Thread: God

>The converstation has turned into a bunch of selective techno jargen.<

Yes, bring back the magic, goddam. Where's the poetry in RNA? I liked it much better when the earth used to be flat. Simpler times, for simpler minds.

Who needs specifics when you have important and profound sounding utterances?

>Read it, and its the same tired nonsense from people who dont understand much, i will break it all down in another post. (the idea of microevolution without macro is utterly ludicrous, what do you think happens if you allow small changes to accumulate between two groups of organisms for millions of years...... small change + small change + small change + small change + a million other small changes = suprise suprise BIG CHANGE)<

Macroevolution requires a whole bunch of small changes to happen at the same time, because only combined do the changes benift the animal, by them selves they have a negitive or at best nutral.


>No you should NOT, because you dont have the initial replicator all you have is the bricks not the builder.<
Ok, so how do we get a builder?

>Indeed it is theory, but then SO IS GRAVITY, all science consists of is a bunch of theories with evidence supporting them. The point is we CAN explain the formation of life we do not need to resort to magical creation to solve it.<

Gravity is law what causes gravity is theory.

>Religion always favours the former answer, it always has, religion made Galileo repent his heresy that the Earth went round the sun, attacked darwin for explaining how life arose, religion has a history of trying to stop science revealing the truth...... BUT IT ALWAYS FAILS, irrationality can only hold back logical explanation for so long......... so it is with evolution, most educated people know it to be true but ignorance is still strong enough to have a voice: The Creationists, but that voice grows weaker as education fights back the ignorance of the coming generations.<

1.
Galileo


>Every question you have has an answer, every point creationists make has been utterly demolished by real scientists, whats so frustrating is that the same tired arguments that have been knocked down over and over again keep getting repeated.<
Theory vs Therory

>No it doesn't, not in terms of genes it doesn't; if your genes are "take advantage of society" genes, then you end up being ostracised from society and you have a big disadvantage vs. those people who didn't have "take advantage of society" genes and hence who didnt get kicked out. Hence "take advantage of society" genes get selected against.

Next......<

I am not responsible for my actions I am not responsible for anything.

>Is this a joke? LACK OF DISPROOF IS NOT PROOF: You cannot disprove the invisable kangeroo (named Joseph) lying at my feet, the fact that you cannot disprove him does NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF HIS EXISTANCE!!<

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

Nothing can be invisable sorry. Try again

"Macroevolution requires a whole bunch of small changes to happen at the same time, because only combined do the changes benift the animal, by them selves they have a negitive or at best nutral."

Wrong macroevolution would occur EVEN if there were no mechanisms that allowed larger changes to occur exactly the way i have described it:

Small change, a thousand years later, small change, a thousand years later small change......... etc. etc. and after millions of years you get very large changes compared to our original species: This is not exactly hard to grasp.

"Ok, so how do we get a builder?"

The builder is the initial replicator a complex organic molecule that predates RNA and DNA, it formed from a soup of organic chemicals about 4.2 billion years ago. "Getting it" today is the subject of a lot of research, but its a rather difficult problem to solve.

"Gravity is law what causes gravity is theory."

You don't understand the words you are using, the law of gravity IS a theory, EVERYTHING in science is a theory. There is no such thing as 'absolute' proof (Decarte pointed that one out a LONG time ago)

"I am not responsible for my actions I am not responsible for anything. "

Right....... and......?

"1.
Galileo "

What exactly does that site prove? As i said before religion stands in the way of scienctific discovery, it did then and it is doing now, science says "yes" religion says "no", and science wins in the long term because "yes" makes sense and "no" does not.

"Theory vs Therory "

Yes......... theory with huge amounts of evidence supporting it, consistent with geology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, ecology, etc. vs. theory with no evidence in fact with evidence AGAINST it, that completely goes against all known science............... hmmmm tough one!

Lets compare it to another religious theory vs. scientific theory: The Flat Earthers!

Theory vs. Theory

Theory 1 motivated by science: The earth is round, mountains of evidence consistent with geography, geology, cosmology, physics..... etc.

Theory 2 motivated by religion: The Earth is flat, no evidence in fact evidence against it, completely at odds with all known science.

"Nothing can be invisable sorry. Try again"

Fantastic argument well done, nothing can be invisible eh, HOW ABOUT GOD, can he be invisible? Yes? Well then so can my kangeroo!

You cannot disprove invisibility 'absolutely' its inherently impossible. Just as its inherently impossible to disprove God 'absolutely', what we can do is show that everything we know about the world points to my kangeroo not existing and funnily enough to God not existing. In fact all you have to do is say my kangeroo is omnipotent and omniscient as well as being invisible and hell you are talking about God!

Maybe its a sliding scale eh:

Invisible animal/life form/being: Rediculous!
Invisible omniscient animal/life form/being: Hmmm maybe.
Invisible omniscient omnipotent animal/life form/being: Yea that sounds plausible.
Invisible omniscient omnipotent animal/life form/being oh & the world is only 6000 years old contrary to every dating technique we have: Sign me up.
etc........

As i said before LACK of disproof does not constitute proof.

Anyway i think i'll take PJYelton's advice and attempt to pull out now. I've done more than enough to point out the folly of your position, your beliefs are founded on fundamental ignorance on the workings of the world around us, unfortuneately i suspect they will stay that way.

Hasta

>Wrong macroevolution would occur EVEN if there were no mechanisms that allowed larger changes to occur exactly the way i have described it:

Small change, a thousand years later, small change, a thousand years later small change......... etc. etc. and after millions of years you get very large changes compared to our original species: This is not exactly hard to grasp.<

1. I grasp how it works it's rather quite simmple.
2. Even before I was a christian I felt that something was wrong with the current theory. Don't ask me what, because I don't know.


>What exactly does that site prove? As i said before religion stands in the way of scienctific discovery, it did then and it is doing now, science says "yes" religion says "no", and science wins in the long term because "yes" makes sense and "no" does not.<

Aristotle, not the bible puts the earth at the center of the universe. The Church went along with popular option not religion.

>Yes......... theory with huge amounts of evidence supporting it, consistent with geology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, ecology, etc. vs. theory with no evidence in fact with evidence AGAINST it, that completely goes against all known science............... hmmmm tough one!<

See the top of this post.

>Theory vs. Theory

Theory 1 motivated by science: The earth is round, mountains of evidence consistent with geography, geology, cosmology, physics..... etc.

Theory 2 motivated by religion: The Earth is flat, no evidence in fact evidence against it, completely at odds with all known science<

Theroy 2 motivated by popular option, not religion.

>Fantastic argument well done, nothing can be invisible eh, HOW ABOUT GOD, can he be invisible? Yes? Well then so can my kangeroo!<
1. I have yet to read about God being invincible.

>You cannot disprove invisibility 'absolutely' its inherently impossible. Just as its inherently impossible to disprove God 'absolutely', what we can do is show that everything we know about the world points to my kangeroo not existing and funnily enough to God not existing. In fact all you have to do is say my kangeroo is omnipotent and omniscient as well as being invisible and hell you are talking about God!<

I'm sick of this argument from you. Just as you can or can not say what is hanging on my wall.

>Maybe its a sliding scale eh:

Invisible animal/life form/being: Rediculous!
Invisible omniscient animal/life form/being: Hmmm maybe.
Invisible omniscient omnipotent animal/life form/being: Yea that sounds plausible.
Invisible omniscient omnipotent animal/life form/being oh & the world is only 6000 years old contrary to every dating technique we have: Sign me up.
etc........<

1. I told you lay off the age I will get back to you on that.
2. Where does it say that god is invinsible, stop making things up your as worse then the church.

>As i said before LACK of disproof does not constitute proof.
I agree and no matter what postion you take it's called Faith.

>Anyway i think i'll take PJYelton's advice and attempt to pull out now. I've done more than enough to point out the folly of your position, your beliefs are founded on fundamental ignorance on the workings of the world around us, unfortuneately i suspect they will stay that way.<
1. You are just repeating what you have been told.
2. Go and browse the websites I posted. Most of there information is pathatic. I only took what seemed relevent.
3. You have yet to show prove macroevolution, you have only shown how it is suppost to work.

"Aristotle, not the bible puts the earth at the center of the universe. The Church went along with popular option not religion."

LOL then why did they fight so hard to shut Galileo up?

"1. I grasp how it works it's rather quite simmple.
2. Even before I was a christian I felt that something was wrong with the current theory. Don't ask me what, because I don't know."

........ you have been reduced to saying, i dont believe it because i don't: Completely irrational, especially considering you actually have no clue about the theory or the evidence invovled.

"Theroy 2 motivated by popular option, not religion"

The Flat Earthers are a society who believe the Earth is flat, because the bible speaks of the 4 corners of the Earth, religiously motivated.

"1. I have yet to read about God being invincible"

Presumeably you mean invisable..... ok so God cant be invisable? Ok cool, guess hes not all powerfull then...

"I'm sick of this argument from you. Just as you can or can not say what is hanging on my wall."

Do you even understand what i'm saying?

"1. I told you lay off the age I will get back to you on that. "

Right when you've read some more creationist dribble about the their so called "problems" with radiometric dating then you'll list a load of BS parot fashion without any grasp of how radiometric dating even works and i'll have to explain it all......yay.

"Where does it say that god is invinsible, stop making things up your as worse then the church."

God can do anything right? So he can be invisible if he so chooses!

"I agree and no matter what postion you take it's called Faith. "

Utterly wrong there is absolutely NO FAITH in my position, i have EVIDENCE and TESTED theory supporting what i believe, following LOGIC is NOT faith, avoiding logic is.

"1. You are just repeating what you have been told."

Thats a non-argument.

"2. Go and browse the websites I posted. Most of there information is pathatic. I only took what seemed relevent. "

I've read through them and many many MANY more, they are ALL amazingly ignorant, they are written by people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE INVOLVED. They are completely and utterly clueless. So much so that scientists view them as a JOKE.

There is no debate in the field of biology, over the question of evolution as a mechanism for the origin of species, there is no debate in the field of physics over the validity of radiometric dating. Why? The same reason there is no debate over the Krebs Cycle (part of respiration), people who know NOTHING of the topic create stupid problems that dont even make sense, scientists laugh them off, but people who are IGNORANT of science lap them up.

"You have yet to show prove macroevolution, you have only shown how it is suppost to work."

I don't need to show proof of macro evolution, the fact that macro-evolution is INEVITABLE given micro-evolution is proof enough, BUT since you ask heres 29:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>LOL then why did they fight so hard to shut Galileo up?
Political reasons.

>........ you have been reduced to saying, i dont believe it because i don't: Completely irrational, especially considering you actually have no clue about the theory or the evidence invovled.<

it seems perfectly sound, and resonable. I said it seems to have something missing.

>The Flat Earthers are a society who believe the Earth is flat, because the bible speaks of the 4 corners of the Earth, religiously motivated.<

The 4 corners of the earth are refrence it lots of works, not just the bible. It's a figure of spech.

Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Note: the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere


>Presumeably you mean invisable..... ok so God cant be invisable? Ok cool, guess hes not all powerfull then...<

I never said he can't. Second God defies all phycis.

>Do you even understand what i'm saying?
Yes I do

>Right when you've read some more creationist dribble about the their so called "problems" with radiometric dating then you'll list a load of BS parot fashion without any grasp of how radiometric dating even works and i'll have to explain it all......yay.<

I told you I need a couple of weeks. I can find creationist dribble
in a few minutes.

>Utterly wrong there is absolutely NO FAITH in my position, i have EVIDENCE and TESTED theory supporting what i believe, following LOGIC is NOT faith, avoiding logic is.<

You only have evidence going as far back as fossil records. (correct me if I I'm wrong)

>Thats a non-argument.
How so?

>I've read through them and many many MANY more, they are ALL amazingly ignorant, they are written by people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE INVOLVED. They are completely and utterly clueless. So much so that scientists view them as a JOKE.

There is no debate in the field of biology, over the question of evolution as a mechanism for the origin of species, there is no debate in the field of physics over the validity of radiometric dating. Why? The same reason there is no debate over the Krebs Cycle (part of respiration), people who know NOTHING of the topic create stupid problems that dont even make sense, scientists laugh them off, but people who are IGNORANT of science lap them up.<

I could of brough up Helum, moon dust, ect.

" it seems perfectly sound, and resonable. I said it seems to have something missing. "

But you have no idea about the theory? All you've heard is a brief outline! If you have unanswered questions then find an evolutionary biologists, email a university proffessor for answeres, read one of Richard Dawkins books, etc. etc.

"The 4 corners of the earth are refrence it lots of works, not just the bible. It's a figure of spech."

Indeed but the flat Earthers believe its true BECAUSE ITS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, hence they ARE religiously motivated.

"I never said he can't. Second God defies all phycis."

Thats exactly my point! God can be invisable, so therefore you can't say that my kangeroo can't exist because he's invisible! Jesus (irony no) its like getting blood out of a stone!

"Yes I do"

But your answers don't make any sense, its like you read the points and say whatever first comes into your head. Reread the last few pages of this thread and you'll see what i mean, heres an example:

You: "Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death"

Me: "And the evidence....... oh wait no there is none"

You: "No one could disproof the Aposoles at the time. There are way to many factors......"

Me: "Is this a joke? LACK OF DISPROOF IS NOT PROOF: You cannot disprove the invisable kangeroo (named Joseph) lying at my feet, the fact that you cannot disprove him does NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF HIS EXISTANCE!!"

You: "Nothing can be invisable sorry. Try again"

Me: "Fantastic argument well done, nothing can be invisible eh, HOW ABOUT GOD, can he be invisible? Yes? Well then so can my kangeroo!............."

You: "I'm sick of this argument from you. Just as you can or can not say what is hanging on my wall. " -> NOTE this makes no sense at all

Me: "Do you even understand what i'm saying?"

You: "Yes I do"

Do you understand now? Lack of disproof IE: No-one disproved the apostals wrong at the time does NOT in any shape or form constitue proof they were right. Just as your lack of disproof for the existence of an invisible kangeroo lying at my feet does NOT constitue proof that he does infact exist so too does the fact that no-one disproved the apostals at the time not constitute proof of the ressurection of Jesus!

The fact of the matter is its inherently IMPOSSIBLE to "disprove" God, there is no evidence for him and there is no evidence against him....... so we should keep an open mind right? WRONG, or rather no more so than we should keep an open mind about the existance of invisible kangeroos, no evidence for them no evidence against them. We construct our picture of reality based upon evidence for not lack of evidence against.

"I told you I need a couple of weeks. I can find creationist dribble
in a few minutes"

Hmm so you are looking for real problems? There arent any, the only people you will find who claim radiometric dating is flawed are creationists because they refuse to believe the results so they look for problems all of which are ripped apart by scientists who understand the field.

"You only have evidence going as far back as fossil records. (correct me if I I'm wrong)"

You are wrong, though the fossil evidence alone is enough, we also have chemical evidence: we can trace the changes in metabolic character of bacteria by the chemicals they left behind.

But that is somewhat irrelevant we have mountains of evidence supporting evolution, therefore its logical to believe it has occured, even if there was a cut off point before which we had no evidence, as long as we wouldn't expect to see evidence there is no problem, given that the principles of evolution have evidence supporting them those same principles will apply as far back as life exists.

"How so?"

Because it doesn't make a point, i'm repeationg what i've been taught, i've seen large amounts of the evidence myself (you can too, look up the pictures of some of the fossils), the only alternative is to believe there is a huge global coverup where all the scientists of the world are hiding the fact that the evidence is made up that the entire peer review infra structure is a sham, well the idea of such a worldwide conspiracy is farcial anyway and the fact that whenever i probe deeper (and i do regularly) into a topic i find real answers supported by real evidence. I study science everyday, i know how it works. Thats why its a null argument.

"I could of brough up Helum, moon dust, ect."

What?

>But you have no idea about the theory? All you've heard is a brief outline! If you have unanswered questions then find an evolutionary biologists, email a university proffessor for answeres, read one of Richard Dawkins books, etc. etc.<

Genesis 1:24 Then God commanded "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small" -and it was done.

Now think about that for a moment.

>Indeed but the flat Earthers believe its true BECAUSE ITS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, hence they ARE religiously motivated.<

Yet the church:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

From Isaiah 8
"Quick loot, fast plunder* taking this complty out of context I now belive tha tI should quicly loot annd plunder fast.

>Thats exactly my point! God can be invisable, so therefore you can't say that my kangeroo can't exist because he's invisible! Jesus (irony no) its like getting blood out of a stone!<

Ok, your kangeroo may or may not be invisible

>Do you understand now? Lack of disproof IE: No-one disproved the apostals wrong at the time does NOT in any shape or form constitue proof they were right. Just as your lack of disproof for the existence of an invisible kangeroo lying at my feet does NOT constitue proof that he does infact exist so too does the fact that no-one disproved the apostals at the time not constitute proof of the ressurection of Jesus!<

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

>The fact of the matter is its inherently IMPOSSIBLE to "disprove" God, there is no evidence for him and there is no evidence against him....... so we should keep an open mind right? WRONG, or rather no more so than we should keep an open mind about the existance of invisible kangeroos, no evidence for them no evidence against them. We construct our picture of reality based upon evidence for not lack of evidence against.<
buzz wrong there is historical proff for the bible, yet there is no historical proof that goes aginst the bible.

>Hmm so you are looking for real problems? There arent any, the only people you will find who claim radiometric dating is flawed are creationists because they refuse to believe the results so they look for problems all of which are ripped apart by scientists who understand the field.<
Lol, nope not at all. I am in fact going to see if the word day is the wrong translation and it should be something else.

>Because it doesn't make a point, i'm repeationg what i've been taught, i've seen large amounts of the evidence myself (you can too, look up the pictures of some of the fossils), the only alternative is to believe there is a huge global coverup where all the scientists of the world are hiding the fact that the evidence is made up that the entire peer review infra structure is a sham, well the idea of such a worldwide conspiracy is farcial anyway and the fact that whenever i probe deeper (and i do regularly) into a topic i find real answers supported by real evidence. I study science everyday, i know how it works. Thats why its a null argument.<

If you were to find a fosile of a pitbull and a chewawa and these animals did not exisit anymore, one could state that that one evoloved from the other.

>What?
I could of presend those theorys for the age of the earth.

I read the 'Brisk Biters" link.
What a pity they 'forgot' to mention that 100 years in mosquitoe time is equvalent to approx 2600 generations or 200,000 years in human time. (mosquitoe < 2 - 3 weeks, man 80 - 100 years)

Not exactly short time if you are breeding in stagnant pools of water polluted by heavy diesel from the trains.


If this is obvious to me after a five minute read why is it not to the author?
Why can't you trust a Christan site NOT to distort the facts?

The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach

Or how we imperfect humans DARE to REINTERPRET the word of god to fit OUR meaning. I interpret the sermon on the mount (with the loaves and fishes) to mean that Jesus called up McD's and they all had big mac's.

Seeing according to the Latter day Saints that Jesus went to New York and spoke to the Jewish Indians there he could have founded McD's on his way.(as well as leaving some copper tablets in a cave for some guy to find why not a few of those old styrofoam containers and a golden arch)




"For your point, I completely agree. BTW, what's your kangeroo's name?"

Joseph, and he has technicolour dream fur.

For gods sake Clyde. I am so shocked. From a man as educated as you!
Its kangaroo.

Surely we all know the sun is an Emu's egg thrown into the sky by the kangaroo when they were fighting in the dreamtime. I'm sure the rainbow serpent would have something to say about the technicolour dream fur!

"Its better to remain silent and seem an idiot than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

(I forget who)