Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:17)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,07:09) The wisdom I aspire to is to understand the limits of my knowledge and not step outside them into a fantasy world which then becomes the focus of my energy.  That is clearly delusion, not wisdom or insight. Ha ha. Which ones are the fantasy according to you? The cosmos was created by God. The cosmos came from absolutely nothing. The cosmos is made up of material that is eternal, a sort of substance or thing that has been transforming itself from eternity with the latest stage being the cosmos. How about you give me a straight answer. Which fantasy do you choose? Come on, you don't get asked that everyday.

When did you last catch a fish, t8? Look at what you use for bait!

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,16:32)

KJ, there is a difference between mocking and testing or challenging. For that reason the teachings will stay. Mocking involves making fun of God or those that believe in him. Testing and challenging involves looking at proof whether that be scientific, scriptural, or whatever else proof there may be. It's not even a fine line because the defining thing is the attitude. One is to help and correct, the other is to ridicule.

Indeed there is a difference. Mocking is for sport. Proving that the bible is wrong on at least 5 points (the too hard basket thread) is a serious business. It is important that the bluff is called on the false witness-merchants who would have the world do things their way on the unsupported claim that their imaginary friend in the sky is running everything and we had all better watch out.

However, neither is done personally. The mocking is of the absurd idea of the Judeo-christian god, not the poor deluded believers in it. They themselves do not deserve the unpleasantness, just as it was not the people living under communist oppression who deserved to be ridiculed for the folly of their ideological dictators.

If you want to take the mockery personally then go ahead, but I suppose you would only do that if some zealous early christian told you to take it personally. Like Saul of Tarsus, for example.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,19:05)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:17) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,07:09) The wisdom I aspire to is to understand the limits of my knowledge and not step outside them into a fantasy world which then becomes the focus of my energy.  That is clearly delusion, not wisdom or insight. Ha ha. Which ones are the fantasy according to you? The cosmos was created by God. The cosmos came from absolutely nothing. The cosmos is made up of material that is eternal, a sort of substance or thing that has been transforming itself from eternity with the latest stage being the cosmos. How about you give me a straight answer. Which fantasy do you choose? Come on, you don't get asked that everyday. When did you last catch a fish, t8?  Look at what you use for bait! Stuart

Stu is trying to change the subject again.
Stu is trying to change the subject again.

According to another post you made, it appears that you believe in one of the following, but you are not sure which:

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,18:59)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:05) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,07:09) Ah I see.  Conveniently you choose a definition that will not pin you to saying anything concrete. Insight is made up of 2 words “in” and “sight”. It is different to normal sight where you observe the world around you. But you still have not said what meaning you use it for.  Looking 'in' what? Stuart

I will leave that up to your insight to figure out. Can your mind see it?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,19:41)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,18:59) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:05) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,07:09) Ah I see.  Conveniently you choose a definition that will not pin you to saying anything concrete. Insight is made up of 2 words “in” and “sight”. It is different to normal sight where you observe the world around you. But you still have not said what meaning you use it for.  Looking 'in' what? Stuart I will leave that up to your insight to figure out. Can your mind see it?

Yes. It is another example of pompous bluff. There is nothing of any merit to it whatsoever. It is desperate clutching at straws.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,19:39)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,19:05) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 12 2008,09:17) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,07:09) The wisdom I aspire to is to understand the limits of my knowledge and not step outside them into a fantasy world which then becomes the focus of my energy.  That is clearly delusion, not wisdom or insight. Ha ha. Which ones are the fantasy according to you? The cosmos was created by God. The cosmos came from absolutely nothing. The cosmos is made up of material that is eternal, a sort of substance or thing that has been transforming itself from eternity with the latest stage being the cosmos. How about you give me a straight answer. Which fantasy do you choose? Come on, you don't get asked that everyday. When did you last catch a fish, t8?  Look at what you use for bait! Stuart Stu is trying to change the subject again. Stu is trying to change the subject again. According to another post you made, it appears that you believe in one of the following, but you are not sure which: The cosmos came from absolutely nothing. The cosmos is made up of material that is eternal, a sort of substance or thing that has been transforming itself from eternity with the latest stage being the cosmos. So the truth is one of these is it Stu? Yes or no? Or better still please choose the one that suits your belief structure.

In which post did I appear to believe either of these things?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Stu.

One of the following is the answer as they cover all the bases.

The cosmos was created by God.

The cosmos came from absolutely nothing.

The cosmos is made up of something that is eternal, a sort of substance or thing that has been transforming itself from eternity with the latest stage being the cosmos.

Feel free to add another option, but your silence on adding another leaves us with the 3 options above.

From your posts, it seems clear that you have written off the first one as highly unlikely (due to your bias), so that leaves the other 2 for you to choose from.

Do you see why I say it now? A simple process of deduction which is often used in science.

BTW, good science doesn't write off an option because of bias.

[theodorej]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 11 2008,07:34)

Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,23:20) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,01:00) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 09 2008,00:06) Re Einstein, been there and done that.  If you believe in Einstein's god, or Spinosa's then welcome to atheism.  Einstein rejected the label atheism because people were always trying to label him.  I feel the same about that word.  It is an accurate description but a definition of self in terms of imaginary friends invented by deluded people.  It's not very flattering I have to admit. Do you think Einstein was 'not silly'? Stuart Einsteins God does not play dice. OK, would you prefer to be called an ape? Stu…..Not withstanding Einsteins' IQ and so called Genius…I saw a man who was full of himself…and if you really examine his contribution to man kind….The only thing I can up with is utter destruction by means of nuclear proliferation….The fact that he was professed athiest (self hating Jew )didn't help… Do you make a habit of displaying your ignorance so loudly?  I don't think you know the first thing about Einstein achievements. Stuart

Greetings Stu……I cannot profess to be an authority on Einstein simply because I have had very little interest in the man….Having said that you bring an interesting point to bare with respect to my ignorance….Since it appears to me you have much more infomation with respect to his accomplishments than I….In the interests of education and my need to know, would you be so kind as to indulge me,so I may remove this cloud of ignorance….Thanks

[Stu]

Hi theodorej

The Holy Wikipedia provides much that is good to teach. We much more than the OT, at any rate.

Stuart

[charity]

Interbreeding causes what sort of defect or perfections? in Humans.

Abraham took Sarah his sister, and conceived Issac, and Issac took wives and produced Jacob, and from Jacob who took his two, cousins to wife came, twelve tribes in which the bible is mostly based on.

Abraham Had children with Sarah s Handmaiden also,
was she relative?
In which they also shall become a Nation in Time.

Incestuous relationships were common in early days,
when they wished to keep (Gods) chosen blood line under control?

they did understand that they were filling the earth
How could there actions be viewed today? within a evolving universe full of stars from then?

charity

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 14 2008,21:45)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2008,21:09) I take nothing on faith. Ahem. Cough cough. What about that singularity that on it's own accord produced all this amazing design and tech that not even all the PhDs of the world can match? Even one atom is greater than all PhDs achievements combined. You seem to put a lot of faith in that belief. I mean not just faith but a lot of faith. I sure don't accept such a thing, but to teach it is to really have faith I would say. See you have faith. Now the question is what do you have faith in. Even if you continue to deny it, then I could also make the argument that you have faith in having no faith. That is still a form of trust when you think about it.

Oh, and another thing.

A simple cell became all the complex organisms in the world. That means that less information is becoming more (& new) information. Information that we intelligent humans can hardly fathom. And the ironic part is that there are 1 cell organisms, but not 2 or 3. In fact I heard that the next level up, organisms contain thousands of cells.

It is surely imagination that says 1 cell animal became a 2 cell one and so on until humans appeared. This gradual increase of new information is not gradual at all when you consider the amount of extra new information there is from one cell to all the animal species today.

10 points for imagination, but I cannot even give 1 point for truth or facts.

In fact it would be an interesting project to calculate the speed of this information from 1 cell to all the organisms today, and find out how much extra new information is created in say one year, and then look for that increase in the following year.

I bet you wouldn't find that increase.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 28 2008,21:51)

Hi theodorej The Holy Wikipedia provides much that is good to teach.  We much more than the OT, at any rate. Stuart

Yes, Wikipedia is a great project and has more information on the world that the OT. But less information regarding information about God and prophetic events.

In other words they are different works for different purposes. A bit hard to make a comparison.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2009,10:24)

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 14 2008,21:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2008,21:09) I take nothing on faith. Ahem. Cough cough. What about that singularity that on it's own accord produced all this amazing design and tech that not even all the PhDs of the world can match? Even one atom is greater than all PhDs achievements combined. You seem to put a lot of faith in that belief. I mean not just faith but a lot of faith. I sure don't accept such a thing, but to teach it is to really have faith I would say. See you have faith. Now the question is what do you have faith in. Even if you continue to deny it, then I could also make the argument that you have faith in having no faith. That is still a form of trust when you think about it. Oh, and another thing. A simple cell became all the complex organisms in the world. That means that less information is becoming more (& new) information. Information that we intelligent humans can hardly fathom. And the ironic part is that there are 1 cell organisms, but not 2 or 3. In fact I heard that the next level up, organisms contain thousands of cells. It is surely imagination that says 1 cell animal became a 2 cell one and so on until humans appeared. This gradual increase of  new information is not gradual at all when you consider the amount of extra new information there is from one cell to all the animal species today. 10 points for imagination, but I cannot even give 1 point for truth or facts. In fact it would be an interesting project to calculate the speed of this information from 1 cell to all the organisms today, and find out how much extra new information is created in say one year, and then look for that increase in the following year. I bet you wouldn't find that increase.

What actual point are you trying to make, t8?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Stu, you believe that more information is increasing. In other words things are becoming more complex through processes that have no designer. A big stretch of the imagination that is getting bigger by the day because the information is getting bigger, is what I am saying.

Since when does information increase without intelligence or at least without this informed intelligence creating the construct of a self-replicating system?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 18 2009,10:22)

Stu, you believe that more information is increasing. In other words things are becoming more complex through processes that have no designer. A big stretch of the imagination that is getting bigger by the day because the information is getting bigger, is what I am saying. Since when does information increase without intelligence or at least without this informed intelligence creating the construct of a self-replicating system?

Although orangutans are vastly more complex than their single-celled ancestors, it is not necessarily true that everything is getting more complex. Bacteria are not, depending on what you mean by complex.

The 'information' increases in quantity and complexity by natural selection of course. How did you think it happened?

Stuart

[Stu]

These bacteria are the same but different. Natural selection can explain why. Can goddiditology?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news….66.html

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ April 18 2009,21:01)

Natural selection can explain why.

Ha ha ha.

Natural Selection is made up of some scientific fact with a whole lot of imagination to join the dots.

I would hazard a guess and say that can't tell which is which.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2009,22:59)

Quote (Stu @ April 18 2009,21:01) Natural selection can explain why. Ha ha ha. Natural Selection is made up of some scientific fact with a whole lot of imagination to join the dots. I would hazard a guess and say that can't tell which is which.

There are no scientific theories that are not exactly like that. Give back your antibiotics and computer chips if you do not think that joining facts up with theory has any validity.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Just take a group of similar species and then place them in date order and imagine that this one became that one, which became that one.

Imagination is a very important ingredient. Without it, you would need to actually prove that this one came from that one. But imagination can save the trouble of proof and it is enough for many to take a leap of faith and believe the hypothesis.

[Proclaimer]

If an alien race came to earth 5000 years in our future, and uncovered a Honda Accord 1999 and then on a higher strata a Honda Accord 2005, it could explain it as the 2005 one being descendant from the 1999 one. In reality of course, there may well be similar if not many similar features and even the same features. But it is still a designed entity that has been improved or changed to fit a new market/eco-system.

Just because something is biological, suddenly people get very uptight, when people speak of a designer by reason of the design they observe. It seems to me that this has more to do with bias than it does logic.

If the alien race had no proof that both Honda Accords were designed except for the obviousness of the situation, should it then disregard a designer because it cannot see who the designer was?

Throwing God out the door is like throwing the obvious out the door. You are then left with the scraps, i.e., evolution, aliens, comets, and the matrix. By throwing God away, you are then left to believe a lie.

[Author]

Posts