Atheism

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 09 2012,02:38)

Hi WIT,

So if evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, why would your belief not change?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Because my worldview isn't dependent on it. Any religion based on the bible would still be wrong, because the bible is demonstrably wrong.

January 8, 2012 at 10:24 pm#271356

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 09 2012,08:15)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 09 2012,02:38)

Hi WIT,

So if evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, why would your belief not change?

God bless
Ed J

Because my worldview isn't dependent on it. Any religion based on the bible would still be wrong, because the bible is demonstrably wrong.

Hi WIT,

You still have yet to provide any evidence of this assertion?
Without any proof, why do you believe such foolishness?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

January 8, 2012 at 10:31 pm#271357

Participant

Hi WIT,

I have, however, have provided you with evidence of YHVH's existence, which is encoded in the “AKJV Bible”.!

God's Signature
Proof of God=117
GOD(26) → The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74) → The LORD JEHOVAH(151)

יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)

In case YOU are having trouble understanding the significance of this information.
Here is a closer look at the number 26, these are six facts that cannot be denied.

(26)יהוה = “GOD”(26)

Fact #1. GOD's NAME, [יהוה], Theomatically matching “GOD”=26!
Fact #2. The Short Form of God's Name, [יה], is pronounced “YÄ”=26.
Fact #3. Man being created in YHVH's Image is first mentioned in Gen.1:26.
Fact #4. “GOD”=26: matches the number of letters in the English alphabet, 26.
Fact #5. “God's”, the possessive form of GOD, the number of times written is 26.
Fact #6. “Spirit OF God”, the possessive phrase, the number of times written is 26.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

January 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm#271359

Participant

Ed J,

OK. Let's start with “creation”. What do you believe the bible says about “creation”? Are you a “young earth” creationist? A “God used evolution” creationist? Which way have you tried to reconcile Genesis with reality?

(I only ask because it is obvious that Christians can't even agree on this, despite the “divine” revelation in the bible.)

January 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm#271360

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 09 2012,08:55)

Ed J,

(I only ask because it is obvious that Christians can't even agree on this, despite the “divine” revelation in the bible.)

Hi WIT,

The bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days,
but it does not say how long ago this was.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

January 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm#271372

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2012,16:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2011,02:40)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29)

Computers are designed, human brains aren’t. This is not a point of interesting discussion, it is just incorrect to say that brains are designed, they are the product of natural selection. If you can prove it’s wrong, then go for it. But if all you have is an inability to believe it, or a prior commitment to a conspiracy theory of Celestial Friends, then I don’t think you have anything interesting to say.

And this is why discoursing with you gets boring, Stu. I say God CREATED man and his brain exactly the way He wanted it to be. You assert that brains aren't designed. Then you tell me to prove you wrong, yet cry when I try to have you prove a negative.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29)

Quote (mikeboll64]Isn't a block of wood an inanimate object @ similar to the inanimate objects you think animated themselves and created their own intelligence?<!–QuoteEnd)

“What scientific theory claims that blocks of wood will come to life of their own accord??[/i] If so, how is it an answer?

Here's another example of you hiding from the question.

Stu, do YOU PERSONALLY believe that an unintelligent, inanimate block of wood can bring life and intelligence into itself? YES or NO?

If not, then why are you SOOOOOO certain that other unintelligent, inanimate things brought life and intelligence into themselves?

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29)

mikeboll,64 wrote:

Scripture says that God can raise a living human being up from a rock. Sort of like your “life just happened from inanimate elements” theory, huh?

No, making something by design is very different to the non-design that is natural selection.

And yet another! It is okay in your mind that NOTHING caused life from inanimate objects, but strange that a being much more intelligent than us could do it.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29)

unless you believe in Preadamites

I do. You can read all about it in my thread “Was Adam truly the first man ever?”

But this is senseless to me, Stu. I've read your NON-answer about the apes and the pointing. You are an EXPERT in diversionary tactics. Where is my genuine answer to the question? Nowhere.

And you never even responded to why the FIRST fish walked out of the ocean into a paradise already filled with trees and insects.

Get back to me when you are able to actually defend the asinine claims made by your “Life just happened from nothing for no apparent reason” buddies.

Brains arose by natural selection working in a non-random way on mutations that arose randomly. That is an established fact, and the only objection you have raised is your own personal incredulity, which I think derives from your ignorance of the matter which you have cultivated to serve the prejudice you hold for religious fantasy stories, as evidenced by your claim that something you call a god did something you call “create”, not that you have explained anything by that claim.

As for proving a negative, perhaps you could address the example of that I gave you as a way of demonstrating some ability to comprehend the relevant philosophy.

Since you appear singularly unable to invest the effort in researching the concept of fish moving over land for yourself, I'll give you a hint: there is an survival advantage for a fish that can escape a drying pond by travelling a short distance over land, and there are amphibians that show this same behaviour today. See how that constitutes an actual explanation, while assertions of gods doing things because it pleased them is woo for those satisfied with not knowing?

Abiogenesis is a very interesting topic, and there is much ingenious and plausible speculation on it. But you were dishonestly suggesting that I should believe that wood could be reanimated, and I am calling you on that strawman. It appears not to be me running from the question. Do you remain serious that it would be inconsistent for me not to take the reanimation of wood seriously? There certainly are mechanisms involving cloning techniques that could work, but I don't think that is what you meant. So perhaps you can either explain yourself, or else retract and try something that is not an insult to any reader's intelligence.

Stuart

You have made a fatal flaw according to “Bodhitharta's Law”

You said

Quote

Brains arose by natural selection working in a non-random way on mutations that arose randomly.

This is the law of Non-synchronistic Random Mutations they cannot occur in nature

January 9, 2012 at 12:07 am#271375

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2012,02:01)

Stuu: Perhaps she should get back to the kitchen while she is at it. And not worry her pretty little head.

Those are pretty sexist comments, don't you think?

There are Americans who do irony, I understand. Doesn’t look like you’re one of them.

Quote

As opposed to my comment, which was based on scientifically proven evidence that hormone fluxuation and subsequent mood swings accompany many women's menstrual cycles.
You just can’t help yourself, can you. In order to get away with this you would need evidence that Princess was actually being affected by some effect like this at the time she posted. Recently in New Zealand there was a business organisation leader who ended up resigning for his gross sexism in suggesting that women were less productive because they took more sick leave due to menstruation. Of course the man is a moron for making any such claims because he has not controlled the experiment for the possibility that women are more productive when they are at work, etc, in a similar way to what you appear to be doing here.

And my contribution has been made; it just seems you simply can't address it. A block of wood is an inanimate object, no? Do you claim that in the right conditions, this block of wood could come back to life, grow roots, and then evolve into a seagull?

Please link to the post where I ever claimed that. Or, as I have already asked you, please state what theory of science says it would happen. Otherwise withdraw the strawman and apologise for the slight on everyone’s intelligence. I say everyone to give creationists here the benefit of the doubt, of course. Your “contribution” isn’t a contribution.

Quote

Stu, you say things like, “there is an survival advantage for a fish that can escape a drying pond by travelling a short distance over land”, and you don't even realize how pathetic this makes you look.

No, I don’t know how claiming that would make anyone look pathetic. I do enjoy the fact that the only reply you can muster is an ad hominem argument, which means my point stands unchallenged. Perhaps this is just your perverse way of reacting, realising, and doing new learning.

Quote

WHY would this uncaring, unintelligent life force WANT to survive in the first place? WHY would this unintelligent force DECIDE on its own that it would have a better chance of survival by “willing itself” to develop legs?

You provide your own answer. I presume you mean natural selection (which isn’t a thing as such) is uncaring and unintelligent. That is right. So why then would you associate it with the words “want” or “decide” or “willing itself”?

Quote

Nor did you address my first point: WHY, when that “first fish” crawled out of the sea onto land, was there ALREADY supposedly a vast forest of plants and insects waiting for it as a food supply? What “fish” first crawled onto land to BECOME these plants and insects? And how could these latter fish have known to “prepare” its own stomach to digest this new kind of food?

…or “prepare”? All of those concepts are irrelevant to natural history. You are just trying to lever your celestial conspiracy theory of Imaginary Friends in where it doesn’t fit. Try seeing the world without that preconception for a minute. Risky, I know.

Your concept of fish crawling out of the sea to feast on the produce of the forest with a somehow magically changed stomach is not how it happened, so how about we confine ourselves to what we really think happened, rather than invent more strawmen to attack?

Of course that would mean you would have to learn what really happened, which I suspect is beyond you based on your current trajectory. Sad really, it is an astonishing history if you can get it.

Quote

There are a million little questions like this, to which you have no credible answers.

I’ll let you know when you have asked what I think is a credible question.

Quote

And you think by acting all smart and educated, you can make ME look dumb.

I don’t think you need any help from me with that.

Quote

thereby AVOIDING the actual questions

How about you not avoid my questions, like whether you understand what it means to ask someone to prove a negative, or whether you can show me where anyone ever claimed that wood could be reanimated?

Quote

Here's a new one for you since you've been away:

WHY would this first life form that just happened to live because of the perfect storm of circumstances develop with the ability to reproduce its species?

Are you asking about how the first cells might have reproduced? You would really have to know what the first cells were in order to answer that question. This is sort of like asking you whether your god has a beard. We still haven’t even established the nature of your god when we start asking much more detailed questions about it. There are things in chemistry called micelles that form from fatty acid molecules, and by agitation they behave in a way that mimics a simple kind of cell division. So the plausible answers to these things are in chemistry already. You can have the membrane of a primitive cell reproduce of its own accord without any DNA or organelles present. So goes the speculation, and indeed it must continue to be speculation because we will probably never be able to definitively claim something to be a fossil of the first reproducing cell.

Quote

Do you assert that ONE life not only started as a fluke, but from its very start, it “thought” enough ahead to make sure it “created itself” complete, with the ability to make even more of itself?

It might be that this chemistry of micelles enclosing bags of organic molecules is quite c
ommonplace, and is happening right now somewhere. Of course those molecules have a different currency on an earth filled with microorganisms; anything like that would become lunch for living cells with more sophisticated biochemistry. The discovery of extraterrestrial life would give some basis for deciding whether the word “fluke” was appropriate or not. But we have dealt with the idea of “created itself”, which is not how it works. What you need is a change of mindset when considering these questions.

Quote

Never mind, Stu. Because I already know your answers will be on the lines of this nonsense: “Brains arose by natural selection working in a non-random way on mutations that arose randomly. That is an established fact……”

Pathetic, indeed.

So, you venture forth into another round of perverse reaction, realisation, and new learning. Maybe you could read a book on the subject. Have I recommended Richard Dawkins’s “The Blind Watchmaker” to you yet? A bus ride to the library, and a new world will open at little financial cost. As you read each page you will spout forth your reactionary vocabulary of “pathetic” and “nonsense”, which will be followed by realisation, and new learning.

You will have to suspend your commitment to a conspiracy theory of “intent” in nature though, because it just ain’t like that, as you Americans say.

Stuart

January 9, 2012 at 12:34 am#271379

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2012,02:11)

Were the seeds alreadly existent, waiting for evolution to say, “Hey, we need to develop one of these beakless birds into a bird with a beak so he can transport us throughout the island, giving us a chance to survive”?

Did the plant with the deep bell-shaped flower evolve at precisely the same time as the finch with the long beak that could transfer its pollen to other like plants? It seems to me that if they didn't evolve at exactly the same time, then both the plant that needs the long beaked bird, and the bird itself would not have made it.

I’m not aware of any examples of coevolution with Darwin’s finches and the plants on which they feed. Given the relatively minor changes in the birds on each of the Galapagos Islands I would have thought that the plants wouldn’t have changed much in response to the birds, and would guess it is unlikely that any plant would have one of these finches as its exclusive pollinator. The plants were there before the finches.

I am neither an ornithologist nor a botanist. I don’t know what other pollinators the flowers on the Galapagos or Cocos Islands might have, or what adaptations they would require to be so. Do you know?

Quote

My point was:

Were there perhaps BILLIONS of different beaks developed, and only 30 of those BILLIONS actually worked for the food source on the island? How many years of mutations were involved to arrive at those 30 beaks that worked? And how were the plants they fertilized able to survive while waiting for the right 30 beaks to mutate into perfection?

My answer was:
Those with beaks slightly better suited to the particular food sources available on the island were the ones with a slight adaptive advantage, and over time those particular kinds of beak came to be common because it was those particular finches that reproduced more often.

And:
You seem to have this wrong idea that natural selection is random. It isn't.

Which means that it is more likely that there were 30 beaks of all the millions (probably not billions) that were NOT able to be used to feed, and their owners died in short order. If a particular beak could not be used to feed at all, then the group of birds in that situation would have perished. We are not talking here about something being useable or not useable (apart from perhaps 30 rare freak mutations), we are talking about a beak that is slightly BETTER at helping its owner to survive, and that trait of a slightly better beak becoming more common through survival and reproductive success. As I said, this is not random, it is not trial and error of all sorts of freaky beaks, it is the selection of bias in one particular direction, dictated by the environment.

Ridiculous, I hear you say. But it is true, and so there is new learning for you.

Quote

Too many simple little questions, and too few answers.

There is certainly no lack of answers. The problem is you don’t know where else to find them, or more likely are playing to the crowd in suggesting there aren’t answers, which would be just a little disingenuous, don’t you agree?

Stuart

January 9, 2012 at 12:45 am#271383

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 09 2012,09:53)

You have made a fatal flaw according to “Bodhitharta's Law”

You said

Quote

Brains arose by natural selection working in a non-random way on mutations that arose randomly.

This is the law of Non-synchronistic Random Mutations they cannot occur in nature

Reference please?

I don't mean your own website, by the way.

Stuart

January 9, 2012 at 12:54 am#271388

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 09 2012,10:45)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 09 2012,09:53)

You have made a fatal flaw according to “Bodhitharta's Law”

You said

Quote

Brains arose by natural selection working in a non-random way on mutations that arose randomly.

This is the law of Non-synchronistic Random Mutations they cannot occur in nature

Reference please?

I don't mean your own website, by the way.

Stuart

There does not need to be a reference it is a fact: Mutations are random and have no degree of purposeful design, correct?

January 9, 2012 at 1:30 am#271397

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 09 2012,04:02)

Hi WIT,

The bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days,
but it does not say how long ago this was.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Perfect!

What happened on Day 2?

January 9, 2012 at 2:23 am#271408

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 08 2012,11:03)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2012,07:44)

What, is YOUR faith “firsthand”? Did you actually SEE with your own eyes life starting from nothing?

I have never claimed that I believed that life started from nothing. Is this your way of admitting that your personal faith is second hand (at best)?

My knowledge of God through the scriptures is obviously not firsthand knowledge. My faith in Him is all me, however.

January 9, 2012 at 2:28 am#271409

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 08 2012,14:14)

All I am saying is that evolution is more in line with all of the evidence I have been exposed to thus far than the bible is – by a long shot!

Which part of evolution? The part where life just happened out of thin air? Or the part where that first life also thought ahead and made sure it MADE ITSELF with reproductive capabilities?

Or is the part where for some reason, a fish crawled out of the sea to become a cactus – for no apparent reason?

WIT, this is why I hit you with the questions you can't answer. It's because you keep talking about this “evidence” for evolution. If you are not prepared to defend the theory, then you shouldn't be talking about “evidence” for it, IMO.

January 9, 2012 at 2:48 am#271411

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2012,17:07)

Are you asking about how the first cells might have reproduced?

Nope. I'm asking WHY the first cells would have “invented themselves” with a reproductive capability in the first place.

It seems much more likely to me, that if your trillion to one fantasy about life creating itself happened at all, it would have been a one time thing, and when those life forms died out, it would have been the end of it.

But you're not only asking us to believe the trillion to one odds that it happened in the first place, you're asking us to believe the infinity to one odds that it not only happened once, but when it did, it happened by pure chance in a way that would let that first life reproduce itself indefinitely.

Is that “credible” enough for you?

January 9, 2012 at 3:35 am#271420

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2012,07:28)

Which part of evolution? The part where life just happened out of thin air? Or the part where that first life also thought ahead and made sure it MADE ITSELF with reproductive capabilities?

Or is the part where for some reason, a fish crawled out of the sea to become a cactus – for no apparent reason?

First of all, there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Learn it.

Secondly, I am afraid that I can't possibly make up for your willful ignorance when it comes to evolution. If you were at all interested in the topic, you wouldn't be asking such silly questions about fish becoming cactus.

Have you even looked at an evolutionary timeline? Do you have any idea how geological findings line up with that timeline? Do you understand that cacti and fish are on completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree? Are you even aware that there is an evolutionary tree that traces the ancestry of all living creatures?

If not, how do you expect me to explain anything to you? It's like trying to explain calculus to someone who doesn't even know simple arithmetic. It's pointless.

As for fish crawling out of water, have you never heard of lungfish or mudskippers?

But, let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Which creationary theory do you believe? Young earth? Miracle of God with a sprinkling of evolution? Do tell.

January 9, 2012 at 5:04 am#271430

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 09 2012,13:35)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2012,07:28)

Which part of evolution? The part where life just happened out of thin air? Or the part where that first life also thought ahead and made sure it MADE ITSELF with reproductive capabilities?

Or is the part where for some reason, a fish crawled out of the sea to become a cactus – for no apparent reason?

First of all, there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Learn it.

If not, how do you expect me to explain anything to you? It's like trying to explain calculus to someone who doesn't even know simple arithmetic. It's pointless.

As for fish crawling out of water, have you never heard of lungfish or mudskippers?

But, let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Which creationary theory do you believe? Young earth? Miracle of God with a sprinkling of evolution? Do tell.

In all fairness from a purely practical view it is a current fact that Abiogenesis is not a working theory and you cannot seperate abigenisis theory from eveolutionary theory from any noncreationist theory.

Biogenesis is no a theory it is what happens naturally every day i.e. life from life. The actual theory of evolution is biological viability is what survives.

When “WIT” writes he does not understand that biological viability has nothing to do with the phrase “Survival advantage” The problem with that loaded phrase is it seems to say that biological organisms seek advantages to survive when in reality only biological organisms that can survive will survive, there is no attempt at survival at all whatever will survive will survive.

With that being understood most of the mumbo jumbo is cleared up

January 9, 2012 at 5:22 am#271431

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 09 2012,10:04)

With that being understood most of the mumbo jumbo is cleared up

That's pretty much the opposite of what I got out of your post, but please do carry on. I am sure that your insight is helping someone.

January 9, 2012 at 7:14 am#271434

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2012,12:48)

Nope. I'm asking WHY the first cells would have “invented themselves” with a reproductive capability in the first place.

Is that “credible” enough for you?

Where did I claim that life “invented itself” or “created itself”?

Please link to the post where I claimed that, or retract and apologise.

Stuart

January 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm#271477

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 09 2012,11:30)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 09 2012,04:02)

Hi WIT,

The bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days,
but it does not say how long ago this was.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Perfect!

What happened on Day 2?

Hi WIT,

Don't you want to know what happened on day one first?
OK, on day 2, God created the atmosphere on planet Earth.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

January 9, 2012 at 6:59 pm#271493