- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 02 2007,22:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 02 2007,06:07) Hi Stu,
If they suffered and died for a myth then if there any more foolish behaviour?
Or did they glimpse a reality beyond this short and frustrating one?
Who are we discussing here? What is the motivation of the Islamist suicide bomber, for example. I imagine you would call him deluded for believing he will be rewarded in his heaven for taking out a few Westerners for the glory of his religion.Stuart
Hi Stu,
So they were fools?
When you need hope call on our God.
He longs to help.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 02 2007,22:16) Yawn. Heard it. Demonstrated it to be the nonsense that it is. Got any new material?
Snapped.Exactly. That is how I see your words.
I have actually just said the same thing as you. But used different symbols.
Now you know how we feel when you rant on about there being no God and that nothing created all things.
Of course it is nonsense.
Now you know how you come across.
=Hi t8,
They believe in a God called nature who,despite the obvious short term trend on matter to degenerate, over millions of years channels all life into a progressive evolution to higher forms.
An amazing nonsentient, inanimate god.Quote (t8 @ Dec. 03 2007,12:18) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 02 2007,22:16) Yawn. Heard it. Demonstrated it to be the nonsense that it is. Got any new material?
Snapped.Exactly. That is how I see your words.
I have actually just said the same thing as you. But used different symbols.
Now you know how we feel when you rant on about there being no God and that nothing created all things.
Of course it is nonsense.
Now you know how you come across.
=
You don't have a theory of Divine Creation, so what you propose does not have the credibility of science. There is no evidence to support your flimsy hypothesis. Give me one single aspect of christian supernatural doctrine that can be demonstrated unquestionably to have come to pass without any possiblilty of a rational or empirical explanation. One.Your attempt at an AI analogy is exactly the same one (with a different title) as the house, the car, the whatever that was designed. I yawn at your single strategy in apologising for your religious fairy-tale explanation for the appearance of different species because it is just endless re-hashes of the argument from design, proposed by William Paley and demolished by every philosopher and scientist who has addressed the hypothesis since. At least David has had a go at the anthropomorphic principle, but you are just looking for a reaction with your ad nauseam repeat of your one-track argument. There is a whole thread, that you started, that contains all of the explanations as to why the argument from design is wrong.
You have confirmed for me the suspicion I had that the difference between fundamentalist christianity and a questioning objective rational view is the christian cannot possibly be wrong. How could such a person ever claim to be able to learn anything that wasn't to be read in the Judeo-christian book of mythology?
I have considered carefully and I think quite open-mindedly what people write here. So far, nothing has convinced me that there is anything different to that described by science and other secular areas of human endeavour. If you want to know about the massive and varied explanations that are proposed and tested in relation to natural selection all you have to do is ask. I suspect that you never will, judging by your posts.
Stuart
Hi Nick
Quote They believe in a God called nature
I don’t believe in gods. Maybe others do.Quote who,despite the obvious short term trend on matter to degenerate,
What ‘obvious short-term trend’ are you referring to here?Quote over millions of years channels all life into a progressive evolution to higher forms.
No. There is no teleology involved. There is no requirement to what you call ‘higher life forms’.Quote An amazing nonsentient, inanimate god.
Or none, even.I would concede a tiny chance that your explanation could be right, although unconvinced at this stage. Would you say there is any chance at all you could be wrong?
Stuart
Sorry Stu, but the biggest fairy tale of all is the one that says that nothing eventually created all things.
Think about it.
Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.
Yes you can explain processes but it doesn't explain away the one who made the processes.If you deny a creator then I have to agree with scripture.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Sorry Stu, but it is absolutely foolish to think that the cosmos came about without a designer. You will never convince me that there is no God. You might have a better shot at convincing me that the earth is square.
Quote Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.Instead of discussing this, or the impossible against all odds, even the improbable ones theory of molecular evolution, the evolutionists like to stay in their safe place: Using their imagination to connect the dots of animals. Hey, they all look alike. What do you know.
Just as one studies the evolution of picasso's paintings, it's easy to see the similarities between species. I wish someone could actually focus on the earlier stages and the fairy tale like explanation of what had to happen for their to be life.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 03 2007,18:23) Hi Nick
Quote They believe in a God called nature
I don’t believe in gods. Maybe others do.Quote who,despite the obvious short term trend on matter to degenerate,
What ‘obvious short-term trend’ are you referring to here?Quote over millions of years channels all life into a progressive evolution to higher forms.
No. There is no teleology involved. There is no requirement to what you call ‘higher life forms’.Quote An amazing nonsentient, inanimate god.
Or none, even.I would concede a tiny chance that your explanation could be right, although unconvinced at this stage. Would you say there is any chance at all you could be wrong?
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You reach conclusions by your observations and logic.
We have the Words of God as a deeper source of truth.WRITTEN LETTERS, yes, if it be not written in the heart, it is with out clarity of charity
dry desert/ers landsQuote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 04 2007,14:51) Hi charity,
If the teaching of the heart does not align with scripture guess which is wrong.
then you have a chalenge with your own heart within.feeling that changing the world around is going to fix the suffering of the natural man, is vexing,
we have a problem, if we have followed any Law wrong, by without understanding, a very unfifulled emptynessQuote (t8 @ Dec. 04 2007,08:06) Sorry Stu, but the biggest fairy tale of all is the one that says that nothing eventually created all things. Think about it.
Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.
Yes you can explain processes but it doesn't explain away the one who made the processes.If you deny a creator then I have to agree with scripture.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Sorry Stu, but it is absolutely foolish to think that the cosmos came about without a designer. You will never convince me that there is no God. You might have a better shot at convincing me that the earth is square.
I know I will find it easy to convince you that the world is square. It has four corners and you can see all the kingdoms of it from a high mountain. Sounds like your creator must have rearranged things a bit after he inspired the bible. The solid firmament seems to be mising as well. Gee, maybe after he realised he had mucked up the creation of humans (and all the innocent animals he drowned) he thought that maybe he should let evolution by natural selection have a go. 'Cause that's what we see in the fossil record.How does 'it is foolish to think' constitute an argument?
Stuart
David
Quote Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.Quote Instead of discussing this, or the impossible against all odds, even the improbable ones theory of molecular evolution, the evolutionists like to stay in their safe place: Using their imagination to connect the dots of animals. Hey, they all look alike. What do you know.
I have asked the same question about the origins of matter, and so far my own answer has contained more verifiable detail than that of anyone else here. I think your description of safety-seeking fits religious fundamentalists who rejoice in their righteous ignorance of the reality around them, and point-blank deny the evidence put before them. You just wonder how far such people can stretch the meaning of the term reality. Darwin even delayed as long as he could the publishing of his theory because he knew that the religiously inspired would demonstrate their typical reactionary celebration of ignorance. You have evidence that does not look like a low-resolution fossil record of the history of life on earth? Your picture shows miracle after miracle does it? t8 couldn’t describe evolution by natural selection if it was written out for him (which it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) Are you the same?Quote Just as one studies the evolution of picasso's paintings, it's easy to see the similarities between species. I wish someone could actually focus on the earlier stages and the fairy tale like explanation of what had to happen for their to be life.
Not you as well, David. Paintings were painted by those with a design in mind. Humans and other living things were not. Computers, cars, houses, digital watches, analog watches, cyborgs, barbie dolls, musical compositions and Jumbo Jets are all designed. They have a designer. We know exactly how these objects come into being. We know that not a single one of them reproduces spontaneously with the ability for its recipe to mutate. The only selection pressure on the development of such designed things is by the designers or customers who use them. They are not relevant to a discussion about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is poorly described with many competing hypotheses. Do you have an intelligent point to make or a contribution to a better understanding of the change from chemistry to biochemistry or does the peer pressure here say that you should just restate the fallacy that because there is no good scientific explanation that therefore god did it?Do you have a falsifiable, predictive, evidence-based theory of Divine Creation yet?
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 04 2007,10:12) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 03 2007,18:23) Hi Nick
Quote They believe in a God called nature
I don’t believe in gods. Maybe others do.Quote who,despite the obvious short term trend on matter to degenerate,
What ‘obvious short-term trend’ are you referring to here?Quote over millions of years channels all life into a progressive evolution to higher forms.
No. There is no teleology involved. There is no requirement to what you call ‘higher life forms’.Quote An amazing nonsentient, inanimate god.
Or none, even.I would concede a tiny chance that your explanation could be right, although unconvinced at this stage. Would you say there is any chance at all you could be wrong?
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You reach conclusions by your observations and logic.
We have the Words of God as a deeper source of truth.
You define your god as a source of truth, but that truth has no special ability to explain the world, or cure people, or bring peace and joy to humankind (it plainly does the opposite often). What value is such invisible and ineffective truth?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 03 2007,18:10) You don't have a theory of Divine Creation, so what you propose does not have the credibility of science.
Incorrect.You haven't disproved that all the logic and code in the cosmos was coded by someone greater than his own creation.
Likewise you haven't given a theory as to how something like cyberspace could exist with no designer.I am all ears, but you lack the words.
=Quote (Stu @ Dec. 04 2007,17:06) I know I will find it easy to convince you that the world is square. It has four corners and you can see all the kingdoms of it from a high mountain. Sounds like your creator must have rearranged things a bit after he inspired the bible. The solid firmament seems to be mising as well. Gee, maybe after he realised he had mucked up the creation of humans (and all the innocent animals he drowned) he thought that maybe he should let evolution by natural selection have a go. 'Cause that's what we see in the fossil record. How does 'it is foolish to think' constitute an argument?
If you impose a perfect circle over the shape of the earth, how many bits will stick out?Firmament? Did you not know that space is a fabric or thing? Or are you arguing that space is nothing.
You seem to like nothing. It seems to explain everything for you.
Nothing created everything according to Stu.
Wow what a powerful intellect.
He says space is nothing.
Next you will be trying to convince me that you are nothing too.Have you thought about writing a book called the “Theory of Nothing”?
It might be useful material for another Monti Python movie.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 04 2007,17:38) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 04 2007,10:12) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 03 2007,18:23) Hi Nick
Quote They believe in a God called nature
I don’t believe in gods. Maybe others do.Quote who,despite the obvious short term trend on matter to degenerate,
What ‘obvious short-term trend’ are you referring to here?Quote over millions of years channels all life into a progressive evolution to higher forms.
No. There is no teleology involved. There is no requirement to what you call ‘higher life forms’.Quote An amazing nonsentient, inanimate god.
Or none, even.I would concede a tiny chance that your explanation could be right, although unconvinced at this stage. Would you say there is any chance at all you could be wrong?
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You reach conclusions by your observations and logic.
We have the Words of God as a deeper source of truth.
You define your god as a source of truth, but that truth has no special ability to explain the world, or cure people, or bring peace and joy to humankind (it plainly does the opposite often). What value is such invisible and ineffective truth?Stuart
Hi Stu,
How is life?
Our God can and does heal and help people.
We have the historical record of His works recorded and most of us have seen His blessings.But He does not impose on us or interfere with things we choose to do.
The safe place is in his will which we can find through prayer.Hi t8
You asked two intelligent questions (the rest would be an embarrasing display of arrogant ignorance by your cousin the bonobo, let alone your esteemable self).
Quote If you impose a perfect circle over the shape of the earth, how many bits will stick out? The OT says 4. Exactly 76,459 is the fairy-inspired answer. They counted it out for me on their pudgy green fingers. It took a while, so I hope you have said thanks for the garden wisdom with which they have chosen to grace us.
Quote Firmament? Did you not know that space is a fabric or thing? Or are you arguing that space is nothing. Once you are well away from the Earth’s atmosphere, I am under the impressions that open space pretty much constitutes about 14 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre, and depending on where you are, dust particles. Apparently there are no teapots, but this has neither been proven or disproven.
Except, silly me, I’m forgetting:
Gen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Do NASA rockets have a special firmament-breaking nose cone for getting into space?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
