- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,21:10) So you have to be a bit deluded to appreciate properly the delusion. Stuart
Hi Stuart,Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…
Let's reason this out; OK?
Point # 1: I showed you unexplainable anomalies in the AKJV Bible of Intelligent Design; which you have rejected, for whatever reason.
Point # 2: I have illustrated that the “theory” of evolution is inconclusive; which you also have rejected, for it is your belief?
Point # 3: The God idea is necessary, because it promotes personal responsibility.
Morality cannot be legislated as such, because whatever people can get away with, they will.
The God idea can go haywire as you have been showing BD; but he rejects it much the way you reject the God idea; Yes?Point # 4: Science suggests “a big Bang theory”, since because of the red shift, the universe has been observed ever expanding.
Because of this FACT, observers surmise that the entire universe once existed as a “singulatrity”.
Now because they reject a God idea as well, they propose something totally preposterous, much like Darwin?First you start with nothing, then nothing explodes and you get everything; great isn't it?
Then, as we know scientifically of course, explosions create 'order'?
Then this now exploded 'order' becomes 'life'; this is the NONSENSE you believe Stuart?Please tell me how it is I got it so wrong, when I see because of my God, reality conspire with me continually?
What natural process has caused this to occur?I still love you Stuart, and glad your here; but what you believe has to be considered even MORE deluded than my so called deluded beliefs.
Ed
Quote Point # 1: I showed you unexplainable anomalies in the AKJV Bible of Intelligent Design; which you have rejected, for whatever reason.
Do you know what the word ‘anomalies’ means? I don’t think that is quite what you meant to say there.Quote Point # 2: I have illustrated that the “theory” of evolution is inconclusive; which you also have rejected, for it is your belief?
You have demonstrated your ignorance about it. Whilst uncertainty and suspension of judgement are amongst the subtleties of the scientist, in your language evolution by natural selection is proven beyond doubt. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way.Quote Point # 3: The God idea is necessary, because it promotes personal responsibility.
That would mean that personal responsibility is necessary, which it obviously is not. But you no longer have personal responsibility because you have a sacrifice that makes everything OK, and a book of mythology that tells you not to be concerned about the things of ‘this world’. Ask Nick if you don’t believe me.Quote Morality cannot be legislated as such, because whatever people can get away with, they will.
I don’t think that is always true.Quote The God idea can go haywire as you have been showing BD; but he rejects it much the way you reject the God idea; Yes?
He doesn’t like the truth about the followers of his religion and is in denial. We have not actually discussed his god idea much at all.Quote Point # 4: Science suggests “a big Bang theory”, since because of the red shift, the universe has been observed ever expanding.
Because of this FACT, observers surmise that the entire universe once existed as a “singulatrity”.
Now because they reject a God idea as well, they propose something totally preposterous, much like Darwin?
The big bang is far more preposterous an idea than Darwin’s. You just like the big bang because you think it is compatible with your book of magic spells, while evolution doesn’t seem to fit that same mythology. How dishonest is that? The scientific method is the same in both cases, it is the religious fundie that has the problem of bias.Quote First you start with nothing, then nothing explodes and you get everything; great isn't it?
I thought t8 had copyright on that phrase. There is better writing on the subject than his, trust me!Quote Then, as we know scientifically of course, explosions create 'order'?
Do they? How?Quote Then this now exploded 'order' becomes 'life'; this is the NONSENSE you believe Stuart?
Please tell me how it is I got it so wrong, when I see because of my God, reality conspire with me continually?
You got it wrong because you are not interested in finding out what science actually says. You only like what you think matches your mythology. If you knew anything about it you might be in a position to comment, but well don’t let the facts get in the way of your myths will you.Quote What natural process has caused this to occur?
Already answered by me here. Look on Wikipedia if you really want to know.Quote I still love you Stuart, and glad your here; but what you believe has to be considered even MORE deluded than my so called deluded beliefs.
I class deluded as believing things that contradict the concrete evidence, which your beliefs plainly do. If you can show me unambiguously how what I believe is in conflict with observations we make of the world around us, then I will change my view. Would you be able to do the same yourself, or MUST your ‘word of god’ be right, come what may? How would you dare to question my beliefs if you will not countenance others questioning yours?Stuart
Quote (karmarie @ Dec. 29 2009,15:33) God bless you, Christian Muslim! I believe you, and I know God can lead us to many places, and things take time too, we are allways learning. Love you back, and your family!
Ditto
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,21:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 29 2009,14:24) Sorry Stu, Ed is right when he says: “I know this to be a fact, but this is NOT any credible evidence whatsoever of evolutionary processes; merely bacteria adaptation.”
Adaptation is not evolution in the sense that the theory represents it.
Sorry BD.Ed is wrong about what he thinks the facts are.
Adaptation is evolution in every sense.
Maybe you could actually learn something about it before posting too.
Stuart
You are right in the truest sense of the word but I guess it's Macroevolution that I have a problem with and yes I have studied the theory in depth probably more than you would care to discuss.Everything evolves on a micro level but that is because of Adaptation but in regards to going beyond the gene pool of a species that is where it fails and has been shown to fail hence the term “ring species”
I would love to start a second debate with you regarding this issue. But you will also have to understand that trying to prove Macroevolution is just about the same as trying to prove Abiogenesis and you already admitted you cannot prove that.
Microevolution can be shown through the breeding of animals or for that matter the diversity of people but this is all within the guidlines of what a “kind” is, each kind according to it's kind.
While the diversity is enormous within certain species there is no logical connection because of certain similarities of size or shape. Ultimately cats and dogs are different. once you understand that DNA has vast amounts of similarities even between a potato and a man 73% in-fact.
I don't think you have studied this subject as much as I have because if you did you would believe in God.
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 29 2009,15:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 29 2009,14:24) Sorry Stu, Ed is right when he says: “I know this to be a fact, but this is NOT any credible evidence whatsoever of evolutionary processes; merely bacteria adaptation.”
Adaptation is not evolution in the sense that the theory represents it.
HI BD,I consider you a friend, but I cannot support the doctrines that you keep propagating.
I do enjoy both you and Stuart's higher reasoning, but it takes the HolySpirit residing on the inside
of a person for the things of the spirit to be understood; AKA “Pentecost”, God's second of three great feasts!1 Cor.2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?
even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. Now we (of the second great feast “Pentecost”)
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom, teacheth, but which the HolySpirit teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.God bless
Ed J (Rev.21:2-3)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I wouldn't tell you or anybody that they don't have the Spirit of God in them unless they told me that they don't or don't think that they do. It is very arrogant and vain to tell someone that The Holy Spirit is not in them when they have expressed to you that it is.This shows your immaturity. In the face of not being able to prove your point you attack the person.
Do you think that everyone who has The Holy Spirit agrees on the same issues? The Holy Spirit works with our Character not our theology.
BD
Quote You are right in the truest sense of the word but I guess it's Macroevolution that I have a problem with and yes I have studied the theory in depth probably more than you would care to discuss. Everything evolves on a micro level but that is because of Adaptation but in regards to going beyond the gene pool of a species that is where it fails and has been shown to fail hence the term “ring species”
I would love to start a second debate with you regarding this issue. But you will also have to understand that trying to prove Macroevolution is just about the same as trying to prove Abiogenesis and you already admitted you cannot prove that.
Microevolution can be shown through the breeding of animals or for that matter the diversity of people but this is all within the guidlines of what a “kind” is, each kind according to it's kind.
While the diversity is enormous within certain species there is no logical connection because of certain similarities of size or shape. Ultimately cats and dogs are different. once you understand that DNA has vast amounts of similarities even between a potato and a man 73% in-fact.
I don't think you have studied this subject as much as I have because if you did you would believe in God.
Like I said, why don’t you learn something about it first. ‘Macroevolution’ is a fundamentalist religious term that does not exist in biology textbooks. The phenomenon of ring species is a demonstration of what you call ‘macroevolution’. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with it at all, only an ignorant or dishonest religious fundamentalist trying to construct a strawman argument would mention it in this context. ‘Microevolution’ is another fatuous load of fundie lies. What you describe as microevolution above is actually artificial selection, which is not natural selection. You seem to be suggesting that cats and dogs are at extreme ends of the same species. Are you serious?? What the hell is a ‘kind’? I have asked that question here and never had any creationist answer it.If you have something NEW to share, for example you can actually disprove Darwin, then post it, and prepare to line up and receive your Nobel Prize. Otherwise have a look through the evolution threads here before you start all over again with all the ignorant creationist bluster that this site has seen and seen off with real science.
I can see that you have studied this to the extent you require to believe in your god: you have read some creationist websites.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,14:28) BD Quote You are right in the truest sense of the word but I guess it's Macroevolution that I have a problem with and yes I have studied the theory in depth probably more than you would care to discuss. Everything evolves on a micro level but that is because of Adaptation but in regards to going beyond the gene pool of a species that is where it fails and has been shown to fail hence the term “ring species”
I would love to start a second debate with you regarding this issue. But you will also have to understand that trying to prove Macroevolution is just about the same as trying to prove Abiogenesis and you already admitted you cannot prove that.
Microevolution can be shown through the breeding of animals or for that matter the diversity of people but this is all within the guidlines of what a “kind” is, each kind according to it's kind.
While the diversity is enormous within certain species there is no logical connection because of certain similarities of size or shape. Ultimately cats and dogs are different. once you understand that DNA has vast amounts of similarities even between a potato and a man 73% in-fact.
I don't think you have studied this subject as much as I have because if you did you would believe in God.
Like I said, why don’t you learn something about it first. ‘Macroevolution’ is a fundamentalist religious term that does not exist in biology textbooks. The phenomenon of ring species is a demonstration of what you call ‘macroevolution’. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with it at all, only an ignorant or dishonest religious fundamentalist trying to construct a strawman argument would mention it in this context. ‘Microevolution’ is another fatuous load of fundie lies. What you describe as microevolution above is actually artificial selection, which is not natural selection. You seem to be suggesting that cats and dogs are at extreme ends of the same species. Are you serious?? What the hell is a ‘kind’? I have asked that question here and never had any creationist answer it.If you have something NEW to share, for example you can actually disprove Darwin, then post it, and prepare to line up and receive your Nobel Prize. Otherwise have a look through the evolution threads here before you start all over again with all the ignorant creationist bluster that this site has seen and seen off with real science.
I can see that you have studied this to the extent you require to believe in your god: you have read some creationist websites.
Stuart
Oh I'm glad you don't accept “Macroevolution”And no cats and dogs are not part of the same species.
This is from a bioscience encyclopedia would ou like for me to bring up textbooks or scientific journals as well?
Macroevolution
Biology portal · v • d • e
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.1 Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,2 which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.3
http://www.bioscience.ws/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Macroevolution
I would like you to show me where a real scientist actually uses the term in discussing the details of biology, for example in a university course text. Not that I care that much. Read down the page you linked to and it pretty much says what I said about it.
Glad you don't think cats and dogs are members of the same species. Are they in the same 'kind'?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,22:40) Ed 1) Do you know what the word ‘anomalies’ means? I don’t think that is quite what you meant to say there.
2) proven beyond doubt
3) How would you dare to question my beliefs if you will not countenance others questioning yours?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Are not things that go beyond random chance (in the context of the Biblical information I have been presenting to you) constitute the word choice “Anomalies”?
2) Scientists on a quest to disprove GOD, have been looking for 'the missing link' ever since Darwin.
But it is still missing, because the theory of evolution is a fraudulent theory!
No such banana.
Natural selection adaptation “IS” evident in Humans; look around, People all over the world exhibit this fact.
But natural selection does in NO WAY somehow make Darwin correct? Only 'brain bondo' in Atheists minds, fill in the non-existing gaps!3) Have I touched an Atheist's ego type of a nerve?
You have been questioning my belief in God, ever since our conversation started!
But I don't have a problem with that, that's what Atheists do.
Agnostics, however don't, they merely want proof of God before they will believe.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,11:46) I wouldn't tell you or anybody that they don't have the Spirit of God in them unless they told me that they don't or don't think that they do. It is very arrogant and vain to tell someone that The Holy Spirit is not in them when they have expressed to you that it is. This shows your immaturity. In the face of not being able to prove your point you attack the person.
Do you think that everyone who has The Holy Spirit agrees on the same issues? The Holy Spirit works with our Character not our theology.
Hi BD,I said: “that's what the Bible says it takes to understand the Bible”.
Why are you putting 'spin' on what I said?
Ed J
Ed
Quote Are not things that go beyond random chance (in the context of the Biblical information I have been presenting to you) constitute the word choice “Anomalies”?
You showed me nothing that was not random. Your pleadings for your nonsense are pathetic because you just write words with numbers next to them. You have not shown me how you attain those numbers, so I will show you my numbers without showing you how I got them:‘gullible’ = 108
‘god belief’ = 108
‘creationists are liars’ = 108
‘gods are imaginary’ = 108Pretty amazing eh? And that is all out of the Judeo-christian scripture too. Of course I will not be showing you where it is, you will just have to take my word for it, OK?
So you may as well give up your god belief as I have shown it is nonsense.
Quote 2) Scientists on a quest to disprove GOD, have been looking for 'the missing link' ever since Darwin.
Name one scientist who is on a quest to disprove god. What the hell is a ‘missing link’? You have been watching too much television.Quote But it is still missing, because the theory of evolution is a fraudulent theory!
No such banana.
It is missing because it is a creationist strawman. You do know what a strawman is, don’t you?Quote Natural selection adaptation “IS” evident in Humans; look around, People all over the world exhibit this fact. But natural selection does in NO WAY somehow make Darwin correct? Only 'brain bondo' in Atheists minds, fill in the non-existing gaps!
Duh. Darwin’s theory IS the theory of natural selection. Don’t you know ANYTHING?Either you know nothing about it, or you feel you have to tell lies. Which is it? Does your faith demand that you lie?
Quote 3) Have I touched an Atheist's ego type of a nerve?
You have been questioning my belief in God, ever since our conversation started!
But I don't have a problem with that, that's what Atheists do.
Agnostics, however don't, they merely want proof of God before they will believe.
I was right, you don’t know anything.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,22:40) Ed But you no longer have personal responsibility because you have a sacrifice that makes everything OK
Stuart
Hi Stuart,That statement is totally false; how have you come to believe that?
The Bible's core message is personal responsibility;
knowing that we will all be held accountable for our actions!That is why the God idea works!
Without it there would be chaos all over the world!
I don't know about NZ, but the U.S.A. has had peace
for the last 140 years or so; based on the(God idea) Constitution.There is much proof of God's existence!
Have we ever done the experiment where we try no god belief? Not even in the Stalinist Soviet Union was supernatural belief ever abandoned. We do not know what would happen if no one believed in gods. There is much brutality that would not have had a religious excuse for it. You better not turn around now and claim that things are so bad we must be headed for the last days: you can't have it both ways now!
As it happens, New Zealand has much less religiosity and much less violence that the US.
You keep saying there is proof of god's existence, yet you do not understand what an agnostic is.
Get back to us when you know something interesting to post.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,19:32) Ed 1) ‘gullible’ = 108
‘god belief’ = 108
‘creationists are liars’ = 108
‘gods are imaginary’ = 108
You do know what a strawman is, don’t you?2) What the hell is a ‘missing link’? You have been watching too much television.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) That only proves you can cherry pick.
Let's say you go to a stream and pan for “gold”.
If you don't get a nugget on every scoop,
that doesn't discount gold when it is found, does it?You don't have to have a match more than 50% of the time
for non randomness to be proven either!
“The God numbers”=151 are 26, 63, 74, 117 and 151.
These (God) numbers along with the textual meanings
match considerably more often than randomness would dictate(anomalies)!יהוה=26: pronounced YÄ-hä-vā (God's Name).
God The Father=117: יהוה האלהים (God's Name and title GOD).
Jesus=74: (God's Son's English Name also “Joshua”).
YHVH=63: (God's Name transliterated into English)
HolySpirit=151: (“The word” structure of “GOD” indwelling in us believers!)Distractions away from “Bible Truth”=117 prove nothing.
“Bible Perception”=151 is what you need to believe in GOD.
This you(Stuart) obviously still do not have.2) A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!Those word structures are not found in the Bible.
The 'strawman' was in the wizard of OZ.
You must watch a lot of TV as well.Ed (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,19:19) I would like you to show me where a real scientist actually uses the term in discussing the details of biology, for example in a university course text. Not that I care that much. Read down the page you linked to and it pretty much says what I said about it. Glad you don't think cats and dogs are members of the same species. Are they in the same 'kind'?
Stuart
No! There are layers of the meaning of Kind one is the greater sense and one is the lesser sense and even lesserDogs are a kind of animal
there are all kinds of dogs
and those kinds also varyBut dogs are in no way a kind of cat
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Carl wrote this:English Translation[24]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.[25] But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one![26] If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.[27] Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.Now I ask you are there any generic differences?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You don't have to take my word that God exists, just ask him to prove himself to you.
Ed J
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 30 2009,21:32) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You don't have to take my word that God exists, just ask him to prove himself to you.
Ed J
Have you asked the Roman god Jupiter to prove himself to you?Actually why should any of us have to ask? Why should this god of yours not be obvious to everyone?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,20:56) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,19:19) I would like you to show me where a real scientist actually uses the term in discussing the details of biology, for example in a university course text. Not that I care that much. Read down the page you linked to and it pretty much says what I said about it. Glad you don't think cats and dogs are members of the same species. Are they in the same 'kind'?
Stuart
No! There are layers of the meaning of Kind one is the greater sense and one is the lesser sense and even lesserDogs are a kind of animal
there are all kinds of dogs
and those kinds also varyBut dogs are in no way a kind of cat
I knew you wouldn't be able to tell me what a kind is.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
