- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart[/quote]
Hi Stuart,If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,15:11) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,11:14) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Are you saying “I crack you up”?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycityiblecode.orgPS. I fixed the quotes, you messed up on.
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,15:21) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,15:11) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,11:14) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Are you saying “I crack you up”?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycityiblecode.orgPS. I fixed the quotes, you messed up on.
What 'quotes I messed up on'??Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,15:11) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart
^
^your quote…my quote–>
\
Hi Stuart, |If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
The one at the top of the page.You got my quote and your quote in the same box.
No Problem, though bro.Your friend
Ed JDo you want to discuss my research some more?
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,16:21) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,15:11) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart
^
^your quote…my quote–>
\
Hi Stuart, |If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
The one at the top of the page.You got my quote and your quote in the same box.
No Problem, though bro.Your friend
Ed JDo you want to discuss my research some more?
Oh right. I see the quote scenario.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,16:28) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,16:21) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,15:11) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,11:43) Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting. Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?
Stuart
^
^your quote…my quote–>
\
Hi Stuart, |If you find the 'concept' of talking about my God interesting,
why would then make the comment…
'make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject' ? ? ?Is it you just 'hate' the FACT that I have the Scientific PROOF of God's existence that you find troubling?
Ed J
A little English comprehension wouldn't go amiss Ed:It is not the concept of the talking, it is your god concept that is fascinating.
Why would you believe in things that aren't really there?
By the way there strictly is no such thing as 'scientific proof'.
The trouble I have with your 'proof' is the danger it presents in causing me to split my sides laughing at it.
Stuart
The one at the top of the page.You got my quote and your quote in the same box.
No Problem, though bro.Your friend
Ed JDo you want to discuss my research some more?
Oh right. I see the quote scenario.Stuart
Hi Stuart,No wonder you have trouble following the significance of my Proof!
Ha Ha Ha, ha ha ah ha…
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMy knowledge of evolution is far inferior to the people I've been reading in this thread. But from my ignorance I have to ask this about evolution: Why?
If it all started in a primordial soup that lightning somehow ignited, creating life out of elements, why would those original, ancient one-celled organisms change?
Without any intelligence, even if environments around them were changing, why didn't they just die? Where did the “fight for survival” instinct come from? And even then, how did they posess what was needed to evolve into a variant lifeform?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2010,17:33) My knowledge of evolution is far inferior to the people I've been reading in this thread. But from my ignorance I have to ask this about evolution: Why? If it all started in a primordial soup that lightning somehow ignited, creating life out of elements, why would those original, ancient one-celled organisms change?
Without any intelligence, even if environments around them were changing, why didn't they just die? Where did the “fight for survival” instinct come from? And even then, how did they posess what was needed to evolve into a variant lifeform?
***** StarsYou're question while refreshing and brilliant will be quickly dismissed, because of the Atheism Disease, there is no evidence of God that can ever be accounted for as valid.
mikeboll64
Quote My knowledge of evolution is far inferior to the people I've been reading in this thread. But from my ignorance I have to ask this about evolution: Why? If it all started in a primordial soup that lightning somehow ignited, creating life out of elements, why would those original, ancient one-celled organisms change?
Because of mutations caused by radiation and copying mistakes in the replicating molecule (the precursor to DNA, whatever it was). Genetic change is inexorable. It is the directions that selection pressures push those variations in that give the illusion of design.By the way, it is very likely that the earliest life forms lived near sea vents on the ocean floor, exploiting an economy of energy based on sulfur.
Quote Without any intelligence, even if environments around them were changing, why didn't they just die?
99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct; death has been the most common outcome, but obviously not the only outcome.Quote Where did the “fight for survival” instinct come from? And even then, how did they posess what was needed to evolve into a variant lifeform?
Mutations, sexual recombination and copying errors in DNA replication lead to variation in the population. That is all that is needed for natural selection to work. From that range of different individuals, those organisms that possess the traits that give the best chances of survival and reproduction are the ones that survive to reproduce, and their traits become more common in the population. That is evolution by natural selection.Those who have the capacity to ‘fight’ for their survival (by whatever means, say by having a good immune system, or being extremely good at playing dead) are the ones that have survived most often and have been able to pass on their genes by reproduction. Where did they get that survival instinct? Natural variations in the instincts already present. Instinct is a complex thing, and no doubt has been the subject of intense selection pressure over a very long period. There are now all sorts of ways that living things fight to preserve their lives.
Good questions.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,17:17) [/quote] Stu,Feb. wrote:Ed
Quote If you see a bird's nest, with no bird around, how can Science prove or dis-prove it was designed?
What test can you do to the nest to prove the bird made it?
You cannot prove anything in science. You can make a testable hypothesis, which in this case would be “I think some kind of bird built this nest”. The only experiment you could do then would be to keep observing until you eventually saw a bird building such a nest, which you would of course, eventually.Quote How can Science PROVE the Creation of the “Universe”; except by it's order!
Huh?Quote Your belief in order without a maker is Weak indeed!
You have not defined the word ‘order’.No creator is required to explain the efficacy of modern antibiotics. No creator is required to explain the evolution of the universe. You know that antibiotics almost always work. They are far from weak. Why do you reject as weak the explanations for the universe which are developed by the same methods as our knowledge of antibiotics?
Now tell me the scientific theory of the divine creation, complete with supporting evidence, falsification criteria and predictions. I don’t think we will find the standard scientific model to be weak when set aside your description and explanation.
Quote A little more interesting for you; Stuart?
Not really. You cannot tell me the criterion for ‘designed’. I’ll lay money you can’t give me a proper scientific theory of divine creation, either.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Order: A system of arrangement, a state of efficiency, a state of effective operation,
a general classification according to quality or standing.My expertise is in: Documenting anomalies in the AKJV Bible, illustrating an “Intelligent Design”,
which occurred over large time scales diminishing the look of mans deliberate manipulation!The design of these anomalies illustrate the orchestration of an intelligence NOT bound by time that can even be Labeled as GOD!
I offer to you the Very PROOF of God's existence; a true Agnostic would be interested in the documentation of conclusive PROOF,
while an Atheist would Not be interested in PROOF(only in discrediting such Proof) because their belief in NO God is then proven false!Your actions illustrate rather clearly which camp you belong to! That of the Atheist Camp! So why do you falsely call yourself an Agnostic?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2010,20:02) mikeboll64 Quote My knowledge of evolution is far inferior to the people I've been reading in this thread. But from my ignorance I have to ask this about evolution: Why? If it all started in a primordial soup that lightning somehow ignited, creating life out of elements, why would those original, ancient one-celled organisms change?
Because of mutations caused by radiation and copying mistakes in the replicating molecule (the precursor to DNA, whatever it was). Genetic change is inexorable. It is the directions that selection pressures push those variations in that give the illusion of design.By the way, it is very likely that the earliest life forms lived near sea vents on the ocean floor, exploiting an economy of energy based on sulfur.
Quote Without any intelligence, even if environments around them were changing, why didn't they just die?
99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct; death has been the most common outcome, but obviously not the only outcome.Quote Where did the “fight for survival” instinct come from? And even then, how did they posess what was needed to evolve into a variant lifeform?
Mutations, sexual recombination and copying errors in DNA replication lead to variation in the population. That is all that is needed for natural selection to work. From that range of different individuals, those organisms that possess the traits that give the best chances of survival and reproduction are the ones that survive to reproduce, and their traits become more common in the population. That is evolution by natural selection.Those who have the capacity to ‘fight’ for their survival (by whatever means, say by having a good immune system, or being extremely good at playing dead) are the ones that have survived most often and have been able to pass on their genes by reproduction. Where did they get that survival instinct? Natural variations in the instincts already present. Instinct is a complex thing, and no doubt has been the subject of intense selection pressure over a very long period. There are now all sorts of ways that living things fight to preserve their lives.
Good questions.
Stuart
[/QUOTE]
Stu, isn't it true that as scientist discover more about the universe, that more of them agree there was a Grand Creator?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2010,21:00) Stu, isn't it true that as scientist discover more about the universe, that more of them agree there was a Grand Creator?
I'm not Stu, but I'll answer this one: no. The “god of the gaps” argument is losing more and more steam every day. If you are only getting your information from AiG and similar sites, you are getting biased information.kejonn,
British astronomer Sir Fred Doyle, “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”
Professor Michael J. Behe, “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”
Forget about the intricate way a human body and brain are designed; if it is just survival of the fittest, why do we have an appreciation for art and music and beautiful sunsets, etc.?
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 17 2010,14:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2010,21:00) Stu, isn't it true that as scientist discover more about the universe, that more of them agree there was a Grand Creator?
I'm not Stu, but I'll answer this one: no. The “god of the gaps” argument is losing more and more steam every day. If you are only getting your information from AiG and similar sites, you are getting biased information.
Kejonn,Stop with your “I'll agree with any scientific sounding term garbage” You don't know what god of the gaps mean.
To use the word “gap” as if there is a very small piece of information that man does not know is a misnomer
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 17 2010,14:40) kejonn, British astronomer Sir Fred Doyle, “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”
Professor Michael J. Behe, “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”
Forget about the intricate way a human body and brain are designed; if it is just survival of the fittest, why do we have an appreciation for art and music and beautiful sunsets, etc.?
“Survival of the fittest” is a myth created by evolutionists it actually has nothing to do with the “Theory of Evolution” which is based upon the very generic idea of “biological viability” in other words what can survive will survive, not that it is trying to survive.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 17 2010,14:00) Stu, isn't it true that as scientist discover more about the universe, that more of them agree there was a Grand Creator?
kejonn is right: before Darwin most scientists were creationists, and many were young earth creationists. It was the ignorant, mainstream assumption. Today it is 4% of scientists (virtually all of them religious fundamentalists working in non-biological disciplines) who disbelieve that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism for speciation, and about 40% of scientists are theists of some kind. That is much fewer than in the 19th Century, so no I would not agree with your statement.The trend in mainstream god belief is downwards, and I think you will find that same trend in scientists.
Of course it doesn't really matter, does it. Richard Dawkins could convert to evangelical christianity tomorrow and that would not mean that a grand creator is a more likely proposition.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 17 2010,17:33) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 17 2010,14:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2010,21:00) Stu, isn't it true that as scientist discover more about the universe, that more of them agree there was a Grand Creator?
I'm not Stu, but I'll answer this one: no. The “god of the gaps” argument is losing more and more steam every day. If you are only getting your information from AiG and similar sites, you are getting biased information.
Kejonn,Stop with your “I'll agree with any scientific sounding term garbage” You don't know what god of the gaps mean.
To use the word “gap” as if there is a very small piece of information that man does not know is a misnomer
No, kejonn is right: the main reason for the popularity of creationism amongst scientists of the 19th Century was that they could not explain biological complexity. They needed a god to fill that gap. Of course even those who knew that believing in Imaginary Friends was silly could not really say it out loud because they had no theory of speciation to put up against clerical whining. Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.This is as good an example of a god of the gaps as any.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 17 2010,17:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 17 2010,14:40) kejonn, British astronomer Sir Fred Doyle, “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”
Professor Michael J. Behe, “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”
Forget about the intricate way a human body and brain are designed; if it is just survival of the fittest, why do we have an appreciation for art and music and beautiful sunsets, etc.?
“Survival of the fittest” is a myth created by evolutionists it actually has nothing to do with the “Theory of Evolution” which is based upon the very generic idea of “biological viability” in other words what can survive will survive, not that it is trying to survive.
The phrase Survival of the Fittest was coined by British philosopher Herbert Spencer and adopted by Darwin in a later edition of Origin of Species, although Darwin's intended meaning was not the one that others put on the phrase.Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 17 2010,14:40) kejonn, British astronomer Sir Fred Doyle, “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”
Professor Michael J. Behe, “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”
Forget about the intricate way a human body and brain are designed; if it is just survival of the fittest, why do we have an appreciation for art and music and beautiful sunsets, etc.?
Behe has been disproved on every example he has proposed of 'irreducible complexity'. They all turn out to be modifications of preexisting structures with different functions, exactly as the theory of natural selection predicts.Don't forget that Fred Hoyle was wrong about the Big Band too. His witterings about evolution by natural selection completely fail to grasp its basic mechanism.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
While others have ideas about religious belief being a powerful means of achieving unity in a group, with all the survival advantages that brings, Richard Dawkins thinks that religious belief is a byproduct of very young children believing everything adults tell them, which is an adaptation that has obvious and overwhelming survival advantages.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
