Evidence for God from Science

I actually appreciated the article. I didn't exactly found anything wrong with it. However, it did come a little late.

Say what you will about evolution, but the whole evolution thing is right about something: the one that doesn't evolve, dies.

Now, mr. Deem hasn't posted in his own website for a while. In the meantime, one of this website's biggest nemesis (http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.pt/) keeps evolving, as it has a minimum of 5 posts for month and is constantly updating. Updating is sort of the key word here. The thing is: information is constantly moving, and nearly every single day we become aware of new informations that may be interpreted as an argument against God. Yes, they can also be interpreted as an argument for God, but it has been like this since forever: people get some new information and while some take the abusive conclusion that the info points to intelligence outside of our universe, others take the abusive conclusion that the info points to no intelligence outside of our universe. Yup; it all comes down to interpretation.

Now, this would be no "problem"...if this blogger didn't give us links confirming his new updated information! He does, most of the time. I mean, it has come to a point in which http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.pt/ analyses mr. Deem's website, tries to refute it AND, most importantly, claims that it is not updated, as new information has been discovered on matter X.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Sounds like an angry atheist.

MBPrata wrote:I actually appreciated the article. I didn't exactly found anything wrong with it. However, it did come a little late.

Say what you will about evolution, but the whole evolution thing is right about something: the one that doesn't evolve, dies.

Now, mr. Deem hasn't posted in his own website for a while. In the meantime, one of this website's biggest nemesis (http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.pt/) keeps evolving, as it has a minimum of 5 posts for month and is constantly updating. Updating is sort of the key word here. The thing is: information is constantly moving, and nearly every single day we become aware of new informations that may be interpreted as an argument against God. Yes, they can also be interpreted as an argument for God, but it has been like this since forever: people get some new information and while some take the abusive conclusion that the info points to intelligence outside of our universe, others take the abusive conclusion that the info points to no intelligence outside of our universe. Yup; it all comes down to interpretation.

Now, this would be no "problem"...if this blogger didn't give us links confirming his new updated information! He does, most of the time. I mean, it has come to a point in which http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.pt/ analyses mr. Deem's website, tries to refute it AND, most importantly, claims that it is not updated, as new information has been discovered on matter X.

Thoughts?

I'm not against blood transfusions like Jehovah Witnesses are I believe God blessed us with hospitals,but I also believe in prayer also. However about evolution?There are evolutionists still pushing this myth that Chimpanzees share 98% DNA with humans and try to use this for evidence life evolves but you will never see anyone who believes this myth have a blood transfusion from an Ape,Chimpanzee,etc if they ever need blood because they will die because it is a myth.

I got a blood transfusion from a pig.

Maybe that's why I crave bacon.

RickD wrote:I got a blood transfusion from a pig.

Maybe that's why I crave bacon.

I read a book recently called "Don't let Satan make a monkey out of you." and it pointed this out. I was going to post it on here as a free pdf download for people to have for free if they want however his tone bothers me alittle too much in certian parts of the book and eventhough it has alot of good info in it,his tone bothers me too much in certian parts of the book.

Sounds like an angry atheist.

Huh...who, me or the blogger?

MBPrata wrote:

Sounds like an angry atheist.

Huh...who, me or the blogger?

Not you. Unless you're the blogger.

Not you. Unless you're the blogger.

Ha! Good one!

Well, maybe he is angry. But I wouldn't see him as a "nemesis" for this website if he didn't back up most of his claims with sources. As in...he may be angry, but that won't make him less right in case he is right...

MBPrata wrote:

Not you. Unless you're the blogger.

Ha! Good one!

Well, maybe he is angry. But I wouldn't see him as a "nemesis" for this website if he didn't back up most of his claims with sources. As in...he may be angry, but that won't make him less right in case he is right...

Somebody backing them up with sources does not always lead to truth.Always make sure to the best of your abilities that even the sources are truthful.Alot of people just believe everything they read and yet are wrong. Just a good tip of advice for you,whether you believe in God or not too.People will play you a fool if they can.

Just a good tip of advice for you,whether you believe in God or not too.People will play you a fool if they can.

Yeah...that's one of the main reasons why people reject informations brought up by christians. After all, the Catholic Church seems to be, for the most part, not more than a business. A business that makes loads of cash. Sure, you may say that the Bible claims you can't serve both God and the money, but it's not really about the money; it's about the fact that this business makes so much money. From that moment on, anybody who claims him/herself christian may perfectly be a sort of a "secret" agent from the Catholic Church to convert non-believers into believers...thus leading them to give their money to them!

Oh, is life complicated...

MBPrata wrote:

Just a good tip of advice for you,whether you believe in God or not too.People will play you a fool if they can.

Yeah...that's one of the main reasons why people reject informations brought up by christians. After all, the Catholic Church seems to be, for the most part, not more than a business. A business that makes loads of cash. Sure, you may say that the Bible claims you can't serve both God and the money, but it's not really about the money; it's about the fact that this business makes so much money. From that moment on, anybody who claims him/herself christian may perfectly be a sort of a "secret" agent from the Catholic Church to convert non-believers into believers...thus leading them to give their money to them!

Oh, is life complicated...

It really makes no difference whether a person believes in God or not we are all sinful and both believers and non-believers have been wrong many times althroughout history and niether side should get a pass,this is one of many reasons to trust God over man whether they believe in God or not. Some people only want to focus on when Christians have been wrong but it really should not matter whether they believe in God or not for instance atheist leaders have killed and slaughtered far more people than all Christian wars combined yet you seem to only want to focus on when Christians have been wrong,they have but so have people who do not believe in God. Evidence still matters no matter who they are.

Evidence still matters no matter who they are.

I get that. There's just one problem (yeah, right...): for 95% of the population, evidence comes from...other people. Not experiences one does at home; other people - namely scientists. And the whole let's-learn-from-the-scientists-'casuse-they-know-more-about-reality-than-we-do thing is sort of ruined around our 7-year old age, because it seems that that is the age we develop the ability to think others have hidden agendas. Which means that's the age when we realize we, humans, can be manipulated by people to fullfill their goals. As if our brain wasn't manipulative enough...

PS: I actually appreciated your last post quite well. Nice reasoning and humblety there! It's good to not feel aggressivity from this forum for a change... (please don't be offended, it's just how I feel...)

IF you take the bible as God's word and DO NOT read anything into it, then you will NOT get "no blood transfusions" from those passages.

Genesis 9:4 "Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat."
Deutoronomy 12:23 "Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh."
Acts 15:28-29 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”"

They are, quite obviously, dietary restrictions, period.

The writer of that blog quite obviously is seeing, just like the JW's he criticizes, what he wants to see.

Unless of course he believes that a blood transfusion is "eating blood".

The blogger is quite ignorant of not only Christian doctrine, but jewish as well.

MBPrata wrote:

Not you. Unless you're the blogger.

Ha! Good one!

Well, maybe he is angry. But I wouldn't see him as a "nemesis" for this website if he didn't back up most of his claims with sources. As in...he may be angry, but that won't make him less right in case he is right...

While Rich has cut back a bit, there are hundreds of other sites now around that weren't while G&S was. Just Google around. Or maybe read some good philosophy books in this area, rather than the personal opinions of people on their websites.

I must disagree with you that Rich's articles aren't referenced, I recall seeing many references at the bottom of his articles.

As for wanting Rich to respond, why not prod him directly via his site if it means much to you? But, it seems to me that those who insecurely slide between not knowing what to believe, often find themselves in a predicament of feeling the person who speaks last is right. Perhaps that is why you are so concerned here MBPrata?

If you are really interested, then your burden in getting at truth isn't getting Rich to write a response, but rather some critical analysis and research of your own. Sadly, we live in a world of consumerism, and want to just quickly take what's on offer and that is why the media is so powerful. People just accept whatever it is they get given without really looking into it for themselves.

On the other hand, you have others, more like yourself who based upon our exchanges seem to accept some form of solipsism (or worse), so I'm really not sure how you get started with any pursuit of truth. Nor why anything anyone says would matter to you.

PaulS wrote:
They are, quite obviously, dietary restrictions, period.
The writer of that blog quite obviously is seeing, just like the JW's he criticizes, what he wants to see.
Unless of course he believes that a blood transfusion is "eating blood".
The blogger is quite ignorant of not only Christian doctrine, but jewish as well.

The reasons behind the draining of blood at the time of slaughter are mandated in the Torah. The Torah explicitly prohibits the consumption of blood because of the belief that the life of the animal is contained in the blood.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/P ... ashrut.htm

The blogger is quite ignorant of not only Christian doctrine, but jewish as well. ...