# The Science Delusion...



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 6, 2016)




----------



## ambush80 (Apr 6, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


>



"The Science Delusion is the principle that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in."

Fail in the first five seconds.

There are people that are basing a substantial part of their life's efforts in trying to disprove accepted principles.  It's a hallmark of the scientific method.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> "The Science Delusion is the principle that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in."
> 
> Fail in the first five seconds.
> 
> There are people that are basing a substantial part of their life's efforts in trying to disprove accepted principles.  It's a hallmark of the scientific method.



No one, of whom I am aware, is trying to "disprove" the existence of gravity, only to alter the details of its expression.

The point was that in the total acceptance of the scientific "way" we, as a society, have lost the ability to form inquiry into things metaphysical and be taken for anything more than a religious nut or simply ignorant.

Augustine saw the fall of Rome. Nearly a millennia of classical civilization fell in a matter of a few decades. Augustine's conclusion was that something beyond what could be seen or touched was at play. Abraham Lincoln felt that God was at work during the Civil War, and given  what happened later in the 20th century, I'm inclined to believe him. We, in our modern way, have lost the ability to question that fashion; to form conclusions based on anything other than some misleading equation or uninterpretable data. That lost ability will not return. Some think this is a good thing... it isn't.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The point was that in the total acceptance of the scientific "way" we, as a society, have lost the ability to form inquiry into things metaphysical and be taken for anything more than a religious nut or simply ignorant.



That's not true science, then. 

The first tenet of science is to question _everything._


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not true science, then.
> 
> The first tenet of science is to question _everything._



Of course... it's in the "how" where the rub comes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Of course... it's in the "how" where the rub comes.



How so?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

Ask anyone to explain the origin of the universe and, if they have an opinion, they will proclaim a miracle in the first sentence.    In the beginning....????     

I've heard it stated before that the entirety of the universe was at one time compressed down to the size of a small dot.        They (scientists) can't make the original material big since that will just beg the question, "where did that large mass of material come from?"   Conversely, to make the original material smaller than  the speck (or from nothing) would also beg the question, "How could everything come from nothing?"   It's not a matter of if you believe in miracles, it just a matter of which virgin birth you believe in.  

Bandy


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How so?



Science's ability to question is limited to what can be seen and measured. It has no ability to go "beyond" such that, when taken to the extreme, it says there _is_ nothing beyond the measurable. A society that accepts only science as the measure to righteousness is subject to the same limitations.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Science's ability to question is limited to what can be seen and measured. It has no ability to go "beyond" such that, when taken to the extreme, it says there _is_ nothing beyond the measurable. A society that accepts only science as the measure to righteousness is subject to the same limitations.



At one point we thought earth, air, water and fire were elements, then we discovered smaller. We then through atoms were the smallest, until we discovered electrons, protons and neutrons. We thought they were the smallest until we discovered gluons and whatever else the rest of them are called. 

The point being is that science doesn't sit in one position. It questions everything, even the stuff it can't express or measure, and then attempts to find ways to do it. It may take time, but we've shown that humans can get to perform most anything we can dream up. 

We do have an informational horizon, in that anything supernatural may not be able to ever be explained, but science is honest about that, usually, all the while still trying to close the gap between here and there. It's widely speculated that the universe started in a big bang from a massive singularity. Science hasn't stopped poking at it because all current singularities are not able to be observed, they'll go right to the edge of where they can and maybe the next generation, or two or 3 or 300 after them will carry the torch.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No one, of whom I am aware, is trying to "disprove" the existence of gravity, only to alter the details of its expression.
> 
> The point was that in the total acceptance of the scientific "way" we, as a society, have lost the ability to form inquiry into things metaphysical and be taken for anything more than a religious nut or simply ignorant.
> 
> Augustine saw the fall of Rome. Nearly a millennia of classical civilization fell in a matter of a few decades. Augustine's conclusion was that something beyond what could be seen or touched was at play. Abraham Lincoln felt that God was at work during the Civil War, and given  what happened later in the 20th century, I'm inclined to believe him. We, in our modern way, have lost the ability to question that fashion; to form conclusions based on anything other than some misleading equation or uninterpretable data. That lost ability will not return. Some think this is a good thing... it isn't.


I disagree that we've "lost the ability".
I think it's a conscious decision that "God did it" isn't the final word that it used to be.
Both Augustine and Lincoln were presented with circumstances they couldn't at the time explain nor did they have sufficient knowledge or technology to even begin to try to.
"God did it" is only a satisfactory answer to those who already believe God did it.
If it can't even be proven that a god (any of them) exisists, why should society or science be satisfied that God did it?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> At one point we thought earth, air, water and fire were elements, then we discovered smaller. We then through atoms were the smallest, until we discovered electrons, protons and neutrons. We thought they were the smallest until we discovered gluons and whatever else the rest of them are called.
> 
> The point being is that science doesn't sit in one position. It questions everything, even the stuff it can't express or measure, and then attempts to find ways to do it. It may take time, but we've shown that humans can get to perform most anything we can dream up.
> 
> We do have an informational horizon, in that anything supernatural may not be able to ever be explained, but science is honest about that, usually, all the while still trying to close the gap between here and there. It's widely speculated that the universe started in a big bang from a massive singularity. Science hasn't stopped poking at it because all current singularities are not able to be observed, they'll go right to the edge of where they can and maybe the next generation, or two or 3 or 300 after them will carry the torch.



People will continue to push science "forward," it's in our nature to be curious. However, pushing inevitably causes things to give way.

Last year I read an article in Physics Today talking about how some scientists want to "get rid of the limiting nature of empiricism" and say "if a hypothesis is sufficiently elegant, go ahead and bypass testing." (I'm paraphrasing).

Empiricism is the _only_ thing that separates science from a religion (sort of). 

Now, I will say this, most still abhor the idea of non-empirically motivated theories, as they should; but there's also a movement to accept base-less claims as "science." See: Global warming, or whatever they call it now.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Science's ability to question is limited to what can be seen and measured. It has no ability to go "beyond" such that, when taken to the extreme, it says there _is_ nothing beyond the measurable. A society that accepts only science as the measure to righteousness is subject to the same limitations.





Most will agree that the Cause of the universe was outside the laws of our universe (time and space)


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> People will continue to push science "forward," it's in our nature to be curious. However, pushing inevitably causes things to give way.
> 
> Last year I read an article in Physics Today talking about how some scientists want to "get rid of the limiting nature of empiricism" and say "if a hypothesis is sufficiently elegant, go ahead and bypass testing." (I'm paraphrasing).
> 
> ...



Yeah, and that's where it changes from science to religion and it's not right. There's big money right now in being to back your opinion, like global warming, by having the ability to say, "Scientists say..."

If empiricism is tossed out the credibility of scientists go with it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, and that's where it changes from science to religion and it's not right. There's big money right now in being to back your opinion, like global warming, by having the ability to say, "Scientists say..."
> 
> If empiricism is tossed out the credibility of scientists go with it.



Tell you what, I'll write a paper giving "undeniable evidence" that the erf is growing dangerously hot from human activity, apply for grants, and we'll all go the finest persian restaurant later that night... my treat.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

I also believe that, because of empiricism, there can be no accepted evidence for design.   Even IF something in nature was designed, it can never be accepted as such.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Tell you what, I'll write a paper giving "undeniable evidence" that the erf is growing dangerously hot from human activity, apply for grants, and we'll all go the finest persian restaurant later that night... my treat.



Had enough Persian in my life. Thanks though. 



BANDERSNATCH said:


> I also believe that, because of empiricism, there can be no accepted evidence for design.   Even IF something in nature was designed, it can never be accepted as such.



That's not true. The not ever part. It does make it nigh on impossible though. 

Unless there are a bunch of babies born suddenly with "Made by God" stamped on their rears it is highly unlikely that processes other than natural will be looked at as explanations for them. 

However, people pondering the mystery of universal creation run up against that question more often than obstetricians do.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I also believe that, because of empiricism, there can be no accepted evidence for design.   Even IF something in nature was designed, it can never be accepted as such.



Unless it's proven that a "designer" exists. If that happens then evidence of design will be everywhere. In this case the process almost has to work backwards.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Unless it's proven that a "designer" exists. If that happens then evidence of design will be everywhere. In this case the process almost has to work backwards.



Designers do exist.       We see their work all the time.    What do you consider evidence of design?   Would love to see a scientist say what he thought evidence of design would entail...


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Designers do exist.       We see their work all the time.    What do you consider evidence of design?   Would love to see a scientist say what he thought evidence of design would entail...


I think we would have to define "designer" for the scientist first.
Nature/climate/soil etc etc in effect, design the plants etc that grow from it.
Now if we want to, for lack of a better word "humanize" that designer, the scientist would probabky come up with something similar to the gods throughout our history.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 7, 2016)

I think a good example of a designer would be a human with no visible means of support. Doesn't need food, doesn't need air. Energy source can't be explained. Just on a different plane than other animals. Almost like it was created in the image of a God. But, that's just me.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

I think evidence of design is something like the minimal cell I referenced in another post.   473 genes minimally needed for life.   Can't be reduced without organism dying.    If the organism needed billions of parts to survive, then anyone that thinks logically would conclude that it couldn't have happened by chance.    There was never a cell that only had 100 genes and could reproduce itself.    Takes faith to believe in a protocell.   Everytime scientists try to figure out the minimum gene set, the number grows.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think evidence of design is something like the minimal cell I referenced in another post.   473 genes minimally needed for life.   Can't be reduced without organism dying.



Micoplasma genatalium - 470 genes

Bacillus subtiis  essential genes 271 
Streptococcus pneumoniae essential genes 244 
Mycoplasma genitalium essential genes 381


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think evidence of design is something like the minimal cell I referenced in another post.   473 genes minimally needed for life.   Can't be reduced without organism dying.    If the organism needed billions of parts to survive, then anyone that thinks logically would conclude that it couldn't have happened by chance.    There was never a cell that only had 100 genes and could reproduce itself.    Takes faith to believe in a protocell.   Everytime scientists try to figure out the minimum gene set, the number grows.



How does complexity eliminate chance?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

660griz said:


> Micoplasma genatalium - 470 genes
> 
> Bacillus subtiis  essential genes 271
> Streptococcus pneumoniae essential genes 244
> Mycoplasma genitalium essential genes 381



are you saying that the scientists that found the 473 minimum were not aware of the gnomes of the other bacteria?    what is your reference for these figures?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> are you saying that the scientists that found the 473 minimum were not aware of the gnomes of the other bacteria?    what is your reference for these figures?



http://bioscience.jbpub.com/cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23420519
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_03/minimal.shtml
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425.full

I guess what I am saying it that minimum genomes will vary based on the organism. 473 is the minimum Micoplasma genatalium needs according to the research on the ones they created in the lab.
It is not ALL life.
The scientist did an awesome thing and I believe hold a record.
Did you read about the newly discovered life that doesn't need oxygen and doesn't have mitochondria?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 7, 2016)

660griz said:


> I guess what I am saying it that minimum genomes will vary based on the organism. 473 is the minimum Micoplasma genatalium needs according to the research on the ones they created in the lab.



 

this is a quote from the article I posted...   In it they also say that the minimum set would depend on the environment of the organism.

_"We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms," researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. "These findings are very humbling."

The genome is not some one-and-only minimal set of genes needed for life itself. For one thing, if the researchers had pared DNA from a different bacterium they would probably have ended up with a different set of genes. For another, the minimum genome an organism needs depends on the environment in which it lives._

From here on out, I'll probably use your 270 minimum, as the other links were a little 'dated'.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> From here on out, I'll probably use your 270 minimum, as the other links were a little 'dated'.



Like me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 7, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> this is a quote from the article I posted...   In it they also say that the minimum set would depend on the environment of the organism.
> 
> _"We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms," researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. "These findings are very humbling."
> 
> ...


Well dip me in poop and call me stinky, is that a copy/paste Mr Bandersnatch? 
Is it just you, or do your friends also use...... nevermind....


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Apr 7, 2016)

Nevermind.. Just realized bullet already made that point =D.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 7, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Well dip me in poop and call me stinky, is that a copy/paste Mr Bandersnatch?
> Is it just you, or do your friends also use...... nevermind....



Hello Stinky.  ?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hello Stinky.  ?


 Welder is up from nap time. Who's turn is it to feed him?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> this is a quote from the article I posted...   In it they also say that the minimum set would depend on the environment of the organism.
> 
> _"We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms," researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. "These findings are very humbling."
> 
> ...


This is a thread that You started 5 years ago.  

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=633869&highlight=genes


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2016)

Bandy,

Do you believe in the ability of science to describe the nature of the physical world all the time or just when it supports what your faith?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Bandy,
> 
> Do you believe in the ability of science to describe the nature of the physical world all the time or just when it supports what your faith?



Ambush, I love science and especially what it has discovered in the last 20 years.   Cell complexity, earth's uniqueness in the universe, origin-of-life research, etc...all strengthen my faith.   the problem comes when science tries to force all evidence into a theory, instead of letting the evidence be evidence.    It shouldn't be illegal to teach the problems of evolution in school (OOL problems, lack of transitional fossils, soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, etc) but it is.   If students want to learn why many scientists doubt darwinian evolutionary theory, they have to research on their own.   BTW, evolution is a theory that cannot be disqualified, as it absorbs all evidence, even evidence that would contradict it.  (eg   carbon 14 in dinosaur bones, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, different genus for the same species, 650 MYA animals unchanged through time, etc)    Students should be allowed to hear 'design' theory concepts, too.    Shouldn't be illegal and banned.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Ambush, I love science and especially what it has discovered in the last 20 years.   Cell complexity, earth's uniqueness in the universe, origin-of-life research, etc...all strengthen my faith.   the problem comes when science tries to force all evidence into a theory, instead of letting the evidence be evidence.    It shouldn't be illegal to teach the problems of evolution in school (OOL problems, lack of transitional fossils, soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, etc) but it is.   If students want to learn why many scientists doubt darwinian evolutionary theory, they have to research on their own.   BTW, evolution is a theory that cannot be disqualified, as it absorbs all evidence, even evidence that would contradict it.  (eg   carbon 14 in dinosaur bones, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, different genus for the same species, 650 MYA animals unchanged through time, etc)    Students should be allowed to hear 'design' theory concepts, too.    Shouldn't be illegal and banned.



Saying "We don't know how it started" is scientific.  Positing a creator isn't science.  It's in the realm of religion or theology.  It would be inappropriate in a science class to even say "Some people believe that a Prime Mover caused......(anything)".  It's just not science.  Surely you see that.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Saying "We don't know how it started" is scientific.  Positing a creator isn't science.  It's in the realm of religion or theology.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Saying "We don't know how it started" is scientific.  Positing a creator isn't science.  It's in the realm of religion or theology.  It would be inappropriate in a science class to even say "Some people believe that a Prime Mover caused......(anything)".  It's just not science.  Surely you see that.



Hypothetical question, Ambush.    for the sake of argument, let's say that its a fact that life was designed.   How would science every prove it was designed if design is excluded 'a priori'?    How could science prove that something was designed?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> earth's uniqueness in the universe,



Could you expand on this a little please?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Hypothetical question, Ambush.    for the sake of argument, let's say that its a fact that life was designed.   How would science every prove it was designed if design is excluded 'a priori'?    How could science prove that something was designed?


Doesn't it make sense that science is constantly searching for any and every possible answer but shares the ones that have shown to be the leaders in a more likely than not position based off of all the available research?
And, as methods, information and procedures change, hasn't science adjusted their findings to the new data?
It is possible that science has included the priori but the evidence from the majority of available research just does not lead to a designer getting the overwhelming support of the available evidence?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Hypothetical question, Ambush.    for the sake of argument, let's say that its a fact that life was designed.   How would science ever prove it was designed if design is excluded 'a priori'?    How could science prove that something was designed?





bullethead said:


> Doesn't it make sense that science is constantly searching for any and every possible answer but shares the ones that have shown to be the leaders in a more likely than not position based off of all the available research?
> And, as methods, information and procedures change, hasn't science adjusted their findings to the new data?
> It is possible that science has included the priori but the evidence from the majority of available research just does not lead to a designer getting the overwhelming support of the available evidence?



I'm not a scientist.  You are.  You help me run a scientific exploration.  We can call it _The God Hypothesis_.

What kinds of evidence would pass peer review and scrutiny?  What parts are repeatable and testable?  And when we get to a SPECIFIC God, that's when it totally goes off the rails.  What would it take for you to believe that Vishnu created the Universe?  That's what it would take for me to believe that Yaweh created the Universe. 

I think the best thing for people of faith who respect science to do is discontinue to look for verification of their faith in the findings of science.  They should do what Ian Hutchinson and Little Drummer Boy do and say that their faith is untestable by science and that it's justifications are personal not objective.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not a scientist.  You are.  You help me run a scientific exploration.  We can call it _The God Hypothesis_.
> 
> What kinds of evidence would pass peer review and scrutiny?  What parts are repeatable and testable?  And when we get to a SPECIFIC God, that's when it totally goes off the rails.  What would it take for you to believe that Vishnu created the Universe?  That's what it would take for me to believe that Yaweh created the Universe.
> 
> I think the best thing for people of faith who respect science to do is discontinue to look for verification of their faith in the findings of science.  They should do what Ian Hutchinson and Little Drummer Boy do and say that their faith is untestable by science and that it's justifications are personal not objective.


I could not agree more.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

660griz said:


> Could you expand on this a little please?



in the 1990s, Carl Sagan posited that for a planet to suport life it had to reside in the circumstellar habitable zone.  (Goldilocks zone)   That one criteria has grown to over 200+ criteria.  (eg   thin crust, one moon, tilted axis, etc)  They've (scientists) now put the odds of an earth-like planet being out there at 1 in 700 quintillion.    That's what I meant by "uniqueness of earth".


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not a scientist.  You are.  You help me run a scientific exploration.  We can call it _The God Hypothesis_.
> 
> What kinds of evidence would pass peer review and scrutiny?  What parts are repeatable and testable?  And when we get to a SPECIFIC God, that's when it totally goes off the rails.  What would it take for you to believe that Vishnu created the Universe?  That's what it would take for me to believe that Yaweh created the Universe.
> 
> I think the best thing for people of faith who respect science to do is discontinue to look for verification of their faith in the findings of science.  They should do what Ian Hutchinson and Little Drummer Boy do and say that their faith is untestable by science and that it's justifications are personal not objective.




So, science does not have the ability to show if something was designed?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I think the best thing for people of faith who respect science to do is discontinue to look for verification of their faith in the findings of science.  They should do what Ian Hutchinson and Little Drummer Boy do and say that their faith is untestable by science and that it's justifications are personal not objective.



My faith has been bolstered by science.    absolutely love science.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, science does not have the ability to show if something was designed?



It shows what is showable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> in the 1990s, Carl Sagan posited that for a planet to suport life it had to reside in the circumstellar habitable zone.  (Goldilocks zone)   That one criteria has grown to over 200+ criteria.  (eg   thin crust, one moon, tilted axis, etc)  They've (scientists) now put the odds of an earth-like planet being out there at 1 in 700 quintillion.    That's what I meant by "uniqueness of earth".



And that was before extremophiles were found to be as common as they are, even here on earth. It's important to put the qualifiers on that estimate. 

Our sample size of intelligent life is 1. The presumptions made are based on that one sample set and on our own physiology and may not be as common as other types of life throughout the galaxy and universe.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And that was before extremophiles were found to be as common as they are, even here on earth. It's important to put the qualifiers on that estimate.
> 
> Our sample size of intelligent life is 1. The presumptions made are based on that one sample set and on our own physiology and may not be as common as other types of life throughout the galaxy and universe.



other forms of life being out there is pure speculation.   zero evidence of it.   What we do know is what it takes to support life in the 1 example we have....lots and lots of criteria.   

Keep in mind, life does not 'want' or 'desire' to be out there.    I'm sure you'll agree that, for life to be out there by chance, it would take and unbelievable string of miraculous accidents that preserve themselves until the next piece is added?    Since life isn't 'trying' to be alive....just mindless elements and compounds...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> other forms of life being out there is pure speculation.   zero evidence of it.   What we do know is what it takes to support life in the 1 example we have....lots and lots of criteria.
> 
> Keep in mind, life does not 'want' or 'desire' to be out there.    I'm sure you'll agree that, for life to be out there by chance, it would take and unbelievable string of miraculous accidents that preserve themselves until the next piece is added?    Since life isn't 'trying' to be alive....just mindless elements and compounds...



Speculation, for now. And will remain as such until we have eliminated all possibilities in the universe. 

I wouldn't say miracles, just the results of playing the odds with an extremely large amount of participants. 

Average odds for the lottery are somewhere around 1:290 million for the big games, if I remember right. Given that the population of the US, those over 18, is relatively fixed at the time of the drawing, and we'll say that it's 1/5th of the total that are under 18, that's roughly 1 chance for every person, but not everyone plays. Some buy many tickets some buy 1, a fair number buy 0. The universe doesn't work like that. Every molecule in state A has a chance in moving to state B, even down to elements and such clumping to form compounds, clumping to form other building blocks. 

Even if you said that there was a 1 in 500 billion chance of something happening, if you factor in how small those pieces are, how many there are, and solar system time scales, it's no wonder life has arisen. 

If there's a 1:500 billion chance, but there are quadrillions upon quadrillions of players, that's gonna be a lot of winners. Winners in this case each getting their own jackpot that they don't have to share. Keep shaking those dice on the frequency that the universe does, for as long as the universe has, and you're gonna see some life. 

Our problem right now is just proving it, and that's because the prohibitive distances in play, and even the fact that light takes several years just to reach our neighboring stars, let alone around even our own arm of the galaxy. 

Yeah, there's faith involved in my answer because we haven't proven it, but that faith is based on some very real math. 

Now given that we have 0 samples of xenobiology and how it ordered itself, it may turn out that carbon based life is rare, but silica based life is common and just as intelligent as we are.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If there's a 1:500 billion chance, but there are quadrillions upon quadrillions of players, that's gonna be a lot of winners. Winners in this case each getting their own jackpot that they don't have to share. Keep shaking those dice on the frequency that the universe does, for as long as the universe has, and you're gonna see some life.


  where would this shaking take place?  You're not referring to the hypothetical 'soup' are you?   Where has it been supposed that all the pieces were piled up together?  (Seeing as it would have taken millions of pieces to get together correctly in structured, specified order)    wouldn't the lucky changes have to preserve itself until the next lucky step...which could be millions of years down the road?   

I'm guessing that we are all in agreement that science does not have the ability to determine if something was designed?   alternatively, we could say that science would be wasting time trying to determine how something that was designed came about?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> in the 1990s, Carl Sagan posited that for a planet to suport life it had to reside in the circumstellar habitable zone.  (Goldilocks zone)   That one criteria has grown to over 200+ criteria.  (eg   thin crust, one moon, tilted axis, etc)  They've (scientists) now put the odds of an earth-like planet being out there at 1 in 700 quintillion.    That's what I meant by "uniqueness of earth".



Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe.

Kepler 452b - which has been dubbed Earth 2.0 - is six billion years old, has a 385 day year and orbits its star at the same distance as us. It is 1,400 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus.

It is believed to be rocky, with active volcanoes and is so like Earth that Nasa believes it is possible that life once inhabited the planet.

Scientists said that the sunshine is so similar that plants could survive if taken to Kepler 452b.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

660griz said:


> Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe.
> 
> Kepler 452b - which has been dubbed Earth 2.0 - is six billion years old, has a 385 day year and orbits its star at the same distance as us. It is 1,400 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus.
> 
> ...



the latest science would suggest otherwise  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...n-700-quintillion-kind-of-place/#.VwgDEvkrKUm

The article also talks about how, if life is out there, it should be not only dominant, but we should have seen evidence of it by now, since it would more than likely be more mature than on earth.  

We are alone.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

660griz said:


> It is believed to be rocky, with active volcanoes and is so like Earth that Nasa believes it is possible that life once inhabited the planet.
> 
> Scientists said that the sunshine is so similar that plants could survive if taken to Kepler 452b.



NASA believes that life may have once existed on this planet because if is in the habitable zone and has sunshine?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist 

	 	Intelligent Design: Is it scientific?


		Intelligent Design has been defined by its proponents as the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." This "intelligent cause" is often assumed to be God. Despite this, some have tried to portray Intelligent Design as a fledgling scientific theory, almost ready to be embraced by mainstream science. Detractors have argued that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in disguise.1
So which is it? Use the Science Checklist to see how Intelligent Design differs from science:


	Bacterium with flagella

Bacterium (E. coli) with flagella.Focuses on the natural world?
Intelligent Design is promoted as an explanation for the diversity of life and for the anatomical and molecular features of many organisms (e.g., bacterial flagella, pictured at right).
	Aims to explain the natural world?
Intelligent Design does claim to explain the natural world — but falls dramatically short in the explanations it offers. For example, Intelligent Design explains the existence of one type of bacterial flagellum with the action of an Intelligent Designer, but fails to offer any information on how the designer might have constructed the flagellum or on who that designer might be.
	Uses testable ideas?
Scientific ideas generate specific expectations about observations of the natural world that would support or refute the idea. However, because Intelligent Design doesn't specify what the Designer is or how the Designer operates, it cannot generate expectations specific enough to help us figure out whether the basic premises of Intelligent Design are correct or incorrect. Intelligent Design is untestable.
	Relies on evidence?
Because the central mechanism of Intelligent Design is untestable, evidence relevant to the idea is lacking. However, some ID proponents have made testable claims that deal more with discrediting evolution than with the mechanism of Intelligent Design. These claims (e.g., that the components of bacterial flagella cannot function independently of one another) have been tested and refuted by the evidence.
	Involves the scientific community?
Intelligent Design proponents have rarely published on Intelligent Design in established scientific journals and resist modifying their ideas in response to the scrutiny of the scientific community. These advocates have organized themselves into a community — but one devoted to promoting their idea, not one organized around the activities of science and figuring out how the natural world really works.

	A few journals highlighting new research on the bacterial flagella

A few journals highlighting new research on bacterial flagella. Evolution, not Intelligent Design, has helped us learn more about this system.
 Leads to ongoing research?
So far, there are no documented cases of Intelligent Design research contributing to a new scientific discovery. Intelligent Design proponents, of course, continue to write about the idea, but this work is not generative — that is, it tends to repeat itself and does not help build new, more detailed explanations. Intelligent Design proponents instead tend to focus on critiquing specific evolutionary explanations (e.g., for bacterial flagella). Ironically, the misapplication of evolutionary theory and misunderstanding of the nature of science inherent in these critiques has so frustrated evolutionary biologists that they have sometimes increased their research efforts in the areas targeted by Intelligent Design. We now know a lot more about how bacterial flagella evolved than we did ten years ago!
	Researchers behave scientifically?
Though there is diversity within the group, Intelligent Design proponents generally fail to meet the norms for good scientific behavior in their work on Intelligent Design on several counts. First, few advocates build on existing scientific knowledge. Many misinterpret evolutionary theory and the nature of science, and do not fully understand the current research in an area before launching a critique of it. Perhaps most importantly, because Intelligent Design is untestable, proponents are unable to expose their ideas to testing in a meaningful way and cannot evaluate whether their ideas are supported by evidence.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> other forms of life being out there is pure speculation.   zero evidence of it.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...e-extra-terrestrial-organism-proof-life-space


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> since it would more than likely be more mature than on earth.



See the link on the possible earth I posted. Same age as earth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> where would this shaking take place?  You're not referring to the hypothetical 'soup' are you?   Where has it been supposed that all the pieces were piled up together?  (Seeing as it would have taken millions of pieces to get together correctly in structured, specified order)    wouldn't the lucky changes have to preserve itself until the next lucky step...which could be millions of years down the road?
> 
> I'm guessing that we are all in agreement that science does not have the ability to determine if something was designed?   alternatively, we could say that science would be wasting time trying to determine how something that was designed came about?



Not at all. The Bible would then be but one way to get closer to the Creator. 

Imagine if no one studied engineering, and only focused on the "soft sciences" like writing. That's a single faceted way to live life, wouldn't you think? 

No, not the "primordial soup" that was conjectured. I'm talking the shaking happening everywhere. It "survives" to the next step if it's in an environment that's conducive to it, or if it has an advantage the way that it was randomized. 

The habitable areas for complex life are a little narrower than they are for simple life. I point again to the extremophiles. They live in acid, temperatures, pressures, vacuum, radiations, that would instantly annihilate you or I. On average microbes aren't smart, but give them enough time in environs they're suited to, and who knows what could happen. 

I'm just saying that, uh, life....finds a way.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> NASA believes that life may have once existed on this planet because if is in the habitable zone and has sunshine?



What makes earth unique, again?
Isn't it in a habitable zone and able to support life? 
Do you think we should be able to see elk running around from here?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The habitable areas for complex life are a little narrower than they are for simple life. I point again to the extremophiles. They live in acid, temperatures, pressures, vacuum, radiations, that would instantly annihilate you or I. On average microbes aren't smart, but give them enough time in environs they're suited to, and who knows what could happen.
> 
> I'm just saying that, uh, life....finds a way.



so...in your opinion, these 'extremophiles' are 'simple' life?   

let's use life on earth as our example...all living things contain genetic material.   protein-coding genes.    as the skaking happened....how would a chemical group know that it has a 'winner'?   The odds of one protein-coding gene coming about by chance has been put at 1 in 10 to the 70th power (since the gene would be a very long chain of base pairs and the resulting protein would need to fold neatly to be useable)  How would it know that it needed to 'stay put'?   how would it ever replicate itself?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 8, 2016)

660griz said:


> What makes earth unique, again?
> Isn't it in a habitable zone and able to support life?
> Do you think we should be able to see elk running around from here?


 

What makes earth unique is the many characteristics it has to support life...many more than just being in the circumstellar habitable zone.   lots of criteria and prerequisites to support life.   I've name a few of the 200+.    a few more are: having a large giant planet in the solar system to absord asteroids (like Jupiter) having a sun the size of ours, having plate techtonics so minerals are cycled, etc


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

> Originally Posted by BANDERSNATCH  View Post
> other forms of life being out there is pure speculation. zero evidence of it.



So because we have not observed other life, speculation and zero evidence are your cornerstones that life just does not happen.
Then in the next breath because the life here on earth is observable you do not think it is speculation to say not only a god did it but it is evidence of a specific creator.
And yet if and when life would be found elsewhere, you would immediately argue that YOUR god was absolutely responsible for creating it.
I think the speculation and zero evidence are equal in each scenario.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> What makes earth unique is the many characteristics it has to support life...many more than just being in the circumstellar habitable zone.   lots of criteria and prerequisites to support life.   I've name a few of the 200+.    a few more are: having a large giant planet in the solar system to absord asteroids (like Jupiter) having a sun the size of ours, having plate techtonics so minerals are cycled, etc


What we have here on earth are the results of the available chemicals and matter.
Only what can happen happens.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 8, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> so...in your opinion, these 'extremophiles' are 'simple' life?
> 
> let's use life on earth as our example...all living things contain genetic material.   protein-coding genes.    as the skaking happened....how would a chemical group know that it has a 'winner'?   The odds of one protein-coding gene coming about by chance has been put at 1 in 10 to the 70th power (since the gene would be a very long chain of base pairs and the resulting protein would need to fold neatly to be useable)  How would it know that it needed to 'stay put'?   how would it ever replicate itself?


No, in biologists opinion. Often single celled creatures. 

You're trying to assign knowledge to random natural processes. 

DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Sometimes that's an advantage for the organism, sometimes it's not, still others it's cancer. 

How many protein pairs can fit in a glass of water? And how many glasses of water are on the earth? How many in our solar system over its history and in the galaxy/universe of its history? 

Looking out into the vast ocean of space and saying that there isn't life because you can't observe it yourself is like going swimming on earth's ocean and using nothing but your eyes to try to detect life. Sure, if you're close to the shore you're going to see something, but out in the deep blue you more than likely wouldn't. Would you then conclude that the oceans are devoid of life but you, if you couldn't observe anything else? If you did I would find that to be a very arrogant position. 

I'm not saying there IS life, I'm just saying that I believe there could be and it's worth while for us to look into. The sheer numbers of it make it probable. 

To a human 1x10^70 is a huge number. To all of the stars and planets, and volume of elements needed to make life, even as we know it, make that look like a single grain of sand on the beach.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

1x10^70 are the odds of it happening on a single try.
It has been shown here in previous threads that with the almost infinite amounts of building blocks throughout the entire universe that are in constant contact with each other just for one second is a mind numbing number. Now factor in that happening every nanosecond of every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year over the course of 14.5 billion years already plus what is yet to come...
Life is inevitable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2016)

Life could have easily been started and extinct many times over on many other planets in the universe over the course of the billions of years. 
Basing life off of our own planet it is easily conceivable that some life may be in its infancy elsewhere.
Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, man much less and we cannot get humans to our closest planets within our own solar system without it being a one way trip. There is no hard rule that says any other life is any more advanced than us, and even if so they could be so far away that we may never ever know of each other.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Apr 9, 2016)

Debunking the Myth that Science Disproves the Bible


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Debunking the Myth that Science Disproves the Bible



Swiss cheese has less holes in it.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Apr 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Swiss cheese has less holes in it.



No one has had the cajones or the brains to point out anything specific.  Including you!


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Swiss cheese has less holes in it.



No specifics?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

That trickster god and his tool the Debbil have my human fallibility and misconception in such a spin that anything I say would just be considered to be because I was incapable of understanding the contents of the Bible with modern scientific ways.
The premise that the contents of the Bible are above testing is nonsense.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

I'll let this brainless and cajoneless guy get into specifics. http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

We can discuss the Exodus whenever you guys are ready.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

Or start with Genesis, god(S), order of things, 6 day thing, sun revolving around the earth...
Pick something


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2016)

http://new.exchristian.net/2015/01/the-reliability-of-biblerefuted.html?m=1


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

Mathgeek (aka littledrummerboy) seems to peddle his blog on many outdoor/fishing forum across the southern states. 
Every post starts the same with an opening paragraph from his blog with a link to the blog at the end, then a second reply straight from the article on the blog, and then the subsequent "proof" comes from reciting what is written in the bible as evidence of itself.
It seems to be a shtick get gets worn out quickly everywhere it gets posted.
http://www.pensacolafishingforum.co...ite/20519/topics/672674?page=1&postid=5821250 http://forums.floridasportsman.com/...ing-the-Myth-that-Science-Disproves-the-Bible http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lpca/index.php?section=reports&event=view&action=print&id=194734
http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?p=788436
http://www.charlestonfishing.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=161134 on and on and on.....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> No one has had the cajones or the brains to point out anything specific.  Including you!


You start out saying that science cannot disprove the bible and yet you cannot prove the bible with anything outside of the bible.
Once you get into folklore, magic, imagination , beliefs,miraculous claims which are a part of every other religion..your bible does not stand out.
You start with a false premise asserting that your god is real and yet in that entire blog you do nothing to establish a case for that being true. "God says...and then provide a verse.." is  proof that you believe fairytales. There is nothing there worth disproving. Your religion is as true or a false as every other religion for the exact same reasons.
The bible backs up the bible, star wars backs up star wars, Harry Potter backs up Harry potter. Can science disprove any of them within their covers?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

Either you believe in miracles or you don't and if you do I would like an explanation of why.  Seems like everyone who has witnessed or has been party to a miracle is somehow hesitant to talk about it.  Why?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

Miracles by definition are meaningless.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Miracles by definition are meaningless.




How do you mean?  Do you mean that if they happen then they are in the realm of Natural as opposed to Supernatural?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html?_r=0

_"But there is growing evidence that cancers can go backward or stop, and researchers are being forced to reassess their notions of what cancer is and how it develops.

Of course, cancers do not routinely go away, and no one is suggesting that patients avoid treatment because of such occasional occurrences.

“Biologically, it is a rare phenomenon to have an advanced cancer go into remission,” said Dr. Martin Gleave, a professor of urology at the University of British Columbia.

But knowing more about how tumors develop and sometimes reverse course might help doctors decide which tumors can be left alone and which need to be treated, something that is now not known in most cases."_

Regardless, anyone who feels that they were "cured by the Power of Christ" will continue to believe that.  So will people who were cured by crystals or copper bracelets or Buddhist chants or Scorpion Pepper treatments.  

Spittin' on my lucky crankbait calls fish.  (But only Kodiak, not Copenhagen.  I don't dip anymore but I might get mouth cancer anyway.  Praise Jesus.)


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Miracles by definition are meaningless.



The God given ability to believe is a miracle in itself to me.If you don't have that ability,you will only continually question the miracle.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The God given ability to believe is a miracle in itself to me.If you don't have that ability,you will only continually question the miracle.



Do you believe that the miracles that happen when people pray to Allah or Vishnu are real miracles?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> How do you mean?  Do you mean that if they happen then they are in the realm of Natural as opposed to Supernatural?



More so within the bible/religions.  The events that are considered miraculous in the bible exist only in religious texts throughout the world.
Some things contained within those texts that were once thought to be miracles have turned out to have natural explanations and the rest are not talked about outside of the religious texts.
If something was/is so miraculous people of all beliefs and disbelief would make note of it.

I am not a believer of religious things but if I see a guy ascend into the sky  you can bet I am going to try to make as much effort as possible to record it by any number of means possible available to me at the time. Religious miracles seem to only be specific to people who are already believers or unexplainable events automatically are given credit to divine acts of whatever God a person believes in. Then in the same breath magic is dismissed as trickery and ghostly supernatural events are held in a different regard as no God having involvement, but if they are indeed supernatural SOMETHING other than a god has to be involved.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The God given ability to believe is a miracle in itself to me.If you don't have that ability,you will only continually question the miracle.



What do you say to people of other religions that are given the same ability by their God or gods? They experience miracles too. Do you concede their gods grant them the same ability?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

And if a God predetermines outcomes why would he then step in and change the outcome?  Why answer a prayer if the outcome has already been determined eons ago?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Do you believe that the miracles that happen when people pray to Allah or Vishnu are real miracles?



No. 
Allah and Vishnu are made up gods who have no power to do anything.

Satan can transform himself into an angel of light(2Cor.11).But he is limited in what he can do by God.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> What do you say to people of other religions that are given the same ability by their God or gods? They experience miracles too. Do you concede their gods grant them the same ability?



No.because...

"Every good gift and every perfect gift come down from the Father of lights,in whom is no variableness or shadow of turning."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> No.because...
> 
> "Every good gift and every perfect gift come down from the Father of lights,in whom is no variableness or shadow of turning."



Where do those other miracles come from?  Who answers their prayers?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> No.
> Allah and Vishnu are made up gods who have no power to do anything.
> 
> Satan can transform himself into an angel of light(2Cor.11).But he is limited in what he can do by God.


Doesn't your god know what Satan is up to at all times?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Doesn't your god know what Satan is up to at all times?



Yes,He definately does.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Yes,He definately does.



So Satan is part of the plan right?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

Welder have you experienced a miracle?
Have you had a prayer answered?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Where do those other miracles come from?  Who answers their prayers?



Remember when Aaron threw down his staff and it became a serpent.Then pharaoh's magicians threw their's down and they also became serpents.

The first was of God.
The latter was of the angel of light.(satan)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Remember when Aaron threw down his staff and it became a serpent.Then pharaoh's magicians threw their's down and they also became serpents.
> 
> The first was of God.
> The latter was of the angel of light.(satan)


No, I was not there. I've only read about it. Where can I read that the 2nd time was satan?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> So Satan is part of the plan right?



Let me say it this way.
God's plan is carried out in spite of satan.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Let me say it this way.
> God's plan is carried out in spite of satan.



In spite of satan? Or because of satan?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

Welder what miracle has happened to you or what prayer has been answered?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> No, I was not there. I've only read about it. Where can I read that the 2nd time was satan?



Exodus


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Exodus



Oh buddy that never happened


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Welder what miracle has happened to you or what prayer has been answered?



I witnessed a demon possessed young man changed right before my eyes.
I witnessed a young girl healed of a supposedly "incurable" disease.
I personally was changed by the Holy Spirit from a person void of love for anyone but myself,to a person who loves to love others.

These are the main ones that stand out.There are many others.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I witnessed a demon possessed young man changed right before my eyes.
> I witnessed a young girl healed of a supposedly "incurable" disease.
> I personally was changed by the Holy Spirit from a person void of love for anyone but myself,to a person who loves to love others.
> 
> These are the main ones that stand out.There are many others.


A demon? Was the young man predetermined to be possessed?

If cured, was the disease ever incurable?

We're you always meant to be changed? Or do you think a prayer was answered or a miracle was performed?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> A demon?
> 1)Was the young man predetermined to be possessed?
> 
> 2)If cured, was the disease ever incurable?
> ...



1)God knows
2)I put it in quotations because that's how the doctors described it.
3)I believe so.
4)I believe so


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> 1)God knows
> 2)I put it in quotations because that's how the doctors described it.
> 3)I believe so.
> 4)I believe so



1a. Doubtful
2a. Those docs may have been the wrong ones for the job at hand. 
3a/4 a contradict each other


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> 1a. Doubtful
> 2a. Those docs may have been the wrong ones for the job at hand.
> 3a/4 a contradict each other[/QUOTE]
> 
> You aren't gonna get any traction on this.  Welder made it obvious that he can't even reason through a simple concept like Predestination vs. Freewill.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > 1a. Doubtful
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> > Brother-man, I know it. Sometimes I have a glimmer of hope that if they can see their own words something might sink in... with all these supernatural events going on ya never know when a true miracle might happen or another prayer gets answered.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't they seem to want to share the most powerful testimonies that they can offer?  I almost feel as if when they write it down they don't believe it themselves anymore.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> > I like sharing my beliefs and experiences with anyone who seems interested.I don't want to force it on anyone though.
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> > I like sharing my beliefs and experiences with anyone who seems interested.I don't want to force it on anyone though.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Apr 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > I like to hear about those experiences to see if there is a rational, reasonable or natural  explanation.
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > I don't expect you to believe,because I know where the source of belief comes from.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > I don't expect you to believe,because I know where the source of belief comes from.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Every day I hope for someone like you to actually be able to turn your claims into facts. I look forward to the day even one person can do it. I am baffled why your truth is so lacking in evidence so I come back daily to continue my search. My questions stay the same because so far they have been unanswerable.



This sounds just like what these folks were saying.
Note verse 26.Could this be the answer to this whole daily delimna?

John10
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

> This here's a Golden Oldie.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=363540&highlight=rebuke+tornado
> 
> A guy on there said he got a tornado to take a left by rebuking it.  Observe.  No one made fun of him but isn't it a fascinating story?  Have you ever witnessed a tornado being rebuked?



Easily believable because there are times when sitting at a traffic light I have been able to count down the seconds, 3..2..1.., and then on command it turns green. In essence I rebuke, or reprimand and criticize, the light from stop to go.
I mean there are times that doesn't work too but when it does I rule out coincidence, timing, familiarity with the light, amount of other traffic on the pad sensors etc and immediately convince myself that a higher power granted me the power to manipulate electronic signals in the traffic light.
At times I also have been able to hold off weather. I create a barrier where it is sunny in the town I live in but just 5 miles away there are storm clouds and it is raining there. You can see where the sun ends and clouds start.
Again, I cannot always do it so that is why when I am able to it is so miraculous when I can.
Some have argued that atmospheric conditions,  elevation change, the mountain range etc etc all could effect where the rain stops and where it starts but there are times when I have watched the weather channel and they called for precipitation and then I said out loud, it better not rain here, and lo and behold it stayed a few miles away.
I can see why reprimanding a tornado would work.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Easily believable because there are times when sitting at a traffic light I have been able to count down the seconds, 3..2..1.., and then on command it turns green. In essence I rebuke, or reprimand and criticize, the light from stop to go.
> I mean there are times that doesn't work too but when it does I rule out coincidence, timing, familiarity with the light, amount of other traffic on the pad sensors etc and immediately convince myself that a higher power granted me the power to manipulate electronic signals in the traffic light.
> At times I also have been able to hold off weather. I create a barrier where it is sunny in the town I live in but just 5 miles away there are storm clouds and it is raining there. You can see where the sun ends and clouds start.
> Again, I cannot always do it so that is why when I am able to it is so miraculous when I can.
> ...



This is based on a premise that you have power to do these things of yourself,which is false.You do not.
Sure,it can happen.But if it did,it would not be your power that did it.
See the difference?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This sounds just like what these folks were saying.
> Note verse 26.Could this be the answer to this whole daily delimna?
> 
> John10
> ...


 
It never ceases to amaze me how authors are able to come up with stories and write down words to compliment the stories they want told.
Like above, full well knowing that not every reader was going to believe in and follow the main character, the author was able to work in a scenario where the main character states that not everyone was part of his crew therfore that is why they don't get the benefits  of the company health plan.

It is surely a rare handful of authors that are able to cover all the bases while telling a story. I bet the numbers of authors that have done that only number in the low ye millions.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm just hoping one day one of them will say "I don't care if it's real or if it makes sense.  I believe it anyway."
> 
> But I do like the miracle stories.  Why don't they seem to want to share the most powerful testimonies that they can offer?  I almost feel as if when they write it down they don't believe it themselves anymore.



lol    I've got a miracle story!       the 'gods' at a local medical university told me I was going to die (their actual words were "this will take you out".   in '94.   Bilateral Involvement of Stage IV melanoma.   They said nothing worked, so I should get my affairs in order.   My wife and I decided we would believe what the scriptures say; that Christ's atonement paid for my healing.   I didn't go back to the doctor, and that was almost 22 years ago.   Still breathing.  As the Lord said, "As you believe, so be it unto you"     If you don't believe it - even if you're a Christian - it wont be yours.   

Anyway, that's my story.    Faith works for me every time.  I will never die of disease.    As the scriptures say, "bodily exercise profits little, but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise IN THIS LIFE and in the life to come.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This is based on a premise that you have power to do these things of yourself,which is false.You do not.
> Sure,it can happen.But if it did,it would not be your power that did it.
> See the difference?


Oh clearly. I have no doubt that with every crisis that goes in the world at every second a diety steps in and grants me the power to change those things.
I am positive that while people are in actual life and death crisis situations there is a god that would rather see me get through the intersection in a timely manner or get the final coat of wax on my vehicle while not too sunny and not raining either. It is at those times I feel a power not of my own that emulates.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    I've got a miracle story!       the 'gods' at a local medical university told me I was going to die (their actual words were "this will take you out".   in '94.   Bilateral Involvement of Stage IV melanoma.   They said nothing worked, so I should get my affairs in order.   My wife and I decided we would believe what the scriptures say; that Christ's atonement paid for my healing.   I didn't go back to the doctor, and that was almost 22 years ago.   Still breathing.  As the Lord said, "As you believe, so be it unto you"     If you don't believe it - even if you're a Christian - it wont be yours.
> 
> Anyway, that's my story.    Faith works for me every time.  I will never die of disease.    As the scriptures say, "bodily exercise profits little, but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise IN THIS LIFE and in the life to come.


Bandy, sincerely, I am happy for your health.

Now,
Are all believers immune from such diseases?

What are the parameters as to who is spared?

And, in your opinion because similar healings happen to people that do not pray to, follow, or even believe in Jesus Christ, what is responsible for those?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Oh clearly. I have no doubt that with every crisis that goes in the world at every second a diety steps in and grants me the power to change those things.
> I am positive that while people are in actual life and death crisis situations there is a god that would rather see me get through the intersection in a timely manner or get the final coat of wax on my vehicle while not too sunny and not raining either. It is at those times I feel a power not of my own that emulates.



I certainly can't judge whether those things are true or not.
I can say this with all certainty though,..If,(and that's a big If),if you are one of God's children,all things are working together for your good.That doesn't mean everything will be just like you want it,but it will be like you need it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I certainly can't judge whether those things are true or not.
> I can say this with all certainty though,..If,(and that's a big If),if you are one of God's children,all things are working together for your good.That doesn't mean everything will be just like you want it,but it will be like you need it.


Welder, I was being facetious.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Bandy, sincerely, I am happy for your health.
> 
> Now,
> Are all believers immune from such diseases?
> ...



Bullet, I appreciate you not making light of my health and 'miracle'.    

As i'm sure you know, many (if not most) Christians only can believe for 'faith benefits' after this life.   Most Christians that claim faith for healing use faith as an 'adjunct' therapy.   I do not.   All I can tell you is that my method works for me.    My actions show my faith.   If someone doesn't believe it, or half believes it, then it's not going to work for them, just as it didn't in the 1st century church.   Jesus could not do miracles in His home country because of unbelief.    

also, I have no doubt that there are other 'miracles' in people that don't believe.  All I can say is 'go with what works for you".   The one guy that Jesus healed, the Pharisees questioned him about it.   The Pharisees told the healed guy, "Give God praise for your healing.  We know that this guy (Jesus) is a sinner".    the healed guy said, (paraphrased)     "I could care less who He is, all i know is that I was blind, and now I see".    When I'm sick, I'll go to Him because He heals me every time.   Psalm 103 1-3


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just hoping one day one of them will say "I don't care if it's real or if it makes sense.  I believe it anyway."
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Bullet, I appreciate you not making light of my health and 'miracle'.
> 
> As i'm sure you know, many (if not most) Christians only can believe for 'faith benefits' after this life.   Most Christians that claim faith for healing use faith as an 'adjunct' therapy.   I do not.   All I can tell you is that my method works for me.    My actions show my faith.   If someone doesn't believe it, or half believes it, then it's not going to work for them, just as it didn't in the 1st century church.   Jesus could not do miracles in His home country because of unbelief.
> 
> also, I have no doubt that there are other 'miracles' in people that don't believe.  All I can say is 'go with what works for you".   The one guy that Jesus healed, the Pharisees questioned him about it.   The Pharisees told the healed guy, "Give God praise for your healing.  We know that this guy (Jesus) is a sinner".    the healed guy said, (paraphrased)     "I could care less who He is, all i know is that I was blind, and now I see".    When I'm sick, I'll go to Him because He heals me every time.   Psalm 103 1-3



The fact that you acknowledge that people of other faith and flat out atheists also heal miraculously has to have some merit.

They just do not go with what works for them because if so there are at least powers that equal the God of the bible.

Something, equally as effective is at work within them also. What, in your opinion could it be?

I know dedicated followers of Christ suffering and dying agonizing deaths. I guess the argument can be made that maybe they just were not quite as dedicated as it seemed therefore they were denied the miracle.

For the sake of argument I can go along with the all paths lead to one god so some believers in other religions get miraculous healings while other less dedicated believers do not. One god oversees all and it judges who is worthy. 

But where I have the real problem is when flat out atheists heal from disease,trauma, no win situations and impossible odds.
It defies everything told in scripture. They are not qualified. They are not inadvertently worshiping one god but actually worshiping another and rewarded for their efforts.
They in every way are the opposite of what scripture tells us happens to true believers. 
Yet they are the recipients of equally impressive miracles.

In your opinion how can that be?
How can they defy scripture if in fact scripture is true?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The fact that you acknowledge that people of other faith and flat out atheists also heal miraculously has to have some merit.
> 
> They just do not go with what works for them because if so there are at least powers that equal the God of the bible.
> 
> ...



Well, we know from scripture that "the god of this world" (satan) has miracle power.    He can cause disease obviously, since Acts 10:28 says that disease is the devil's work.   If he can cause it, i'm sure he can remove the cause and effect.    In the OT, when Pharoah's magicians threw down the stick and it became a snake; they expected it to turn into a snake, and had probably seen it before.    Just my opinion, but I think it has merit.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that this statement compliments the believers position and undermines yours?
> ...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > That statement reinforces the fact that nobody knows for sure what is going on, but they go with what sounds best for them.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Well, we know from scripture that "the god of this world" (satan) has miracle power.    He can cause disease obviously, since Acts 10:28 says that disease is the devil's work.   If he can cause it, i'm sure he can remove the cause and effect.    In the OT, when Pharoah's magicians threw down the stick and it became a snake; they expected it to turn into a snake, and had probably seen it before.    Just my opinion, but I think it has merit.


So the devil heals everyone that does not believe in Jesus?
Is that your position?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> So the devil heals everyone that does not believe in Jesus?
> Is that your position?



You're building a straw man, Bullet.   Didn't say anything about 'everyone'; but it is a possibility for some, as he can do what we would call 'the miraculous'.     I also believe that our body's own ability to heal can perform what would seem to be a miracle.    Like with cancer, what's the medical term...."Spontaneous" remission?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

> =BANDERSNATCH;10130307
> 
> You can't just lump all believers into one position on anything.   lol     As for my faith, it is grounded in scripture and science and statistics and probability.



I'll give you scripture. 
.250 is a decent career nowadays.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I'll give you scripture.
> .250 is a decent career nowadays.




it is in baseball.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > That statement reinforces the fact that nobody knows for sure what is going on, but they go with what sounds best for them.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You're building a straw man, Bullet.   Didn't say anything about 'everyone'; but it is a possibility for some, as he can do what we would call 'the miraculous'.     I also believe that our body's own ability to heal can perform what would seem to be a miracle.    Like with cancer, what's the medical term...."Spontaneous" remission?


But I am not building a straw man.
Who is responsible for atheists miracles?

And if our body has the ability to heal itself sometimes where is the defining line on when it does compared to God stepping in and doing it, the devil stepping in to do it or any of the other gods that people worship stepping in to do it?

Is it possible that in some cases, that for some people, their body has the correct genetic makeup that fights off certain ailments that otherwise kills other people?

In your case for example what was the definitive factor that you knew your body didn't do it but a god did.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> But I am not building a straw man.
> Who is responsible for atheists miracles?
> 
> And if our body has the ability to heal itself sometimes where is the defining line on when it does compared to God stepping in and doing it, the devil stepping in to do it or any of the other gods that people worship stepping in to do it?
> ...



 Do you believe that - in the case of cancer - there have been 'sponteneous' remissions?   

As for me, the defining line came when I had a belly full of how doctors talked to me.   Like they were all powerful and omniscient.   They told me I had 0% chance.   One in particular godlike doctor had his student doctor team with him and talked to me like I was a number; cold...matter-of-fact.    They were wrong.    Still breathing.   Actually called the one lady doctor last year to tell her that I was still around.   She remembered me and my wife.    Read an article the other day about the medical community.   The reward for surviving cancer is 'bankruptcy'.   Lucky for me, I don't let them cut, bruise or radiate me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Do you believe that - in the case of cancer - there have been 'sponteneous' remissions?
> 
> As for me, the defining line came when I had a belly full of how doctors talked to me.   Like they were all powerful and omniscient.   They told me I had 0% chance.   One in particular godlike doctor had his student doctor team with him and talked to me like I was a number; cold...matter-of-fact.    They were wrong.    Still breathing.   Actually called the one lady doctor last year to tell her that I was still around.   She remembered me and my wife.    Read an article the other day about the medical community.   The reward for surviving cancer is 'bankruptcy'.   Lucky for me, I don't let them cut, bruise or radiate me.


I absolutely know those remissions  happen. 
I agree 100% that they happen.

I fully understand why you avoid surgery and radiation.

I agree there are doctors with zero bedside manners.

None of that, especially when coupled with the fact that the body can heal itself, points to divine intervention or more specifically specific divine intervention.
If a case can be made that Jesus healed you and the devil healed someone else, well then the devil may have healed you too.

If the case can be made that scripture says followers of Jesus will be healed, and then there are clear examples atheists are healed, scripture is fallible.

But in your specific case where is the defining line that shows your immune system and body had nothing to do with healing and Jesus did?
I am sincerely curious.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

If I may interject.
As a believer,I can't sit around all day trying to figure out which things came directly from God or which things He allowed satan to deliver.God allowed satan to do all those things to Job for his good.But Job said this: "The Lord gives and the Lord taketh away;blessed be the name of the Lord."
I know that no matter how it gets to me,ultimately,God makes sure it's for my good.
We don't always know how because we can't see the big picture as God does.Only a small piece of it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I absolutely know those remissions  happen.
> I agree 100% that they happen.
> 
> I fully understand why you avoid surgery and radiation.
> ...



Oh...   Misunderstood your question.   Hmmmm    Good question.    As to when immune system cures people, lets say, of cancer, I would call it a 'miracle' when a large lump/mass instantly disappears.   No matter who/what orchestrates that; it would be miraculous, IMO.    As for me, I have two lymph nodes swell on both sides of my neck.   They cut those two out, and started testing them.   The first words from surgeon were, "Its a malignancy; we'll test it and let you know what kind".   I was still looking at him cross-eyed as I was just coming out of the anesthesia.    After testing it they told me "Melanoma"   Melanoma doesn't start in lymph nodes; it gets in the lymph from somewhere else.    They searched and searched for the "primary site" -  in my eyes, down my throat, bone scans, etc.     They couldn't find it.   Their explanation was that my body probably 'beat' the primary site, but that it had already scattered the seeds so it was 100% going to come back.    They said "75-80% recur the first year".     I quit going back for checkups.   All I know is that it never came back even though the seeds were obviously scattered.     BTW, if i had let them have their way, Id have been radiated and chemo'd out the wazzu!   and incurred a hefty pile of bills.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh...   Misunderstood your question.   Hmmmm    Good question.    As to when immune system cures people, lets say, of cancer, I would call it a 'miracle' when a large lump/mass instantly disappears.   No matter who/what orchestrates that; it would be miraculous, IMO.    As for me, I have two lymph nodes swell on both sides of my neck.   They cut those two out, and started testing them.   The first words from surgeon were, "Its a malignancy; we'll test it and let you know what kind".   I was still looking at him cross-eyed as I was just coming out of the anesthesia.    After testing it they told me "Melanoma"   Melanoma doesn't start in lymph nodes; it gets in the lymph from somewhere else.    They searched and searched for the "primary site" -  in my eyes, down my throat, bone scans, etc.     They couldn't find it.   Their explanation was that my body probably 'beat' the primary site, but that it had already scattered the seeds so it was 100% going to come back.    They said "75-80% recur the first year".     I quit going back for checkups.   All I know is that it never came back even though the seeds were obviously scattered.     BTW, if i had let them have their way, Id have been radiated and chemo'd out the wazzu!   and incurred a hefty pile of bills.


If the body has the ability to cure itself it is not miraculous. In fact the way I understand it, our bodies are fighting off cancer cells every minute of every day. It is usually when something happens to limit that ability is when a cancer becomes present. Many factors figure into it, some being genetics, diet, exposure to substances that cause cancers etc.

That being said, are you purposely avoiding getting into why you think that because you worship Jesus he cured you? And also purposely avoiding giving your opinion on why people from all religions also get cured, atheists get cured and sadly staunch devout followers die horribly agonizing deaths?

I cannot make sense of how you can differentiate your healing between your bodies ability and a god stepping in to do it.
If christians were the only ones to ever have this happen I would certainly be more apt to agree with you. Since that certainly is not the case I am curious to hear your opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> If I may interject.
> As a believer,I can't sit around all day trying to figure out which things came directly from God or which things He allowed satan to deliver.God allowed satan to do all those things to Job for his good.But Job said this: "The Lord gives and the Lord taketh away;blessed be the name of the Lord."
> I know that no matter how it gets to me,ultimately,God makes sure it's for my good.
> We don't always know how because we can't see the big picture as God does.Only a small piece of it.


Well see when you allow examples of ancient text to explain current events I think it puts you at a severe disadvantage.
It does not explain why the exact same things happen to others that worship a different god and yet others who worship nothing. 
You have nothing unique and for that reason is why I continue to question the claim.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> If the body has the ability to cure itself it is not miraculous. In fact the way I understand it, our bodies are fighting off cancer cells every minute of every day. It is usually when something happens to limit that ability is when a cancer becomes present. Many factors figure into it, some being genetics, diet, exposure to substances that cause cancers etc.
> 
> That being said, are you purposely avoiding getting into why you think that because you worship Jesus he cured you? And also purposely avoiding giving your opinion on why people from all religions also get cured, atheists get cured and sadly staunch devout followers die horribly agonizing deaths?
> 
> ...



It is miraculous when a mass instantly goes away.   Wouldn't you agree?    

Christian Science people have been reporting healings for a long time....not that I agree with them, but it shows that someone doesn't have to be a Christian to get a healing.    As for me, the 'healing' came from the cancer never coming back, even though the gods told me it would.    "This will take you out" was ignored...and I chose to believe that Jesus' death bought me more than just everlasting life.    Works for me every time....I'll stick with it.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It is miraculous when a mass instantly goes away.   Wouldn't you agree?



I think labeling such things as miracles naturally suppresses further research into an action which could possibly save lives. I certainly hope doctors and scientist don't take this approach. 

Cancers do go away. While rare, it is not unheard of. 

"It was the late 19th Century, and William Bradley Coley was struggling to save a patient with a large tumour in his neck. Five operations had failed to eradicate the cancer. Then the patient caught a nasty skin infection with a scorching fever. By the time he’d recovered, the tumour was gone. Testing the principle on a small number of other patients, Coley found that deliberately infecting them with bacteria, or treating them with toxins harvested from microbes, destroyed otherwise inoperable tumours." 

So, again, studying spontaneous remission of cancer instead of saying “God did it” allows us to see trends, and looking for natural explanations of those trends can help people. Don't you agree?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

660griz said:


> I think labeling such things as miracles naturally suppresses further research into an action which could possibly save lives. I certainly hope doctors and scientist don't take this approach.
> 
> Cancers do go away. While rare, it is not unheard of.
> 
> ...



I brought up spontaneous remission just to show that someone can appear to be healed no matter what faith or non-faith they are.    Medicine has the 'spontaneous remission' title for it since it happens on occasion.    In your example, the mass disappeared 'by the time he had recovered' from his infection.    If the mass had disappeared instantly - as reported in other healings - I think we could all call that a miracle, unless one just had a bias against the miraculous.   (bare in mind, we all believe in miracles, just differ on which ones)


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> (bare in mind, we all believe in miracles, just differ on which ones)



I don't believe in miracles.(attributed to supernatural) I know that sometimes, good things happen that we can't explain. I also know that sometimes bad things happen that we can't explain.
I hope that 'we' keep working to understand those things and not write them off as 'miracle'. 

You should know that giving God the credit for the good stuff means he must take credit for the bad stuff.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Well see when you allow examples of ancient text to explain current events I think it puts you at a severe disadvantage.
> It does not explain why the exact same things happen to others that worship a different god and yet others who worship nothing.
> You have nothing unique and for that reason is why I continue to question the claim.



I don't have those specific answers.No one does,except God.
All I can say with certainty is that God is sovereign over all.He does what He pleases and He allows what He pleases and He's just in doing it.His promises are to those who love Him,the called according to His purpose,for their good.He does not give that promise to the others.Why does He still bless those others with healing and blessings?Could it be to harden their hearts?God knows.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

Bandy,

Did you see this?




ambush80 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html?_r=0
> 
> _"But there is growing evidence that cancers can go backward or stop, and researchers are being forced to reassess their notions of what cancer is and how it develops.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It is miraculous when a mass instantly goes away.   Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Christian Science people have been reporting healings for a long time....not that I agree with them, but it shows that someone doesn't have to be a Christian to get a healing.    As for me, the 'healing' came from the cancer never coming back, even though the gods told me it would.    "This will take you out" was ignored...and I chose to believe that Jesus' death bought me more than just everlasting life.    Works for me every time....I'll stick with it.



Every time?  Or do you sometimes get a "No" or "wait" answer?  Have you tried to test it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It is miraculous when a mass instantly goes away.   Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Christian Science people have been reporting healings for a long time....not that I agree with them, but it shows that someone doesn't have to be a Christian to get a healing.    As for me, the 'healing' came from the cancer never coming back, even though the gods told me it would.    "This will take you out" was ignored...and I chose to believe that Jesus' death bought me more than just everlasting life.    Works for me every time....I'll stick with it.


Miracles are things that cannot happen but do. They are rare. A mass that goes away is not rare. It happens and happens quite a bit.
It happens to christians. It happens to muslims. It happens to hindus. It happens to atheists. (and representatives of every other category you can think of)

If you were healed natruall by your body it wasn't a miracle.
If Jesus healed you how would you know?

If your evidence is similar to others that worship differently who claim to have been healed by their gods it isn't so miraculous as it would seem any old god can pull it off.

Basically as we go through  the evidence nothing stands out that a god had anything to do with it. Any evidence given is not exclusive to Jesus as there are the same examples used by followers of other religions.
So, either all the gods are capable or none are.

Then we have cancerous tumors that dissappear in non religious people. And that is evidence that no god stepped in to do anything, especially Jesus, based off of your own scripture. 

Is it possible that you are giving the wrong god credit? Is it possible that your cancer would have gone away even if you worshiped a different god?
Is it possible your cancer would have gone away if you did not worship any God at all?

If only christians were healed like that I'd say you were onto something. Since they are not exclusive to have good such healings occur is it possible that there is another explanation?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I don't have those specific answers.No one does,except God.
> All I can say with certainty is that God is sovereign over all.He does what He pleases and He allows what He pleases and He's just in doing it.His promises are to those who love Him,the called according to His purpose,for their good.He does not give that promise to the others.Why does He still bless those others with healing and blessings?Could it be to harden their hearts?God knows.



I just cannot take your word for it. I know that you do not know a god,you have never talked to a god, and even if you could meet whatever you call god you would not be able to understand a being that is so complex.

I respect what you belive, I reject what you try to pass off as fact.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

I suppose these questions seem like they're challenging the faith of believers but in actuality they apply to everyone who might subscribe to belief in supernatural healing.

I went with my neighbor who has cancer to a Buddhist Healing chanting seminar.   Suppose my neighbor's cancer goes away.  Should we all agree that the chanting worked?  I guarantee you that she will say that it did. I've been looking up "healing" recipes (one of them being chicken soup) and have been making her some.  If she gets better should we all agree that chicken soup helped?

I think what we un-believers are constantly trying to do is fine tune our "Reality sensors".  We are trying to figure out what's real.  I know I am.  Believers claim to have an inside track into a kind of reality. Its seems so significant.  I can't help but keep trying to investigate it.  So thank you believers, for providing valuable information.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I just cannot take your word for it. I know that you do not know a god,you have never talked to a god, and even if you could meet whatever you call god you would not be able to understand a being that is so complex.
> 
> I respect what you belive, I reject what you try to pass off as fact.



I can't understand Him fully(not yet).But I can certainly understand what He reveals to me.
Jesus prayed this:
"Father I thank thee because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent,and hast revealed them unto babes."

Are you wise and prudent?(of yourself)
Or are you as a babe in your trusting dependance?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose these questions seem like they're challenging the faith of believers but in actuality they apply to everyone who might subscribe to belief in supernatural healing.
> 
> I went with my neighbor who has cancer to a Buddhist Healing chanting seminar.   Suppose my neighbor's cancer goes away.  Should we all agree that the chanting worked?  I guarantee you that she will say that it did. I've been looking up "healing" recipes (one of them being chicken soup) and have been making her some.  If she gets better should we all agree that chicken soup helped?
> 
> I think what we un-believers are constantly trying to do is fine tune our "Reality sensors".  We are trying to figure out what's real.  I know I am.  Believers claim to have an inside track into a kind of reality. Its seems so significant.  I can't help but keep trying to investigate it.  So thank you believers, for providing valuable information.



 

I'd go wherever there was a cure....buddhist chants or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'd go wherever there was a cure....buddhist chants or not.



That's real talk, brother.

I threw up a prayer for my neighbor (for my own amusement) to a generic God.  I figured I should cover all the bases and not get too specific.  But I also struck a gong.  It seemed to make her feel better and I didn't mind it as an amusement.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

I would have to wonder why a believer in Christian scripture would need to go anywhere else for treatment. 

I appreciate Bandy's honesty by keeping options open though.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I would have to wonder why a believer in Christian scripture would need to go anywhere else for treatment.
> 
> I appreciate Bandy's honesty by keeping options open though.



Don't misread me, Bullet.   What I was saying was, IF CHRIST WASN'T MY TRIED AND TRUE SOURCE, i'd go somewhere else.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'd go wherever there was a cure....buddhist chants or not.



But...why? Isn't it God's plan? 
Not looking forward to heaven? 
Using other parts of the scripture to justify an attempt to cheat death?
Sure sounds like hope rather than faith. 
I seriously do not understand a true believer trying to get out of a death sentence. 
I understand an atheist doing it. This life is all I have.

The one props I give to the extremist. They will gladly meet their maker at the drop of a hat. 
Now, that is faith.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

660griz said:


> But...why? Isn't it God's plan?
> Not looking forward to heaven?
> Using other parts of the scripture to justify an attempt to cheat death?
> Sure sounds like hope rather than faith.
> ...



lol    Don't think i know one believer that thinks he's getting out of a death sentence!     

The extremist is buying his way into heaven.      That's the difference between religion and grace.   Religion is working to gain God's favor; grace is God giving us something that we don't deserve.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Don't misread me, Bullet.   What I was saying was, IF CHRIST WASN'T MY TRIED AND TRUE SOURCE, i'd go somewhere else.


You have dodged every question that asked you to explain how Christ had anything at all to do with it.
I am convinced that Jesus having a hand in it would stand out above all others and would not be at all hard to prove.
On one hand I respect your unwillingness to throw your healings by Jesus under the bus but at the same time saying nothing and hoping the questions stop (like in the apostle thread) doesn't bode well for you backing up your claims.

You have admitted that the body heals. You have admitted that people of other religions heal. You admitted atheists heal.

What sets Jesus healing apart that allows an individual to know it was Jesus and not their own body, medicine, another god or some voodoo?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You have dodged every question that asked you to explain how Christ had anything at all to do with it.
> I am convinced that Jesus having a hand in it would stand out above all others and would not be at all hard to prove.
> On one hand I respect your unwillingness to throw your healings by Jesus under the bus but at the same time saying nothing and hoping the questions stop (like in the apostle thread) doesn't bode well for you backing up your claims.



bullet, you can rant and rave all you want about 'unwillingness'...I've already told you that I chose to believe God's word over the doctors, and that those cancer cells never became another tumor.   Make of it what you will...all I know is that faith in Christ has worked for me and will always work.   If I die of some disease, then I'll take it up with Him on the other side 

As to the apostle thread, I told you (if you'll bother reading it) that I was giving you the last word - which I did - even though you tried and tried to pull me back in.   Isn't giving you the last word enough for you?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You have dodged every question that asked you to explain how Christ had anything at all to do with it.
> I am convinced that Jesus having a hand in it would stand out above all others and would not be at all hard to prove.
> On one hand I respect your unwillingness to throw your healings by Jesus under the bus but at the same time saying nothing and hoping the questions stop (like in the apostle thread) doesn't bode well for you backing up your claims.
> 
> ...



To me or you, nothing.  To believer, their belief.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> bullet, you can rant and rave all you want about 'unwillingness'...I've already told you that I chose to believe God's word over the doctors, and that those cancer cells never became another tumor.   Make of it what you will...all I know is that faith in Christ has worked for me and will always work.   If I die of some disease, then I'll take it up with Him on the other side
> 
> As to the apostle thread, I told you (if you'll bother reading it) that I was giving you the last word - which I did - even though you tried and tried to pull me back in.   Isn't giving you the last word enough for you?



Have you tested it?  How so?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Have you tested it?  How so?



Well, I haven't been sick since the cancer thing.    Can't remember the last time I had a cold...    So, I'd have to say I have not tested it again since the cancer victory.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    Don't think i know one believer that thinks he's getting out of a death sentence!


Or non believer for that matter but, I think you know what I meant.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> bullet, you can rant and rave all you want about 'unwillingness'...I've already told you that I chose to believe God's word over the doctors, and that those cancer cells never became another tumor.   Make of it what you will...all I know is that faith in Christ has worked for me and will always work.   If I die of some disease, then I'll take it up with Him on the other side
> 
> As to the apostle thread, I told you (if you'll bother reading it) that I was giving you the last word - which I did - even though you tried and tried to pull me back in.   Isn't giving you the last word enough for you?



I had hoped you could offer something unique that stood out from the words of other gods or something that stood out from the healing experience from a godless person.
So be it.

Regarding the apostle thread,
I am always interested in conversation. 
I didn't think anything I asked you would be too difficult for you to answer since you brought up the subject.
If you have something that answers my questions I'd love to hear it.
If not let it go.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> To me or you, nothing.  To believer, their belief.



Yep. I am always interested to hear if someone could finally step up and be able to differentiate how their beliefs elevate their results above the exact same results of others.
I sometimes get too excited and think somebody might actually say something that stands out as conversations progress but in the end we have christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hundus, satanists, atheists, naturalists and everyone else that all have the same results.
We find out what is common between them all so the other claims can be eliminated as being  viable reasons for exclusivity.
In the end all experienced the exact same results no extras required.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2016)

Science has enabled the blind to see. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled the deaf to hear. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled the dumb to speak. Christianity has not. Science has fed the multitudes. Christianity has not.  Science has cured most of the worst plagues of humankind. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled paraplegics to move about  independently. Christianity has not. Science has uncovered the secrets of the universe. Christianity has not. Science has taken us to moon, to the planets, and the comets. Christianity has left us stuck on earth.

Lastly, Christianity has promised us an eternal life, but has done nothing to extend our earthly lifespan.  Science has doubled our life expectancy in the past 150 years.  And if immortality is ever achieved, it will be science, not Christianity, that will deliver it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 20, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Science has enabled the blind to see. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled the deaf to hear. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled the dumb to speak. Christianity has not. Science has fed the multitudes. Christianity has not.  Science has cured most of the worst plagues of humankind. Christianity has not.  Science has enabled paraplegics to move about  independently. Christianity has not. Science has uncovered the secrets of the universe. Christianity has not. Science has taken us to moon, to the planets, and the comets. Christianity has left us stuck on earth.
> 
> Lastly, Christianity has promised us an eternal life, but has done nothing to extend our earthly lifespan.  Science has doubled our life expectancy in the past 150 years.  And if immortality is ever achieved, it will be science, not Christianity, that will deliver it.



It took you a month to come up with this? I'm disappointed.  

It's true; Christianity has done nothing you mentioned. It wasn't meant to.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It took you a month to come up with this? I'm disappointed.
> 
> It's true; Christianity has done nothing you mentioned. It wasn't meant to.


Don't give me so much credit. I've been mixing in some points from kyroot.com where I see fit in these threads.
Despite your disappointment I will try to make it through the day today.


----------

