Our origin acording to presidential candidate Ben Carson

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
a reply to: Hyperia

If science didn't work you wouldn't have a computer to type your laughter on.

Made by science, I suppose?

You could also argue that if God didn't work then you couldn't imply that "a method for finding fact" created computers.

Either way, the argument is circular, pointless.

The only reason one would take either side against the other is religious fanaticism.

I'm agnostic, with a heaping tablespoon of lets be reasonable.

a reply to: supermarket2012

What makes you think Humans are EXACTLY IDENTICAL to God?

Perhaps you missed that word if because I never said we were exactly identical.

originally posted by: CraftBuilder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
a reply to: Hyperia

If science didn't work you wouldn't have a computer to type your laughter on.

Made by science, I suppose?

You could also argue that if God didn't work then you couldn't imply that "a method for finding fact" created computers.

Either way, the argument is circular, pointless.

The only reason one would take either side against the other is religious fanaticism.

I'm agnostic, with a heaping tablespoon of let be reasonable.

I'm a born-again Christian. I believe that God created everything. I also believe that there is no conflict between the ethics of the Biblical account of creation and the discoveries of scientific knowledge (which are largely amoral). They are in two separate realms and barely touch.

I do not believe that evolution is wrong or right. It is a framework for understanding genetic change in populations but I also do not believe that it is the ONLY explanation, nor is it fully complete yet (It is reductionist and cannot describe the full complexity and variety of the processes of biodiversity).

Hopefully, that is reasonable, too.

Look, I believe in God too. I really do, just not the Christian God as laid out in the Bible. I realize that Genesis is a book written by man to be understood by uneducated men and women. I also understand that there is some pretty good science, and data that goes into the theory of evolution. That's good science. Much better than God Created us in a day and took a rib from one person to make a second person.

So let's see we have Ben Carson with the book of Genesis and then we have Fossils and Scientists. I'm going with the Scientists again.

I'd also like to add that I'm not voting for anyone who's anti science. So Ben does not have my vote.


I just need to add this quote by Carson. He believes literally in the six day creation and there is no room for any evolution in his view on life on earth.

"...It says in the beginning God created the heaven and Earth. It doesn't say when he created them, except for in the beginning. So the Earth could have been here for a long time before he started creating things on it. But when he did start doing that, he made it very specifically clear to us the evening and the morning were the next day because he knew that people would come along and try to say that, "Oh, it was millions and millions of years." And then what else did he say in the very first chapter? That each thing brought forth after its own kind. Because he knew that people would come along and say, you know, this changed into that and this changed into that and this changed into that. So at the very beginning of the Bible, he puts that to rest..."

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Of course I'm sure you believe Life and the Universe just came into being randomly because... of Science?

Well more things can be proven with science than just believing a magical sky fairy snapped it's fingers and created everything.

"magical sky fairy"? Really?

What intellectual dynamite you bring to this debate!

You mean like you? Fairies are said to have a human appearance and have magical powers just like God. Sorry my answer was too complex for you to understand from now on I'll try to dumb it down for you.

originally posted by: libertytoall
a reply to: buster2010

Believing in God as the creator does not require dismissal of science.

No it just requires the suspension of logic and reason.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

I am not sure where to start with this one. How is possible to be well educated, yet not believe in science but rather fairy tales?!

This, among other things Benny has said just does not make sense and it is unbelievable that someone from medical field has issues with some basics of medicine...

I would be worried for education as well for our well being if someone like this becomes president...

It's not believable because it isn't true. Carson is a Fabian Socialist, just like all the major candidates. He can 'pretend' to be a fundamentalist Christian because Fabian Socialists achieve their objective through infiltration. There's no way he actually believes in Creationism as a physician.

Carson's only purpose is to rally conservative support for the very socialist policy of mandatory vaccinations -- something a typical conservative would reject from liberals as a government overreach.

But he's already succeeding in getting many conservatives on board with that policy. That's Dr. Carson's role in this election.

It's not believable because it isn't true. Carson is a Fabian Socialist, just like all the major candidates. He can 'pretend' to be a fundamentalist Christian because Fabian Socialists achieve their objective through infiltration. There's no way he actually believes in Creationism as a physician.

Carson's only purpose is to rally conservative support for the very socialist policy of mandatory vaccinations -- something a typical conservative would reject from liberals as a government overreach.

But he's already succeeding in getting many conservatives on board with that policy. That's Dr. Carson's role in this election.

This is a new one on me. For how long have all the major candidates been Fabian Socialists?

originally posted by: libertytoall
a reply to: buster2010

Believing in God as the creator does not require dismissal of science.

Actually it does, as science tells you that humans are not product of someone's handy work, but rather product of evolution through time. Same goes for universe, where bible actually puts it wrongly that God created 2 great lights... sun and moon, and today we know that moon is not source of light, but rather reflection, where distant stars, billions upon billions of them are actually sources of light.

Do I need to continue more??

originally posted by: Moresby

It's not believable because it isn't true. Carson is a Fabian Socialist, just like all the major candidates. He can 'pretend' to be a fundamentalist Christian because Fabian Socialists achieve their objective through infiltration. There's no way he actually believes in Creationism as a physician.

Carson's only purpose is to rally conservative support for the very socialist policy of mandatory vaccinations -- something a typical conservative would reject from liberals as a government overreach.

But he's already succeeding in getting many conservatives on board with that policy. That's Dr. Carson's role in this election.

This is a new one on me. For how long have all the major candidates been Fabian Socialists?

I couldn't tell you. As I said, Fabians don't "announce" their arrival. They arrive by infiltration.

Isn't this what's going on?

"The Fabians preferred the method of "permeation," or what Margaret (Postgate) Cole termed the "honeycomb" effect. Instead of undertaking direct confrontational action, for example, by aligning themselves with working-class trade unionism or other militant socialists, the Fabians sought to change the system from within, and would achieve this by a process of infiltration. Through their great intellectual weight, they would "persuade" members of government (whatever the Party), civil servants, and other people in power that ameliorating the plight of the less fortunate in society was a necessary and just cause. They achieved a measurable success at this because they possessed among their small number some of the best minds and celebrities of the time."

Source

I think it is. Either Fabian socialists have infiltrated both parties to 'reform' the U.S. Government -- or something very similar has happened.

a reply to: libertytoall

no it doesnt but when 'last days' arrive science might not be enough to keep your head straight

Yikes. Didn't know he was that far out. Even Christians a thousand years ago knew it was an allegory story.

I mean it's impossible to prove or disprove God or the creation of the universe and what the first cause or if there is a design or not but this is not intellectual at all. This is the hocus pocus of the faith.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: libertytoall
a reply to: buster2010

Believing in God as the creator does not require dismissal of science.

Actually it does, as science tells you that humans are not product of someone's handy work, but rather product of evolution through time. Same goes for universe, where bible actually puts it wrongly that God created 2 great lights... sun and moon, and today we know that moon is not source of light, but rather reflection, where distant stars, billions upon billions of them are actually sources of light.

Do I need to continue more??

Well nobody knows how the universe came to be. What was the first cause?

Then there is a pretty compelling argument for fine tuning. By admission of even Christopher Hitchins.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: libertytoall
a reply to: buster2010

Believing in God as the creator does not require dismissal of science.

No it just requires the suspension of logic and reason.

No, it doesn't, if you don't confine your logic and reason to the tangible things.

Neither Dark Matter nor Dark Energy are tangible, insofar as our science is able to quantify, yet you hang on to that.

You're willing to hang on to one unquantifiable explanation as truth, yet are willing to dismiss one equally unquantifiable explanation as fallacy?

Narrow minded, are you not?

originally posted by: luthier

Well nobody knows how the universe came to be. What was the first cause?

Then there is a pretty compelling argument for fine tuning. By admission of even Christopher Hitchins.

If you notice, every IDEA in Space and Time causes another IDEA to materialize in Space and Time. Because Every Idea that Materializes brings with it new Ideas.

The only exception are Ideas born in Minds, like our own. Our Ideas only manifest in Time. Nothing spontaneously materializes.

So the Universe came to be from the Idea of Something. It's an Idea that materialized itself and was never in a mind first.

We seriously need to get rid of these Creationist, Intelligent Design believing nut jobs out of the political field.

Which part of "Separation of Church and State" does he not understand?

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

originally posted by: luthier
Well nobody knows how the universe came to be. What was the first cause?

Astrophysicists have pretty good idea about start of the world, as well when and how it happened, all supported with evidence in background radiation.

originally posted by: luthier
Then there is a pretty compelling argument for fine tuning. By admission of even Christopher Hitchins.

Really??

When asked what was best argument other side made, Christopher Hitchens did say it's fine tuning, but nowhere he said that is pretty compelling argument... just that is best creationist came with.

Here is Hitchen's on fine tuning... not sure he shares your view about fine tuning...



I really miss him and his mind. His book ' Good is not great' was really something worth reading. He had interesting way of telling what he really thinks...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: luthier
Well nobody knows how the universe came to be. What was the first cause?

Astrophysicists have pretty good idea about start of the world, as well when and how it happened, all supported with evidence in background radiation.

originally posted by: luthier
Then there is a pretty compelling argument for fine tuning. By admission of even Christopher Hitchins.

Really??

When asked what was best argument other side made, Christopher Hitchens did say it's fine tuning, but nowhere he said that is pretty compelling argument... just that is best creationist came with.

Here is Hitchen's on fine tuning... not sure he shares your view about fine tuning...

I really miss him and his mind. His book ' Good is not great' was really something worth reading. He had interesting way of telling what he really thinks...

“The fine-tuning argument we all agree is the most intriguing. It is not trivial – we all say that.” Here he is clearly speaking for his New Atheist friends. Hitchens is emphatic and repeats the point, “We all agree about that.”


I would look at Luke Barnes work before you just dismiss fine tuning. He is a leading cosmologist. He also is easily found on common sense atheism and has a great interview on the site.



As far as what you said about when the universe started I agree and understand. I was saying what started the universe what was before? How do you handle the problem without infinite regress?

And yeah I Miss Hitchins too. He could blast the zealots and was much better at philosophy than Dawkins.

I am saying at least these arguments for God don't rely on mythology. That is really it. And while there are arguments against the ontological, cosmological and teleological argument for God they are still reason based which is a big step from just using the bible in my opinion.

I did think he had trouble with Craig in that debate but apologists get trained to debate where as there aren't Atheist Universities training to debate Gods lack of existence.

I wasn't going to vote for him anyways, but I doubly won't vote for him now. All you have to do is look at religious political leaders around the world to see how much they suck- war, nepotism, poverty, corruption, hoarding fortunes at everyone else's expense. No thank you. Religious leaders think they don't actually have to be good at running a state because God will love them no matter how terrible they do, and they think he's coming back for them any minute now, so once again they have no incentive to do a good job.

a reply to: luthier

I am not going on on a limb here to predict it will take a fabulously 'famous' mind with a media platform for you to open your mind to truth.

I suspect nothing less will be considered, by you. Not even for a moment. Although I am only basing my opinion on my one prior one-way interaction in this thread and on what you have written in this thread.

Good luck though. Some celeb, peer-reviewed, media-recognized person will eventually come along to point you to the truth and, by gosh, you will maybe-possibly see it if you are impressed enough with the image of the mind it came from.