christ, that is really living.

I took this from Steve Mcvey’s website gracewalk.org. Maybe this will clear somethings up on what Christian’s believe about the law today.

[mattfelts]

- YouTube

one more about legalism

[fleeben]

Reading that vaguely anti-semitic, anti-catholic diatribe and ignoring for a moment that it’s all fantasy and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.

[mattfelts]

[quote]fleeben wrote:
Ignoring for a moment that it’s all made up and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.[/quote]

Well, I don’t think that you will find anything in scripture that is contradictory between what Christ and Paul taught. The wonderful thing about Paul to the Christian is that it shows the life of a man who was empowered by the life of Christ in him. However I take no offense to your words and do not try to convince you out of your current belief system. The great thing about my faith is it is not dependent on affirmation from others. I just share this with you because Im passionate about the life of Christ in my own life. I’ve been called ignorant because I didn’t know very much about science…perhaps you should know a little more about scripture as well.

Anti-semitic? Anti catholic? Christ was a Jew and so was paul, and all the other writers of the bible for that matter…so not sure what you mean. And the guy who wrote this has never said anything in my knowledge that is anti-catholic. In fact it’s always aimed at legalism in the protestant church (baptist for example). In know you think that if you throw these two terms out then it discredits this man, but perhaps you should know a little more about him before you say things you know nothing about.

[kylec72]

[quote]fleeben wrote:
Reading that vaguely anti-semitic, anti-catholic diatribe and ignoring for a moment that it’s all fantasy and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.[/quote]

Well, “in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” --Nietzsche

[mattfelts]

[quote]kylec72 wrote:
fleeben wrote:
Reading that vaguely anti-semitic, anti-catholic diatribe and ignoring for a moment that it’s all fantasy and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.

Well, “in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” --Nietzsche

;-)[/quote]

Makes no sense seeing how Christian means follower of Christ. Sorry Nietzsche

[kylec72]

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
fleeben wrote:
Reading that vaguely anti-semitic, anti-catholic diatribe and ignoring for a moment that it’s all fantasy and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.

Well, “in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” --Nietzsche

Makes no sense seeing how Christian means follower of Christ. Sorry Nietzsche :)[/quote]

I will wait till I am home and have time to reference the source material to provide proper context of the statement. In essence, though, it merely follows the sentiments fleeben expressed.

[mattfelts]

[quote]kylec72 wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
fleeben wrote:
Reading that vaguely anti-semitic, anti-catholic diatribe and ignoring for a moment that it’s all fantasy and thus, irrelevant, I am reminded of how much of christianity has so very little to do with anything jesus said or did and how much of it was simply crafted by Paul and served to the masses. They should call it Paulism, not Christianity.

Well, “in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” --Nietzsche

Makes no sense seeing how Christian means follower of Christ. Sorry Nietzsche

I will wait till I am home and have time to reference the source material to provide proper context of the statement. In essence, though, it merely follows the sentiments fleeben expressed.[/quote]

Look I’ve been very honest with you guys about my lack of scientific knowledge, at least some of you could do the same and admit that you have very limited knowledge of the bible. Using the same tired arguments that all atheist use is not going to cut it, neither is name calling. Im not hear to convert you only to share with you what I believe. Why does that scare you guys so much…Neither am i passing any judgement on you, other than it’s obvious you have limited bible knowledge.

[fleeben]

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
Look I’ve been very honest with you guys about my lack of scientific knowledge, at least some of you could do the same and admit that you have very limited knowledge of the bible. Using the same tired arguments that all atheist use is not going to cut it, neither is name calling. Im not hear to convert you only to share with you what I believe. Why does that scare you guys so much…Neither am i passing any judgement on you, other than it’s obvious you have limited bible knowledge.[/quote]

I actually know a lot about the bible and was raised in a religious household and attended mass one or more times weekly until I was 17 and started going to university.

It should be no surprise that so much of what jesus said in the gospel agrees with Paul, as they were largely written as Paul’s teachings were being promulgated, and the writers simply crafted new stories and sayings for Jesus that fit with the emerging social/theological framework, just as they falsified or fudged other historical facts about Jesus’ life(off the top of my head: the whole Jesus being born in Bethlehem and then his parents being forced to travel home for the census is almost certainly false for many reasons).