QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 24 2008, 04:39 AM)
Life comes from life, it is called biogenesis.
That must mean life has always been and is just a natural part of universe.
That must mean life has always been and is just a natural part of universe.
Yes, Yockey's axiom ----->above somewhere and Showtopic= 21479.
However, I would argue the supernatural part beyond boundary conditions.
So, is life really natural? Not to our knowledge due to biogenesis.
Vitalism is not quite defeated.
MrB.
However, I would argue the supernatural part beyond boundary conditions.
So, is life really natural? Not to our knowledge due to biogenesis.
Vitalism is not quite defeated.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 25 2008, 01:05 AM)
So, is life really natural?
Is life really "natural"? You mean as in "occurring in nature"?
I would have to say yes.
I think it means "operates solely through naturalistic mechanisms", to which the answer is obviously "yes".
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 25 2008, 03:17 PM)
I think it means "operates solely through naturalistic mechanisms", to which the answer is obviously "yes".
Not to him. the answer is obviously no.
Not to him. the answer is obviously no.
QUOTE
Is life really "natural"? You mean as in "occurring in nature"?
Yockey and I mean solely explained by nature. Hence, vitalism has two definitions.
Behe and his black box history is the popular expert on the first definition.
"The question of how life works was not one Darwin or his contemporaries could answer," says he.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is life really "natural"? You mean as in "occurring in nature"? |
Yockey and I mean solely explained by nature. Hence, vitalism has two definitions.
Behe and his black box history is the popular expert on the first definition.
"The question of how life works was not one Darwin or his contemporaries could answer," says he.
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
"Self determination" forms part of the second definition that would ask where does life come from. Life comes from life and informs the first definition. Yockey's axiom does not spring for any notion of where life comes from setting up the paradox that Evolution must fail. The natural use of the Big Bang paradigm loses in its sequential condensation.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 24 2008, 09:39 AM)
Life comes from life, it is called biogenesis.
Some tend to think not.
If (the others) were asked , would reply, "then which life did GOD come from?"
The answer would be a prompt, "GOD is a spirit form of energy, not a life form".
I am not objecting nor supporting you MisterBelfry.
Sandra
Some tend to think not.
If (the others) were asked , would reply, "then which life did GOD come from?"
The answer would be a prompt, "GOD is a spirit form of energy, not a life form".
I am not objecting nor supporting you MisterBelfry.
Sandra
QUOTE (Sandra doliak+May 26 2008, 07:07 AM)
Some tend to think not.
If (the others) were asked , would reply, "then which life did GOD come from?"
The answer would be a prompt, "GOD is a spirit form of energy, not a life form".
I am not objecting nor supporting you MisterBelfry.
Sandra
And others seek to reveal the truth.
If (the others) were asked , would reply, "then which life did GOD come from?"
The answer would be a prompt, "GOD is a spirit form of energy, not a life form".
I am not objecting nor supporting you MisterBelfry.
Sandra
And others seek to reveal the truth.
Once again we see Mr B filling in the gaps with God did it.
Things are too complex to have happened naturally. Must've been god.
(Wouldn't god be even more complex?)
Life comes from life.
(OK, where did that life come from?)
God, the one size fits all non-answer.
Things are too complex to have happened naturally. Must've been god.
(Wouldn't god be even more complex?)
Life comes from life.
(OK, where did that life come from?)
God, the one size fits all non-answer.
QUOTE
Once again we see Mr B filling in the gaps with God did it.
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
| Once again we see Mr B filling in the gaps with God did it. However, where I make the logical leap of faith, Hoyle would rather not, "talk about 'the supernatural' and the 3-letter word." -GK
|
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 27 2008, 11:57 AM)
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
life also comes from pre-life complex molecules.
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
life also comes from pre-life complex molecules.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 27 2008, 06:57 AM)
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
Well good for you. Personally I've found that eliminating mythology (or at least demoting it to it's proper allegorical status) helps in my quest of the philosophical why.
It's never a good idea to mistake philosophical truth for physical truth.
Well, the particular God thing of Abraham and Moses is a given in my world. It helps my quest in the philosophical "why".
Once again, Gmilam, what do you see(and where did you see it)?
MrB.
The Godhead is complex, and the proof of that so far is that Life comes from Life.
What is speciation!
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature[Hence the reknowned Jesus\Yeshua] and that are reproductively isolated [Hence Heaven]?
Well good for you. Personally I've found that eliminating mythology (or at least demoting it to it's proper allegorical status) helps in my quest of the philosophical why.
It's never a good idea to mistake philosophical truth for physical truth.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 27 2008, 12:53 PM)
It's never a good idea to mistake philosophical truth for physical truth.
Absolutely! Truth can only apply to that which is real. We can 'wax philosophical' about it, when it is found to be true!
People rarely attempt to understand the 'relativities' of all the layers of existence, because they are predominantly in the easy, but lazy, 'black and white' mode, looking for 'definite's' of the 'either/or' variety. Quite often, the answer is 'both', in a multitude of shades!
g.
>>> life also comes from pre-life complex molecules. <<<
Yeah, but how did it get that way? To say the ways are endless, so that we will never find out, seems pretty fishy to me.
Buttershug, et.al.
Have you heard of, or read any of R.S.?
"God did not directly create humans and animals, but indirectly via the laws of nature, via the law of natural selection. This explains why Swinburne is a theist and an evolutionist. For Swinburne evolution is not the crucial point. After reading Phillip Johnson I need to get used to the idea that a theist accepts evolution. The beneficial effect as I see it is that scientists can now study the origin of humans, animals and plants without being hindered by supernatural intervention.
...
Swinburne objects also to the many-worlds theory as an explanation of the fine tuning. "To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality". Swinburne states not to postulate a 'God of the gaps'."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho24.htm
Theism is now a formula?
MrB.
Yeah, but how did it get that way? To say the ways are endless, so that we will never find out, seems pretty fishy to me.
Buttershug, et.al.
Have you heard of, or read any of R.S.?
"God did not directly create humans and animals, but indirectly via the laws of nature, via the law of natural selection. This explains why Swinburne is a theist and an evolutionist. For Swinburne evolution is not the crucial point. After reading Phillip Johnson I need to get used to the idea that a theist accepts evolution. The beneficial effect as I see it is that scientists can now study the origin of humans, animals and plants without being hindered by supernatural intervention.
...
Swinburne objects also to the many-worlds theory as an explanation of the fine tuning. "To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality". Swinburne states not to postulate a 'God of the gaps'."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho24.htm
Theism is now a formula?
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 28 2008, 11:10 AM)
>>> life also comes from pre-life complex molecules. <<<
Yeah, but how did it get that way? To say the ways are endless, so that we will never find out, seems pretty fishy to me.
Simploe chemistry and basic probability.
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier.
Yeah, but how did it get that way? To say the ways are endless, so that we will never find out, seems pretty fishy to me.
Simploe chemistry and basic probability.
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier.
QUOTE
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier.
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier. |
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
Simploe chemistry and basic probability.
No. To quote that Kauffman piece, "The process of reinventing the sacred requires a fresh understanding of science that takes into account complexity theory...It will require a shift from reductionism,... The second transition in our view of science is based on Darwinian pre-adaptations. ...there seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations."
To quote myself again {Showtopic= 20892},
"The science is in the eschatology.
Evolution proposes nonsense. Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model."
In an ocean of principles, biogenesis swims ahead of the rest.
MrB.
Everybody is an 'evolutionist' by default of existing.
g.
g.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 29 2008, 05:17 AM)
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften.
What are you talking about?
I'm not talking about numerology.
You start with a conclusion not evidence.
Then when asked about evidence quite often you bring up propability and do it wrong.
>>> You start with a conclusion not evidence. <<<
Yes, I think that is the essence of Bayesian statistics!
"Everybody is an 'evolutionist' by default of existing"
Everybody is a devolutionist by default of inheritance!
Matthew 22:32
32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
(NAS)
Romans 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
(KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
(KJV)
Yes, I think that is the essence of Bayesian statistics!
"Everybody is an 'evolutionist' by default of existing"
Everybody is a devolutionist by default of inheritance!
Matthew 22:32
32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
(NAS)
Romans 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
(KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
(KJV)
Enough with the bible. Your posts aren't even relevant.
Sown is a biological complexity, no?
QUOTE (a lost soul+__)
Enough with the bible. Your posts aren't even relevant.
QUOTE (ICt15:+)
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Obviously, enough has not been said or presented for the record.
Exodus 33:18-23
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(KJV)
John 17:20-24
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
(KJV)
"We cannot understand any evolution theory if we cannot compare it with a non-evolution theory."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
"We cannot understand any evolution theory if we cannot compare it with a non-evolution theory."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
So far there has been no other theory.
Other than God did it.
Which is what Darwin believed for a lot of his life.
If not his entire life.
"Darwin himself established the tradition of explaining away the fossil record, of citing selective breeding as verification without acknowledging its limitations, and of blurring the critical distinction between minor variations and major innovations. ...
The resulting arguments about the process, which continue to this day, distracted attention from the fact that the all-important central concept had become a dogma.
The central concept is all-important because there is no real distinction between the "fact" of evoution and Darwin's theory." Phillip E. Johnson
SPIRITUALITY
...
2. Affections: The feelings and emotions are fertile soil for the spiritual life. Love is the beginning and end of true religion. Spirituality in the realm of the affections is that state of soul in which the heart with its holiest love is centered on God as revealed in Christ. The specific and supreme work of the Holy Spirit is to shed abroad God's love in the heart <Rom 5:5>. Spirituality sets the affections on things above and brings the entire emotional nature under the regulating and redeeming sway of the Holy Spirit.
3. Will: A spiritually-minded man is one whose will is set on God as well as his intellect and affections. In every fiber of his moral being, and in all the activities of his soul, he is under the guidance and dominion of the Holy Spirit. The affections present motives, the intellect estimates their worthiness, the will decides upon the course of action. When this trinity of mental operation-- necessary to normal manhood-- is under the sway of the Divine Spirit, man possesses spirituality, a state in which all the faculties of the soul are voluntarily and joyfully under the dominion and guidance of Christ's indwelling Spirit. When intellect, heart and will focus their energies reverently and affectionately upon Him, love-- a passionate, ever-present, everdominant love-- is the result. This is the triune sphere of the Holy Spirit's indwelling and activity, and the character of such a God-centered and Spirit-filled life is described by the exalted word "spirituality."
DWIGHT M. PRATT
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database)
James 1:27
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(KJV)
Romans 5:3-5
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
(KJV)
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Obviously, enough has not been said or presented for the record.
Exodus 33:18-23
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(KJV)
John 17:20-24
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
(KJV)
"We cannot understand any evolution theory if we cannot compare it with a non-evolution theory."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 30 2008, 05:28 PM)
"We cannot understand any evolution theory if we cannot compare it with a non-evolution theory."
-- http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
So far there has been no other theory.
Other than God did it.
Which is what Darwin believed for a lot of his life.
If not his entire life.
How dense do people really have to be to not notice that Darwin's work is on the "Origin of Species" and not "Origin of Life" and that his work does not, in any way, shape, or form, discount the possibility of a divine being.
I mean yeah, it's a little subtle, but it can't be THAT subtle.
I mean yeah, it's a little subtle, but it can't be THAT subtle.
"The different branches of science combine to demonstrate that the universe in its entirety can be regarded as one gigantic process, a process of becoming, of attaining new levels of existence and organization, which can properly be called a genesis or an evolution." (T. H. Huxley)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." (Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)
g.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." (Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)
g.
"Darwin himself established the tradition of explaining away the fossil record, of citing selective breeding as verification without acknowledging its limitations, and of blurring the critical distinction between minor variations and major innovations. ...
The resulting arguments about the process, which continue to this day, distracted attention from the fact that the all-important central concept had become a dogma.
The central concept is all-important because there is no real distinction between the "fact" of evoution and Darwin's theory." Phillip E. Johnson
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 31 2008, 03:38 AM)
"Darwin himself established the tradition of explaining away the fossil record, of citing selective breeding as verification without acknowledging its limitations, and of blurring the critical distinction between minor variations and major innovations. ...
The resulting arguments about the process, which continue to this day, distracted attention from the fact that the all-important central concept had become a dogma.
The central concept is all-important because there is no real distinction between the "fact" of evoution and Darwin's theory." Phillip E. Johnson
"Phillip E. Johnson"
- so some Law Professor with a BA in English literature with little to no understanding of biology spews forth idiocy.
p.s; this inept retard also suffers from brain strokes - what a surprize.
Come on Batty-boy, you're shooting yourself in the head with every cretinous post you make, stop your vacuous blatherings now.
The resulting arguments about the process, which continue to this day, distracted attention from the fact that the all-important central concept had become a dogma.
The central concept is all-important because there is no real distinction between the "fact" of evoution and Darwin's theory." Phillip E. Johnson
"Phillip E. Johnson"
- so some Law Professor with a BA in English literature with little to no understanding of biology spews forth idiocy.p.s; this inept retard also suffers from brain strokes - what a surprize.
Come on Batty-boy, you're shooting yourself in the head with every cretinous post you make, stop your vacuous blatherings now.
>>> so some Law Professor with a BA in English literature with little to no understanding of biology <<<
Law, philosophy...
18/09/03
"In the face of such rejection by two of the most eminent philosophers of his day, one can imagine Darwin's elation when he discovered that another great philosopher, John Stuart Mill, thought his reasoning in the Origin was `in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic.' Darwin was prepared for the abuse which the content of his theory, especially its implications for man, was to receive from certain quarters, but he was not prepared for the criticism which his methodology was to receive from the more respected philosophers, and scientists of his day. ... For example, Mill's endorsement was a two-edged sword, and the sharper edge cut deeply into Darwin's own claims for his book. Darwin looked upon the Origin of Species as `one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men!' He thought that, to some extent at least, he had proved that contemporary species originated from earlier species by evolution through chance variation and natural selection. According to Mill, Darwin had not violated the rules of induction, since the `rules of Induction are concerned with the conditions of Proof.
Mr. Darwin has never pretended that his doctrine was proved. He was not bound by the rules of Induction, but those of Hypothesis' And the method of hypothesis was a method of discovery, not justification. Darwin had admirably fulfilled the requirements of one of the methods of discovery, but he had proved nothing! Newton had provided the necessary inductive proof for his theories; Darwin had not. In his last pronouncements on evolution, Mill agreed with Herschel and Whewell that `in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability of creation by intelligence.'"
(Hull D.L., "The Metaphysics of Evolution," State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1989, pp.30-31)
Stephen E. Jones
Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: September 2003
Law, philosophy...
18/09/03
"In the face of such rejection by two of the most eminent philosophers of his day, one can imagine Darwin's elation when he discovered that another great philosopher, John Stuart Mill, thought his reasoning in the Origin was `in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic.' Darwin was prepared for the abuse which the content of his theory, especially its implications for man, was to receive from certain quarters, but he was not prepared for the criticism which his methodology was to receive from the more respected philosophers, and scientists of his day. ... For example, Mill's endorsement was a two-edged sword, and the sharper edge cut deeply into Darwin's own claims for his book. Darwin looked upon the Origin of Species as `one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men!' He thought that, to some extent at least, he had proved that contemporary species originated from earlier species by evolution through chance variation and natural selection. According to Mill, Darwin had not violated the rules of induction, since the `rules of Induction are concerned with the conditions of Proof.
Mr. Darwin has never pretended that his doctrine was proved. He was not bound by the rules of Induction, but those of Hypothesis' And the method of hypothesis was a method of discovery, not justification. Darwin had admirably fulfilled the requirements of one of the methods of discovery, but he had proved nothing! Newton had provided the necessary inductive proof for his theories; Darwin had not. In his last pronouncements on evolution, Mill agreed with Herschel and Whewell that `in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability of creation by intelligence.'"
(Hull D.L., "The Metaphysics of Evolution," State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1989, pp.30-31)
Stephen E. Jones
Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: September 2003
Bats
So they did not know in the 19th century what we do know now.
Evolution is a fact, it is observed in the fossil record and in the lab. Even the differences in the Influenza virus from year to year is irrefutable evidence of that fact. Theories based on that central fact may change, but evolution is an attribute of what life is.
But at least you have narrowed down the century(the 19th) past which your religious idiocy has not progressed in it's understanding of reality.
Grumpy
QUOTE
18/09/03
"In the face of such rejection by two of the most eminent philosophers of his day, one can imagine Darwin's elation when he discovered that another great philosopher, John Stuart Mill, thought his reasoning in the Origin was `in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic.' Darwin was prepared for the abuse which the content of his theory, especially its implications for man, was to receive from certain quarters, but he was not prepared for the criticism which his methodology was to receive from the more respected philosophers, and scientists of his day. ... For example, Mill's endorsement was a two-edged sword, and the sharper edge cut deeply into Darwin's own claims for his book. Darwin looked upon the Origin of Species as `one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men!' He thought that, to some extent at least, he had proved that contemporary species originated from earlier species by evolution through chance variation and natural selection. According to Mill, Darwin had not violated the rules of induction, since the `rules of Induction are concerned with the conditions of Proof.
Mr. Darwin has never pretended that his doctrine was proved. He was not bound by the rules of Induction, but those of Hypothesis' And the method of hypothesis was a method of discovery, not justification. Darwin had admirably fulfilled the requirements of one of the methods of discovery, but he had proved nothing! Newton had provided the necessary inductive proof for his theories; Darwin had not. In his last pronouncements on evolution, Mill agreed with Herschel and Whewell that `in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability of creation by intelligence.'"
(Hull D.L., "The Metaphysics of Evolution," State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1989, pp.30-31)
"In the face of such rejection by two of the most eminent philosophers of his day, one can imagine Darwin's elation when he discovered that another great philosopher, John Stuart Mill, thought his reasoning in the Origin was `in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic.' Darwin was prepared for the abuse which the content of his theory, especially its implications for man, was to receive from certain quarters, but he was not prepared for the criticism which his methodology was to receive from the more respected philosophers, and scientists of his day. ... For example, Mill's endorsement was a two-edged sword, and the sharper edge cut deeply into Darwin's own claims for his book. Darwin looked upon the Origin of Species as `one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men!' He thought that, to some extent at least, he had proved that contemporary species originated from earlier species by evolution through chance variation and natural selection. According to Mill, Darwin had not violated the rules of induction, since the `rules of Induction are concerned with the conditions of Proof.
Mr. Darwin has never pretended that his doctrine was proved. He was not bound by the rules of Induction, but those of Hypothesis' And the method of hypothesis was a method of discovery, not justification. Darwin had admirably fulfilled the requirements of one of the methods of discovery, but he had proved nothing! Newton had provided the necessary inductive proof for his theories; Darwin had not. In his last pronouncements on evolution, Mill agreed with Herschel and Whewell that `in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability of creation by intelligence.'"
(Hull D.L., "The Metaphysics of Evolution," State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1989, pp.30-31)
So they did not know in the 19th century what we do know now.
Evolution is a fact, it is observed in the fossil record and in the lab. Even the differences in the Influenza virus from year to year is irrefutable evidence of that fact. Theories based on that central fact may change, but evolution is an attribute of what life is.
But at least you have narrowed down the century(the 19th) past which your religious idiocy has not progressed in it's understanding of reality.
Grumpy
No, they did.
Intelligent Design is ancient and so is the other paradigm, that I call nonsense.
Please note the word paradigm. My understanding is that Kuhn used that "nonsense" for the basis of paradigm methodology ~ best fit ~ whatever.
Intelligent Design is ancient and so is the other paradigm, that I call nonsense.
Please note the word paradigm. My understanding is that Kuhn used that "nonsense" for the basis of paradigm methodology ~ best fit ~ whatever.
Bats
No, they knew almost nothing about DNA and heredity, and the paradigm shift from Creationism to Evolution is comparable to that between Flat Earthers and modern Cosmology. There is a reason you meet very few Flat Earthers(and those you do meet are batty), it takes active suppression of what is known about reality to maintain such idiocy.
The same is true of ID/Creationism.
Grumpy
QUOTE
No, they did.
No, they knew almost nothing about DNA and heredity, and the paradigm shift from Creationism to Evolution is comparable to that between Flat Earthers and modern Cosmology. There is a reason you meet very few Flat Earthers(and those you do meet are batty), it takes active suppression of what is known about reality to maintain such idiocy.
The same is true of ID/Creationism.
Grumpy
~ worldview
Walter F. Cannon writes of John Herschel (1792-1871) son of William, "Sheltered by his great authority, scientists pursued their intuitional ideas without worrying about attacks from Humean or other philosophers, or from Evangelical preachers. Herschel, for example, authoritatively established the naturalistic origin of species as a proper subject of investigation for Victorian Englishmen. Young scientists of the period, such as Charles Darwin and Thomas Andrews, admired him extravagantly."
MrB.
William Whewell (1794- 1866)
Robert Blanché {as translated by A.E.B.} writes:
The logicians, for their part, complained that Whewell's theory of induction had altered the sense of the word by wrongly assimilating inductive method to the method of hypothesis and that it had neglected the question of proof. In all these respects Mill was his typical opponent.
Walter F. Cannon writes of John Herschel (1792-1871) son of William, "Sheltered by his great authority, scientists pursued their intuitional ideas without worrying about attacks from Humean or other philosophers, or from Evangelical preachers. Herschel, for example, authoritatively established the naturalistic origin of species as a proper subject of investigation for Victorian Englishmen. Young scientists of the period, such as Charles Darwin and Thomas Andrews, admired him extravagantly."
MrB.
William Whewell (1794- 1866)
Robert Blanché {as translated by A.E.B.} writes:
The logicians, for their part, complained that Whewell's theory of induction had altered the sense of the word by wrongly assimilating inductive method to the method of hypothesis and that it had neglected the question of proof. In all these respects Mill was his typical opponent.
"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion." (Charles Darwin)
g.
g.
SPIRITUALITY
...
2. Affections: The feelings and emotions are fertile soil for the spiritual life. Love is the beginning and end of true religion. Spirituality in the realm of the affections is that state of soul in which the heart with its holiest love is centered on God as revealed in Christ. The specific and supreme work of the Holy Spirit is to shed abroad God's love in the heart <Rom 5:5>. Spirituality sets the affections on things above and brings the entire emotional nature under the regulating and redeeming sway of the Holy Spirit.
3. Will: A spiritually-minded man is one whose will is set on God as well as his intellect and affections. In every fiber of his moral being, and in all the activities of his soul, he is under the guidance and dominion of the Holy Spirit. The affections present motives, the intellect estimates their worthiness, the will decides upon the course of action. When this trinity of mental operation-- necessary to normal manhood-- is under the sway of the Divine Spirit, man possesses spirituality, a state in which all the faculties of the soul are voluntarily and joyfully under the dominion and guidance of Christ's indwelling Spirit. When intellect, heart and will focus their energies reverently and affectionately upon Him, love-- a passionate, ever-present, everdominant love-- is the result. This is the triune sphere of the Holy Spirit's indwelling and activity, and the character of such a God-centered and Spirit-filled life is described by the exalted word "spirituality."
DWIGHT M. PRATT
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database)
James 1:27
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(KJV)
Romans 5:3-5
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
(KJV)
Bats
Possessions, ghosts, spirits, voices inside the head!!!
Psychiatrists have a name for these types of delusions, or at least soft walled rooms for those suffering from these afflictions.
Grumpy
Possessions, ghosts, spirits, voices inside the head!!!
Psychiatrists have a name for these types of delusions, or at least soft walled rooms for those suffering from these afflictions.
Grumpy
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 1 2008, 11:57 AM)
Love is the beginning and end of true religion.
(KJV)
g.
(KJV)
g.
QUOTE (ISBE not MisterBelfry @ Jun 1 2008, 11:57 AM)
Love is the beginning and end of true religion.
(KJV) Dwight Pratt
I John 4:15-20
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
(KJV)
Love is the beginning and end of true religion.
I John 4:15-20
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
(KJV)
(KJV)
g.
g.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Assumes facts which are not in evidence. Contradicted by corporations with pro-Christian mottos and policies and contradicted by crazy people and other poor performers. Trivially true if you replace God with a bacterial cloud.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Equates confessing Jesus is the Son of God with dwelling in love. Contradicted by existence of love outside the Christian church.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
Ignorant people are especially bold on days of judgment. If you are "as he is," please demonstrate your "perfect" love by rewriting the database records associated with this post.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
There is no fear in ignorance, infatuation and some forms of intoxication. This doesn't make these states universally desirable. Clearly, I do not fear your wrath or God's, so would that make me perfect in love? If a farmer doesn't plan for the future and plant crops, does that make him perfect in love, because he does not fear starvation?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
We love him, because he first loved us.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Also, if we do not love him, may we assume he never loved us?
I John 2:15-17
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
(KJV)
>>> This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools. <<<
Ahhh, the schools pass away too. Or maybe the passeth away is of a neutron bomb and we get rid of the worldly teachers and the lawyers do follow.
Oh yeah! Effectively...LEARN HOW TO hATE YOURSELF - AS YOU are THE WORLD, and therefore abuse and destruction can be tolerated!
Oh yeah! Effectively...LEARN HOW TO hATE YOURSELF - AS YOU are THE WORLD, and therefore abuse and destruction can be tolerated!
(KJV)
g.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 2 2008, 07:27 AM)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
The brother, by virtue of existing, has many more opportunities to disappoint, than an imaginary friend.
This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools.
This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools.
I John 2:15-17
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
(KJV)
>>> This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools. <<<
Ahhh, the schools pass away too. Or maybe the passeth away is of a neutron bomb and we get rid of the worldly teachers and the lawyers do follow.
QUOTE
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.
Oh yeah! Effectively...LEARN HOW TO hATE YOURSELF - AS YOU are THE WORLD, and therefore abuse and destruction can be tolerated!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. |
Oh yeah! Effectively...LEARN HOW TO hATE YOURSELF - AS YOU are THE WORLD, and therefore abuse and destruction can be tolerated!
(KJV)
g.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 5 2008, 11:01 AM)
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
The problem, clearly, is that you are one of those men who "love the world." The evidence is everywhere. You shamelessly eat to ensure that you do not quickly pass away. I bet that you use soap. You transact financially to ensure your continued access to a computer and the Internet. This, in turn, gives you that lazy middle-class sense of entitlement -- you think that because you have nice stuff that you have the One True Faith that entitles you to nice stuff. And since you feel entitled to it, you do love it. How angry you would be if any of it were taken away from you. The only question is, would you be angry at God, as Job's wife correctly was, or would you direct your anger at "others."
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 5 2008, 11:01 AM)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
And pride of life -- you certainly post exactly as a man in the horrible embrace of the pride of life would -- there is no evidence that the pride of accomplishment motivates these posts. We simply have your aforementioned sense of entitlement: "I exist therefore I post."
If you had put in the least bit of evidence-based reasoning, I would award you the respect of a peer -- the type of human respect I award everyone by default. But you have failed to even make a coherent emotional appeal. You are so caught up in your war, your "us" versus "them" mentality, that you have not given the least bit of thought to the consideration to the question of which viewpoint is correct. You are being used as tool -- as just another sheep in a flock led by evil shepherds.
If you had put in the least bit of evidence-based reasoning, I would award you the respect of a peer -- the type of human respect I award everyone by default. But you have failed to even make a coherent emotional appeal. You are so caught up in your war, your "us" versus "them" mentality, that you have not given the least bit of thought to the consideration to the question of which viewpoint is correct. You are being used as tool -- as just another sheep in a flock led by evil shepherds.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 5 2008, 11:01 AM)
And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
I don't think that God commanded you to make your side look foolish. How do you know what you are doing is the will of God? This verse only promises Eternal Life to those that do the will of God -- while we might concede that you are trying to do, we would have to conclude that you are failing. I'm sorry that your poor defense of an intellectually impoverished idea has scripturally condemned you to death, but I was not the one who started quoting bible verses in ignorance of what they actually said.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 5 2008, 11:01 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 2 2008, 05:02 PM)
[... Responding to a big chunk of Bible verses that have nothing to do with the topic at hand: Irreducible Complexity ...]
This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools.
Ahhh, the schools pass away too. Or maybe the passeth away is of a neutron bomb and we get rid of the worldly teachers and the lawyers do follow.
That's just like a good Christian to get upset at an Internet discussion and call for the murder of teachers. Well done, sir. You have completely failed to master the core message of Jesus Christ.
Christianity has had 2000 years to work, and yet here you are still arguing!
Time to drop the dead donkey.
g.
I think you asked the right question in a recent post at forum= 10.
Posted by: buttershug Yesterday at 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Inkaat @ Aug 1 2008, 05:50 PM)
Ps All Passovers are not Sabbaths. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week named as the day on which God rested after creating the Universe - for those who must believe that.
Why would you take it for granted that the only Sabbaths are the weekly ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to liturgy, conflicts arise in doctrines and organizational management which keeps things pretty fractured.
<------- Showtopic= 22297.
---->Mary Midgley quoting Jawaharial Nehru,
"The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science." --The New Scientist here is reasoning with its own scientism.
MrB.
I think you asked the right question in a recent post at forum= 10.
Posted by: buttershug Yesterday at 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Inkaat @ Aug 1 2008, 05:50 PM)
Ps All Passovers are not Sabbaths. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week named as the day on which God rested after creating the Universe - for those who must believe that.
Why would you take it for granted that the only Sabbaths are the weekly ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to liturgy, conflicts arise in doctrines and organizational management which keeps things pretty fractured.
<------- Showtopic= 22297.
---->Mary Midgley quoting Jawaharial Nehru,
"The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science." --The New Scientist here is reasoning with its own scientism.
MrB.
I can understand why you think that.
BUT Inkaat does not claim to be in communion with God.
Why such diversity with people who do claim to be have been in direct contact with God?
This does nothing to reduce my conviction that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a canard to get Christian Young Earth Creationism into the public schools.
Ahhh, the schools pass away too. Or maybe the passeth away is of a neutron bomb and we get rid of the worldly teachers and the lawyers do follow.
That's just like a good Christian to get upset at an Internet discussion and call for the murder of teachers. Well done, sir. You have completely failed to master the core message of Jesus Christ.
Ahhh, no. "Ahhh" was meant to be light-hearted.
The quoted passage from I John two was a direct response to...
>>> Assumes facts which are not in evidence. Contradicted by corporations with pro-Christian mottos <<<
The quoted passage from I John two was a direct response to...
>>> Assumes facts which are not in evidence. Contradicted by corporations with pro-Christian mottos <<<
MisterBelfry, Your feedback rating is worse than Dud1, who has just returned to this forum! Are you proud of that? Here's something to make you believe in your Bible! (())
Ask Doctor Laura.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I Have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
A.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
B.. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
C.. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
D.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
E.. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
F.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
G.. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
))Ask Doctor Laura.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I Have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
A.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
B.. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
C.. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
D.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
E.. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
F.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
G.. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Well I must confess that I have been coveting my neighbor's ox for sometime now, what should I do?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 6 2008, 04:54 AM)
Well I must confess that I have been coveting my neighbor's ox for sometime now, what should I do?
Take a cold shower!
g.
Take a cold shower!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 6 2008, 04:01 PM)
Take a cold shower!
g.
Yes! great idea I'll shower with the Ox!
Thanks!!
g.
Yes! great idea I'll shower with the Ox!
Thanks!!
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 6 2008, 05:15 AM)
Yes! great idea I'll shower with the Ox!
Thanks!!
g.
Thanks!!
g.
I have feedback? 
Yes, You are the proud recipient of one of the worst records attainable in this forum!
Surprise!
Current Feedback.
Rating: 4.76%
Positive: 1 (1 unique)
Negative: 65 (20 unique)
Score: -64
Yes, you read correctly, that's a big negatory 64!
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
Surprise!
Current Feedback.
Rating: 4.76%
Positive: 1 (1 unique)
Negative: 65 (20 unique)
Score: -64
Yes, you read correctly, that's a big negatory 64!
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
QUOTE (photojack+)
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
You mean he's on an exponential curve downward? (())
Let "N" equal the number of inane posts and "T" equal the time it takes to post them... multiply N x T = MisterBelfry!
One of his all-time classic quotes:
))Let "N" equal the number of inane posts and "T" equal the time it takes to post them... multiply N x T = MisterBelfry!
One of his all-time classic quotes:
QUOTE
I have feedback?
Maybe, I should rephrase that, "Do I have constructive feedback?"
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 10 2008, 06:35 AM)
Maybe, I should rephrase that, "Do I have constructive feedback?"
Only if you'd make constructive posts.
Only if you'd make constructive posts.
"Only if you'd make constructive posts."
Then why bother?
Then why bother?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 10 2008, 08:57 AM)
"Only if you'd make constructive posts."
Then why bother?
So do you acknowledge that you have nothing worthwhile to offer?
Then why bother?
So do you acknowledge that you have nothing worthwhile to offer?
I think another religious nutcase just went down in flames! Constructive posts?
What are they?
Constructive posts? What are they?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 10 2008, 08:57 AM)
Then why bother?
Obviously you have some reason for continuing, you're still here.
Obviously you have some reason for continuing, you're still here.
The last substantial post ---->
Posted by: MisterBelfry May 31 2008, 10:17 AM
No, they did.
Intelligent Design is ancient and so is the other paradigm, that I call nonsense.
Please note the word paradigm. My understanding is that Kuhn used that "nonsense" for the basis of paradigm methodology ~ best fit ~ whatever.
Posted by: MisterBelfry May 31 2008, 10:17 AM
No, they did.
Intelligent Design is ancient and so is the other paradigm, that I call nonsense.
Please note the word paradigm. My understanding is that Kuhn used that "nonsense" for the basis of paradigm methodology ~ best fit ~ whatever.
Neither Intelligent Design nor nonsense can be a paradigm.
A paradigm is a framework into which to relate statements of ones philosophy or theoretical framework. Neither Intelligent Design nor nonsense has sufficient structure to function as a framework.
A paradigm is a framework into which to relate statements of ones philosophy or theoretical framework. Neither Intelligent Design nor nonsense has sufficient structure to function as a framework.
edit
DuzmA -
Why do you think to have knowledge enough to second guess God? Perhaps he made life so complex because complexity is the best form for life? Do you know a better design for life?
Don't you think its possible that vestigial structures are simply organs that we don't currently need but that could aid us in the future? God may have included them for use in some crisis that we haven't even theorized yet.
The 'annoying' parts of the design clearly serve a purpose and I don't know what you were trying to say with this part of your post. Eating is simple and necessary. God had to provide us with some way to power our bodily systems what's wrong with eating?
Autoimmune disorders and mutations both exist for a reason. Autoimmune diseases are diseases in which the body attacks itself I believe and that clearly suggests that there is something in the body that shouldn't be there. Why not attack this entity rather than the disease? Mutations could be Gods way of providing certain individuals with the special tools that they will need for their lives.
On the creativity issue- why would God alter his design drastically for each life form. We all live in the same world. If it works it works.
Please be so kind as to address my points rather than blindly attacking me.
QUOTE
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
Why do you think to have knowledge enough to second guess God? Perhaps he made life so complex because complexity is the best form for life? Do you know a better design for life?
Don't you think its possible that vestigial structures are simply organs that we don't currently need but that could aid us in the future? God may have included them for use in some crisis that we haven't even theorized yet.
The 'annoying' parts of the design clearly serve a purpose and I don't know what you were trying to say with this part of your post. Eating is simple and necessary. God had to provide us with some way to power our bodily systems what's wrong with eating?
Autoimmune disorders and mutations both exist for a reason. Autoimmune diseases are diseases in which the body attacks itself I believe and that clearly suggests that there is something in the body that shouldn't be there. Why not attack this entity rather than the disease? Mutations could be Gods way of providing certain individuals with the special tools that they will need for their lives.
On the creativity issue- why would God alter his design drastically for each life form. We all live in the same world. If it works it works.
Please be so kind as to address my points rather than blindly attacking me.
QUOTE
If it works it works.
Christianity has had 2000 years to work, and yet here you are still arguing!
Time to drop the dead donkey.
g.
Why can't you address all of my points? Why select only one and then take it out of context? I'm asking for you to defend the argument that is the basis of this thread. Why is that so hard to do? When did complexity cease being evidence of design? I'm not trying to slight you. I am asking for discussion.
Christianity is functioning quite well. Thanks for the concern though.
Christianity is functioning quite well. Thanks for the concern though.
It is only 'complex' when you do not understand it.
My mother thinks her phone is 'complex', and she still has to wind it up!
g.
My mother thinks her phone is 'complex', and she still has to wind it up!
g.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 26 2008, 07:20 AM)
When did complexity cease being evidence of design?
Because science has been able to produce viable natural mechanisms by which the current complexity could have arisen.
A possible, viable, explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is explained here.
A critique of Behe's article on the irreducible complexity of the immune system can be found here.
I know there are also explanations for the eye, for the bombardier beetle, for the venus flytrap, etc out there, but I'm out of time to look for them
The short answer is that Irreducible Complexity is a cop-out. It's the scientist saying "I can't be bothered to research this any more, goddidit."
Because science has been able to produce viable natural mechanisms by which the current complexity could have arisen.
A possible, viable, explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is explained here.
A critique of Behe's article on the irreducible complexity of the immune system can be found here.
I know there are also explanations for the eye, for the bombardier beetle, for the venus flytrap, etc out there, but I'm out of time to look for them
The short answer is that Irreducible Complexity is a cop-out. It's the scientist saying "I can't be bothered to research this any more, goddidit."
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 26 2008, 06:20 AM)
When did complexity cease being evidence of design?
As a programmer I can say that complexity in software is usually a sign of poor design.
But I find the whole complexity argument a moot point. How is it logical to believe life is so complex it needed a designer, but yet the designer - being infinitely more complex - did not need one?
If it is possible that the even more complex designer exists, then life as we know it should be a piece of cake.
As a programmer I can say that complexity in software is usually a sign of poor design.
But I find the whole complexity argument a moot point. How is it logical to believe life is so complex it needed a designer, but yet the designer - being infinitely more complex - did not need one?
If it is possible that the even more complex designer exists, then life as we know it should be a piece of cake.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 26 2008, 11:20 AM)
Why can't you address all of my points? Why select only one and then take it out of context? I'm asking for you to defend the argument that is the basis of this thread. Why is that so hard to do? When did complexity cease being evidence of design? I'm not trying to slight you. I am asking for discussion.
Christianity is functioning quite well. Thanks for the concern though.
If Christianity is working so well, why is it so fractured?
Why are so many Christians wrong about so much?
The Pope says you have to be Catholic or you are not Christian.
If he is right then all Protestants are wrong a fundamental point.
If any of the Protestants are right then Catholics are wrong.
Christianity is functioning quite well. Thanks for the concern though.
If Christianity is working so well, why is it so fractured?
Why are so many Christians wrong about so much?
The Pope says you have to be Catholic or you are not Christian.
If he is right then all Protestants are wrong a fundamental point.
If any of the Protestants are right then Catholics are wrong.
QUOTE
If Christianity is working so well, why is it so fractured?
I think you asked the right question in a recent post at forum= 10.
Posted by: buttershug Yesterday at 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Inkaat @ Aug 1 2008, 05:50 PM)
Ps All Passovers are not Sabbaths. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week named as the day on which God rested after creating the Universe - for those who must believe that.
Why would you take it for granted that the only Sabbaths are the weekly ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to liturgy, conflicts arise in doctrines and organizational management which keeps things pretty fractured.
<------- Showtopic= 22297.
---->Mary Midgley quoting Jawaharial Nehru,
"The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science." --The New Scientist here is reasoning with its own scientism.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Aug 2 2008, 11:49 AM)
I think you asked the right question in a recent post at forum= 10.
Posted by: buttershug Yesterday at 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Inkaat @ Aug 1 2008, 05:50 PM)
Ps All Passovers are not Sabbaths. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week named as the day on which God rested after creating the Universe - for those who must believe that.
Why would you take it for granted that the only Sabbaths are the weekly ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to liturgy, conflicts arise in doctrines and organizational management which keeps things pretty fractured.
<------- Showtopic= 22297.
---->Mary Midgley quoting Jawaharial Nehru,
"The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science." --The New Scientist here is reasoning with its own scientism.
MrB.
I can understand why you think that.
BUT Inkaat does not claim to be in communion with God.
Why such diversity with people who do claim to be have been in direct contact with God?
I hate to (no I don't) jump into your questions for DuzmA but I will anyway (cause I've got awesome answers) ...
I know this was a rhetorical question but it requires an answer anyway. I think I have the knowledge to second guess "god" because I know that god is the creation of unsophisticated nontechnological humans that are multiple generations removed from me. In those multi-generations knowledge has been greatly increased and I've benefitted from it.
I know this was a rhetorical question but it requires an answer anyway. I think I have the knowledge to second guess "god" because I know that god is the creation of unsophisticated nontechnological humans that are multiple generations removed from me. In those multi-generations knowledge has been greatly increased and I've benefitted from it.
Perhaps he made life so complex because complexity is the best form for life? Do you know a better design for life?
Yes I do. If "god" were indeed omnipotent then she would have realized that excrement is just dumb. Really. Why does everything have to crap? It would have been simple to make remove that function. Seriously, we have to wipe our hairy asses a couple of times a day in order to satisfy his fondness for complexity? A design that utilized energy at 100% efficiency wouldn't need to crap. How hard would that have been for an "omnipotent" supernatural being?
This is a ridiculous argument. It doesn't deserve even the words I'm typing here as an answer. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity for me to point out how stupid it is and who can really pass that up?
This is a ridiculous argument. It doesn't deserve even the words I'm typing here as an answer. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity for me to point out how stupid it is and who can really pass that up?
The 'annoying' parts of the design clearly serve a purpose and I don't know what you were trying to say with this part of your post. Eating is simple and necessary. God had to provide us with some way to power our bodily systems what's wrong with eating?
It is damned inefficient (see the excrement answer above). Why not create a universe full of energy that life forms could simply absorb at 100% efficiency?
Yeah. Because sickle-cell anemia and rheumatoid arthritis are cool things that help people get through their otherwise difficult lives. Again I must address the OBVIOUS total lack of omnipotence in your god's design. Disease? What is that? Why didn't he see that coming?
Yeah. Because sickle-cell anemia and rheumatoid arthritis are cool things that help people get through their otherwise difficult lives. Again I must address the OBVIOUS total lack of omnipotence in your god's design. Disease? What is that? Why didn't he see that coming?
On the creativity issue- why would God alter his design drastically for each life form. We all live in the same world. If it works it works.
Do you have any sense as to the number of species of clown fish that your god created? 28. Why 28 different clown fish species? What is up with that? Black bears, sun bears, polar bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, panda bears etc ...?? Hmmm? Do you really think he decided to give one group of people "slanty" eyes and another dark skin while giving yet another fair skin? If you cant see the enviornmental factors responsible for each of this differentiations then buddy you are wrapped WAY TOO TIGHTLY in your favorite mythology.
Some people here cant see the forest for looking at the trees; in your case it is exactly the opposite. You need to start looking at the trees.
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
From an information perspective, biology and physics have a grammar and syntax. A random string of characters does not work.
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
From an information perspective, biology and physics have a grammar and syntax. A random string of characters does not work.
Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex?
Completely missing the point.
An all powerful creator doesn't "NEED" anything to begin with. The creator did not make the universe or life out of any personal need.
IN fact, there need not be a reason whatsoever, even in the context of Christianity.
This is an assumption that everything must have a specific purpose, which is faulty logic, though admittedly, this is a faulty question that the vast majority of christians deal with too.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
This is an assumption that everything must have a specific purpose, which is faulty logic, though admittedly, this is a faulty question that the vast majority of christians deal with too.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat?
Again, its an irrelevant question. Why do video game characters run around collecting "power ups"? Becuase that's the way the designers made them. Why? Because they felt like it, and thought it would be "cool". However this isn't a perfect analogy since in this case "cool" makes the designer money. In the end, There is no other reason whatsoever. "Because he felt like it," is the only reason that exists, and it is the only answer that matters.
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
In the context of the universe that exists, which we can view as a "virtual machine", it follows laws and whatever; In this context, it makes PERFECT sense for organisms to have a lot in common with one another BY DESIGN.
Software AND hardware engineers for computers do this all the time. Parts for computers and their applications are very modular and work together because this is a very elegant solution of how to make multiple models of things that do what you want them to do for the specific purpose they are intended to do.
In the case of an all powerful creator, the "reason" behind a creation, as stated earlier, is irrelevant. It is what he wanted to do.
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
This just displays that you do not understand the basic principle of the Theory.
Mutations are random, however natural selection is NOT!
Proof please.
Proof please.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
You know too much. Tell me does God prefer Football or Cricket?
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them. Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
etc, etc...ad infinitum....some designer.
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them. Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
etc, etc...ad infinitum....some designer.
In the context of the universe that exists, which we can view as a "virtual machine", it follows laws and whatever; In this context, it makes PERFECT sense for organisms to have a lot in common with one another BY DESIGN.
Er..shouldn't that be BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
So are you now saying that God is a hardware engineer?
Wow! You know far too much to just be a regular human. I am in awe.
QUOTE
Why do you think to have knowledge enough to second guess God?
I know this was a rhetorical question but it requires an answer anyway. I think I have the knowledge to second guess "god" because I know that god is the creation of unsophisticated nontechnological humans that are multiple generations removed from me. In those multi-generations knowledge has been greatly increased and I've benefitted from it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do you think to have knowledge enough to second guess God? |
I know this was a rhetorical question but it requires an answer anyway. I think I have the knowledge to second guess "god" because I know that god is the creation of unsophisticated nontechnological humans that are multiple generations removed from me. In those multi-generations knowledge has been greatly increased and I've benefitted from it.
Perhaps he made life so complex because complexity is the best form for life? Do you know a better design for life?
Yes I do. If "god" were indeed omnipotent then she would have realized that excrement is just dumb. Really. Why does everything have to crap? It would have been simple to make remove that function. Seriously, we have to wipe our hairy asses a couple of times a day in order to satisfy his fondness for complexity? A design that utilized energy at 100% efficiency wouldn't need to crap. How hard would that have been for an "omnipotent" supernatural being?
QUOTE
Don't you think its possible that vestigial structures are simply organs that we don't currently need but that could aid us in the future? God may have included them for use in some crisis that we haven't even theorized yet.
This is a ridiculous argument. It doesn't deserve even the words I'm typing here as an answer. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity for me to point out how stupid it is and who can really pass that up?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Don't you think its possible that vestigial structures are simply organs that we don't currently need but that could aid us in the future? God may have included them for use in some crisis that we haven't even theorized yet. |
This is a ridiculous argument. It doesn't deserve even the words I'm typing here as an answer. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity for me to point out how stupid it is and who can really pass that up?
The 'annoying' parts of the design clearly serve a purpose and I don't know what you were trying to say with this part of your post. Eating is simple and necessary. God had to provide us with some way to power our bodily systems what's wrong with eating?
It is damned inefficient (see the excrement answer above). Why not create a universe full of energy that life forms could simply absorb at 100% efficiency?
QUOTE
Autoimmune disorders and mutations both exist for a reason. Autoimmune diseases are diseases in which the body attacks itself I believe and that clearly suggests that there is something in the body that shouldn't be there. Why not attack this entity rather than the disease? Mutations could be Gods way of providing certain individuals with the special tools that they will need for their lives.
Yeah. Because sickle-cell anemia and rheumatoid arthritis are cool things that help people get through their otherwise difficult lives. Again I must address the OBVIOUS total lack of omnipotence in your god's design. Disease? What is that? Why didn't he see that coming?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Autoimmune disorders and mutations both exist for a reason. Autoimmune diseases are diseases in which the body attacks itself I believe and that clearly suggests that there is something in the body that shouldn't be there. Why not attack this entity rather than the disease? Mutations could be Gods way of providing certain individuals with the special tools that they will need for their lives. |
Yeah. Because sickle-cell anemia and rheumatoid arthritis are cool things that help people get through their otherwise difficult lives. Again I must address the OBVIOUS total lack of omnipotence in your god's design. Disease? What is that? Why didn't he see that coming?
On the creativity issue- why would God alter his design drastically for each life form. We all live in the same world. If it works it works.
Do you have any sense as to the number of species of clown fish that your god created? 28. Why 28 different clown fish species? What is up with that? Black bears, sun bears, polar bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, panda bears etc ...?? Hmmm? Do you really think he decided to give one group of people "slanty" eyes and another dark skin while giving yet another fair skin? If you cant see the enviornmental factors responsible for each of this differentiations then buddy you are wrapped WAY TOO TIGHTLY in your favorite mythology.
Some people here cant see the forest for looking at the trees; in your case it is exactly the opposite. You need to start looking at the trees.
QUOTE
Why is this an argument that ID proponents throw out?
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
From an information perspective, biology and physics have a grammar and syntax. A random string of characters does not work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why is this an argument that ID proponents throw out? |
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
From an information perspective, biology and physics have a grammar and syntax. A random string of characters does not work.
Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex?
Completely missing the point.
An all powerful creator doesn't "NEED" anything to begin with. The creator did not make the universe or life out of any personal need.
IN fact, there need not be a reason whatsoever, even in the context of Christianity.
QUOTE
Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures?
This is an assumption that everything must have a specific purpose, which is faulty logic, though admittedly, this is a faulty question that the vast majority of christians deal with too.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? |
This is an assumption that everything must have a specific purpose, which is faulty logic, though admittedly, this is a faulty question that the vast majority of christians deal with too.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat?
Again, its an irrelevant question. Why do video game characters run around collecting "power ups"? Becuase that's the way the designers made them. Why? Because they felt like it, and thought it would be "cool". However this isn't a perfect analogy since in this case "cool" makes the designer money. In the end, There is no other reason whatsoever. "Because he felt like it," is the only reason that exists, and it is the only answer that matters.
QUOTE
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
In the context of the universe that exists, which we can view as a "virtual machine", it follows laws and whatever; In this context, it makes PERFECT sense for organisms to have a lot in common with one another BY DESIGN.
Software AND hardware engineers for computers do this all the time. Parts for computers and their applications are very modular and work together because this is a very elegant solution of how to make multiple models of things that do what you want them to do for the specific purpose they are intended to do.
In the case of an all powerful creator, the "reason" behind a creation, as stated earlier, is irrelevant. It is what he wanted to do.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+)
Because it is far more sensible than "randomness" of evolution, and also because creationists aren't allowed to discuss "religion" in school or government any more (contrary to the actual written language of the constitution.)
The complexity argument is very simple and obviously correct.
a semi-random sequence of characters look like this:
"paiehpaype49qy3prh.kdvhn;fuyht7aqe-9fhj"
a non-random sequence looks like this:
"This is NOT random, but is a well designed sentence that anyone reading can understand."
This just displays that you do not understand the basic principle of the Theory.
Mutations are random, however natural selection is NOT!
QUOTE
An all powerful creator doesn't "NEED" anything to begin with. The creator did not make the universe or life out of any personal need.
Proof please.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An all powerful creator doesn't "NEED" anything to begin with. The creator did not make the universe or life out of any personal need. |
Proof please.
In the end, anyone who has ever read the Bible, would know that the only "reason" ever given in the Bible for God making ceation basicly boils down to "because he felt like it". Sort of like a Billionaire who buys 50 cars "just because he can" and never even drives half of them.
You know too much. Tell me does God prefer Football or Cricket?
QUOTE
Why do video game characters run around collecting "power ups"? Becuase that's the way the designers made them. Why? Because they felt like it, and thought it would be "cool". However this isn't a perfect analogy since in this case "cool" makes the designer money. In the end, There is no other reason whatsoever. "Because he felt like it," is the only reason that exists, and it is the only answer that matters.
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them. Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
etc, etc...ad infinitum....some designer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do video game characters run around collecting "power ups"? Becuase that's the way the designers made them. Why? Because they felt like it, and thought it would be "cool". However this isn't a perfect analogy since in this case "cool" makes the designer money. In the end, There is no other reason whatsoever. "Because he felt like it," is the only reason that exists, and it is the only answer that matters. |
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them. Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
etc, etc...ad infinitum....some designer.
In the context of the universe that exists, which we can view as a "virtual machine", it follows laws and whatever; In this context, it makes PERFECT sense for organisms to have a lot in common with one another BY DESIGN.
Er..shouldn't that be BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
QUOTE
Software AND hardware engineers for computers do this all the time. Parts for computers and their applications are very modular and work together because this is a very elegant solution of how to make multiple models of things that do what you want them to do for the specific purpose they are intended to do.
So are you now saying that God is a hardware engineer?
Wow! You know far too much to just be a regular human. I am in awe.
Evolution IS random.
There was even a thread on this subject a few weeks ago.
Terms like "natural Selection" and "survival of the fittest" are complete misnomers, since the definition of "fittest" can change instantly and suddenly without warning (catastrophe).
1) Genetic Mutation is 100% random
2) "Natural Selection" allegedly picks the best mutations
3) Unrelated events (Catastrophe) randomize things again
=======
You want proof for something that is so obvious that it's absurd that one should even have to say it?
All powerful is all powerful.
Saying God "needs" anything is as absurd as saying the sun needs more light.
=====
It doesn't matter whether God likes football or cricket.
=====
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them.
No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread.
No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread.
Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
Once again, it really doesn't matter. I can argue moral issues with you if you want, but the fact is the designer is the designer and he does whatever he damn well feels like doing, whether you like it or not.
BTW, most "innocent babies" die because they have evil drug abusing parents or teenagers and other women abort them, or they are otherwise abused by their parents or other people who CHOOSE to do these evil things.
The analogy was clearly over your head.
When you learn how to think about something in any way other than reciting the brainwashing of the liberal anarchists, you're free to join discussion.
You know too little.
There was even a thread on this subject a few weeks ago.
Terms like "natural Selection" and "survival of the fittest" are complete misnomers, since the definition of "fittest" can change instantly and suddenly without warning (catastrophe).
1) Genetic Mutation is 100% random
2) "Natural Selection" allegedly picks the best mutations
3) Unrelated events (Catastrophe) randomize things again
=======
You want proof for something that is so obvious that it's absurd that one should even have to say it?
All powerful is all powerful.
Saying God "needs" anything is as absurd as saying the sun needs more light.
=====
It doesn't matter whether God likes football or cricket.
=====
QUOTE
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them.
No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Why do some people kill mercilessly, because that's the way the designer made them. |
No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread.
Why do innocent babies die, because that's the way the designer made them.
Once again, it really doesn't matter. I can argue moral issues with you if you want, but the fact is the designer is the designer and he does whatever he damn well feels like doing, whether you like it or not.
BTW, most "innocent babies" die because they have evil drug abusing parents or teenagers and other women abort them, or they are otherwise abused by their parents or other people who CHOOSE to do these evil things.
QUOTE
So are you now saying that God is a hardware engineer?
Wow! You know far too much to just be a regular human. I am in awe.
Wow! You know far too much to just be a regular human. I am in awe.
The analogy was clearly over your head.
When you learn how to think about something in any way other than reciting the brainwashing of the liberal anarchists, you're free to join discussion.
You know too little.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 3 2008, 07:55 PM)
Evolution IS random.
Is it random that casinos are so very successful?
Edit or should I ask is it random if a casino is successfull?
Is it random that casinos are so very successful?
Edit or should I ask is it random if a casino is successfull?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 3 2008, 03:07 PM)
Is it random that casinos are so very successful?
Edit or should I ask is it random if a casino is successfull?
A casino is DESIGNED, by man, to abuse the odds, so no, on average a casino's success is not random, even though the outcome of individual games is largely random.
The same principle can be applied to insurance companies.
The success is largely by Design, even though random factors are involved, because they research the normal rate of accidents or whatever it is they are insuring, and knwo how much they need to charge to cover potential losses. Besides all this, they apply deductibles, or redefine the terms of the agreement, as in "hurricane insurance" vs "flood insurance".
Evolution is much different, because you nuts are claiming a tornado flys through junkyard and assembles a 747 from random garbage.
Edit or should I ask is it random if a casino is successfull?
A casino is DESIGNED, by man, to abuse the odds, so no, on average a casino's success is not random, even though the outcome of individual games is largely random.
The same principle can be applied to insurance companies.
The success is largely by Design, even though random factors are involved, because they research the normal rate of accidents or whatever it is they are insuring, and knwo how much they need to charge to cover potential losses. Besides all this, they apply deductibles, or redefine the terms of the agreement, as in "hurricane insurance" vs "flood insurance".
Evolution is much different, because you nuts are claiming a tornado flys through junkyard and assembles a 747 from random garbage.
Quantum_Conundrum
No we're claiming no such thing. Neither god nor nature has ever assembled a 747 by ANY means. The 747 is made of non-living matter, it does not reproduce(nor is it subject to random mutation during reproduction, nor to the non-random selection process called natural selection). There is absolutely nothing a 747 has that is comparable to any living system. This is a specious, strawman argument out of ignorance as to what evolution is.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Evolution is much different, because you nuts are claiming a tornado flys through junkyard and assembles a 747 from random garbage.
No we're claiming no such thing. Neither god nor nature has ever assembled a 747 by ANY means. The 747 is made of non-living matter, it does not reproduce(nor is it subject to random mutation during reproduction, nor to the non-random selection process called natural selection). There is absolutely nothing a 747 has that is comparable to any living system. This is a specious, strawman argument out of ignorance as to what evolution is.
Grumpy
So many sock puppets, so little time...
Evolution IS random.
There was even a thread on this subject a few weeks ago.
Terms like "natural Selection" and "survival of the fittest" are complete misnomers, since the definition of "fittest" can change instantly and suddenly without warning (catastrophe).
1) Genetic Mutation is 100% random
2) "Natural Selection" allegedly picks the best mutations
3) Unrelated events (Catastrophe) randomize things again
Evolution is the explanation of how life/animals/humans etc change over time.
I recommend 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins for a good layman's insight into the mechanisms of natural selection. Happy reading!
No, an explanation of what all powerful means is a far cry from asserting that there is an entity that IS all powerful. One would have thought that this was the most obvious thing. Strangely though your claim that this all powerful God does not need anything doesn't seem consistent with the biblical claims of what God needs, ie; Obedient worship and adherence.
No, an explanation of what all powerful means is a far cry from asserting that there is an entity that IS all powerful. One would have thought that this was the most obvious thing. Strangely though your claim that this all powerful God does not need anything doesn't seem consistent with the biblical claims of what God needs, ie; Obedient worship and adherence.
It doesn't matter whether God likes football or cricket.
How do you know?
Again how do you know this? Are you capable of entertaining the idea that you do not understand evolution well enough to dismiss it? If we were to accept simplistic explanations in regards to free will such as Goddidit then we would have to falsify evolution by finding evidence of the designers hand. Please provide.
Again how do you know this? Are you capable of entertaining the idea that you do not understand evolution well enough to dismiss it? If we were to accept simplistic explanations in regards to free will such as Goddidit then we would have to falsify evolution by finding evidence of the designers hand. Please provide.
Once again, it really doesn't matter. I can argue moral issues with you if you want, but the fact is the designer is the designer and he does whatever he damn well feels like doing, whether you like it or not.
You will have to provide evidence that there is a designer and that it is your God if it is to be accepted as a fact whether you like it or not.
What I like or dislike is irrelevant as you rightly point out.
BTW, most "innocent babies" die because they have evil drug abusing parents or teenagers and other women abort them, or they are otherwise abused by their parents or other people who CHOOSE to do these evil things.
BTW This is complete and utter tosh and rather unpleasant tosh at that. So all the evils of the world according to you are caused by people exercising their free will, God does not need anything because he is all powerful , evolution is random etc, etc
What about the babies right to choose? Why didn't the all powerful designer give them the same rights?
Please don't tell me you worship this all powerful aresh0le?
BTW This is complete and utter tosh and rather unpleasant tosh at that. So all the evils of the world according to you are caused by people exercising their free will, God does not need anything because he is all powerful , evolution is random etc, etc
What about the babies right to choose? Why didn't the all powerful designer give them the same rights?
Please don't tell me you worship this all powerful aresh0le?
The analogy was clearly over your head.
When you learn how to think about something in any way other than reciting the brainwashing of the liberal anarchists, you're free to join discussion.
Over my head? More like out of your a55. Brainwashing? God is all powerful, God is all powerful, God is all powerful....
I know too little?..Actually you're right about that.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
I hate to (no I don't) jump into your questions for DuzmA but I will anyway (cause I've got awesome answers) ...
uaafanblog: In case you're not already aware(and it seems that you're not), "Bringer-of-Light" was a sock puppet account that was created and maintained by none other than DuzmA. So, when you read this supposed "dialogue" from the past between the "two"(BoL & DuzmA), it's really just a deluded/schizophrenic INDIVIDUAL talking to himself. What think ye of that? Does the poor bugger need help or what? Certainly seems so to me. The schizo went so far as to leave me a positive feedback(a bribe that didn't work) as "Bringer-of-Light" and then proceeded to give me a negative feedback three days later as DuzmA, calling me "a hypocrite of the worst kind". My crime? I had begun to warn forum members that BoL was a sock puppet, although I admittedly didn't know that it was DuzmA's sock puppet at that time. Anyhow, you guys/gals need a crash course in discernment. Back to work for me...
P.S. I must admit that I chuckled out loud when I read your comment about us "having to wipe our hairy asses two times a day". I actually think I know why God made us have to *AHEM* "drop a nightstick" and also why He made us have to eat, but I'll refrain from offering that possible insight at this time. Carry on...
uaafanblog: In case you're not already aware(and it seems that you're not), "Bringer-of-Light" was a sock puppet account that was created and maintained by none other than DuzmA. So, when you read this supposed "dialogue" from the past between the "two"(BoL & DuzmA), it's really just a deluded/schizophrenic INDIVIDUAL talking to himself. What think ye of that? Does the poor bugger need help or what? Certainly seems so to me. The schizo went so far as to leave me a positive feedback(a bribe that didn't work) as "Bringer-of-Light" and then proceeded to give me a negative feedback three days later as DuzmA, calling me "a hypocrite of the worst kind". My crime? I had begun to warn forum members that BoL was a sock puppet, although I admittedly didn't know that it was DuzmA's sock puppet at that time. Anyhow, you guys/gals need a crash course in discernment. Back to work for me...
P.S. I must admit that I chuckled out loud when I read your comment about us "having to wipe our hairy asses two times a day". I actually think I know why God made us have to *AHEM* "drop a nightstick" and also why He made us have to eat, but I'll refrain from offering that possible insight at this time. Carry on...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 3 2008, 07:55 PM)
Evolution IS random.
There was even a thread on this subject a few weeks ago.
Terms like "natural Selection" and "survival of the fittest" are complete misnomers, since the definition of "fittest" can change instantly and suddenly without warning (catastrophe).
1) Genetic Mutation is 100% random
2) "Natural Selection" allegedly picks the best mutations
3) Unrelated events (Catastrophe) randomize things again
Evolution is the explanation of how life/animals/humans etc change over time.
I recommend 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins for a good layman's insight into the mechanisms of natural selection. Happy reading!
QUOTE
You want proof for something that is so obvious that it's absurd that one should even have to say it?
All powerful is all powerful.
Saying God "needs" anything is as absurd as saying the sun needs more light.
All powerful is all powerful.
Saying God "needs" anything is as absurd as saying the sun needs more light.
No, an explanation of what all powerful means is a far cry from asserting that there is an entity that IS all powerful. One would have thought that this was the most obvious thing. Strangely though your claim that this all powerful God does not need anything doesn't seem consistent with the biblical claims of what God needs, ie; Obedient worship and adherence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want proof for something that is so obvious that it's absurd that one should even have to say it? All powerful is all powerful. Saying God "needs" anything is as absurd as saying the sun needs more light. |
No, an explanation of what all powerful means is a far cry from asserting that there is an entity that IS all powerful. One would have thought that this was the most obvious thing. Strangely though your claim that this all powerful God does not need anything doesn't seem consistent with the biblical claims of what God needs, ie; Obedient worship and adherence.
It doesn't matter whether God likes football or cricket.
How do you know?
QUOTE
No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread.
Again how do you know this? Are you capable of entertaining the idea that you do not understand evolution well enough to dismiss it? If we were to accept simplistic explanations in regards to free will such as Goddidit then we would have to falsify evolution by finding evidence of the designers hand. Please provide.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, the designer made them with a free will. They simply chose to do those evil things, just as YOU choose to make a response on this thread. |
Again how do you know this? Are you capable of entertaining the idea that you do not understand evolution well enough to dismiss it? If we were to accept simplistic explanations in regards to free will such as Goddidit then we would have to falsify evolution by finding evidence of the designers hand. Please provide.
Once again, it really doesn't matter. I can argue moral issues with you if you want, but the fact is the designer is the designer and he does whatever he damn well feels like doing, whether you like it or not.
You will have to provide evidence that there is a designer and that it is your God if it is to be accepted as a fact whether you like it or not.
What I like or dislike is irrelevant as you rightly point out.
QUOTE
BTW, most "innocent babies" die because they have evil drug abusing parents or teenagers and other women abort them, or they are otherwise abused by their parents or other people who CHOOSE to do these evil things.
BTW This is complete and utter tosh and rather unpleasant tosh at that. So all the evils of the world according to you are caused by people exercising their free will, God does not need anything because he is all powerful
, evolution is random etc, etc What about the babies right to choose? Why didn't the all powerful designer give them the same rights?
Please don't tell me you worship this all powerful aresh0le?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
BTW, most "innocent babies" die because they have evil drug abusing parents or teenagers and other women abort them, or they are otherwise abused by their parents or other people who CHOOSE to do these evil things. |
BTW This is complete and utter tosh and rather unpleasant tosh at that. So all the evils of the world according to you are caused by people exercising their free will, God does not need anything because he is all powerful
, evolution is random etc, etc What about the babies right to choose? Why didn't the all powerful designer give them the same rights?
Please don't tell me you worship this all powerful aresh0le?
The analogy was clearly over your head.
When you learn how to think about something in any way other than reciting the brainwashing of the liberal anarchists, you're free to join discussion.
Over my head? More like out of your a55. Brainwashing? God is all powerful, God is all powerful, God is all powerful....
I know too little?..Actually you're right about that.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 3 2008, 08:53 PM)
A casino is DESIGNED, by man, to abuse the odds, so no, on average a casino's success is not random, even though the outcome of individual games is largely random.
What about professional basketball players? Why is it that they tend to be much taller than the average person?
Obviously human beings are only tall or short because they just happened to have the correct DNA and the correct mutations. Mutations are random, but you can have short and tall people in the same family.
So, if mutations (and tallness) are random, why are there so many tall basketball players? Obviously the owners aren't "designing" these players. So why?
What about professional basketball players? Why is it that they tend to be much taller than the average person?
Obviously human beings are only tall or short because they just happened to have the correct DNA and the correct mutations. Mutations are random, but you can have short and tall people in the same family.
So, if mutations (and tallness) are random, why are there so many tall basketball players? Obviously the owners aren't "designing" these players. So why?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 3 2008, 09:24 PM)
Quantum_Conundrum
No we're claiming no such thing. Neither god nor nature has ever assembled a 747 by ANY means. The 747 is made of non-living matter, it does not reproduce(nor is it subject to random mutation during reproduction, nor to the non-random selection process called natural selection). There is absolutely nothing a 747 has that is comparable to any living system. This is a specious, strawman argument out of ignorance as to what evolution is.
Grumpy
God is the 747.
Evolution is more like a slow coach
No we're claiming no such thing. Neither god nor nature has ever assembled a 747 by ANY means. The 747 is made of non-living matter, it does not reproduce(nor is it subject to random mutation during reproduction, nor to the non-random selection process called natural selection). There is absolutely nothing a 747 has that is comparable to any living system. This is a specious, strawman argument out of ignorance as to what evolution is.
Grumpy
God is the 747.
Evolution is more like a slow coach
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 3 2008, 08:53 PM)
A casino is DESIGNED, by man, to abuse the odds, so no, on average a casino's success is not random, even though the outcome of individual games is largely random.
Evolution is much different, because you nuts are claiming a tornado flys through junkyard and assembles a 747 from random garbage.
Evolution is much different, because you nuts are claiming a tornado flys through junkyard and assembles a 747 from random garbage.