Search Members

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 30 2013,21:45)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2013,15:49) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 30 2013,12:55) The Book of Revelation (or book of a lunatic) I agree, but your hypocrisy stinks even this far away. Stuart I've read both books, the UB is far more consistent then the bible books. You haven't read all the UB, particularly the Jesus papers, your uneducated opinion is from silence, your claim of objectivity is laughable. Charity is an honest broker and acknowledges positive aspects of the UB that she agrees with. Colter

That's fine for her. Your hypocrisy still smells.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 30 2013,21:45)

The mind is beyond science.

What was that about the man who says it can't be done being interrupted by the man doing it?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 30 2013,12:55)

The Book of Revelation (or book of a lunatic)

I agree, but your hypocrisy stinks even this far away.

Stuart

[Stu]

So how is the experiment going, do you think t8? Not only do you have another false analogy going but you must be quite impressed by the sound of you reading your own rhetoric in those other posts.

Let us know if you discover anything valid.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 30 2013,00:34)

Remember this is a live experiment.

No it's not.

Stuart

[Stu]

[Stu]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 30 2013,06:38)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,18:18) Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in. Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding? T8…….Good post, interesting to see how Stu can't answer that , because he full well knows that the iPhone or his Android phone required a designer for it to evolve.

I know that full well. But it appears you haven't read what t8 claimed a page or two back.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 30 2013,10:58)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 29 2013,11:44) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 29 2013,01:47) Stu….. And do you know how your own mind is fooling you? I can close one eye and be completely unaware of the blindspot caused by the exit of the optic nerve from the retina, and yet can also demonstrate the existence of that blindspot, leading to the conclusion that my brain is making up the missing part in my vision.  I can hear the sound of hooves in the night and imagine all sorts of fanciful possibilities, perhaps zebras or unicorns, then can look outside and see that it was horses after all.  I can watch videos like this one: Quote You boast of evolution but can't find one of the trillion of changes it would take to bring about a gradual change of all the millions of different species on this earth . I showed you a whole series of them in relation to the evolution of the eye.  Did you read that, or are you just in broadcast mode? You are a bit like those with no love as outlined by Saul of Tarsus in Corinthians 13.  You have no love of the reality around you.  It would be fine if you never mentioned natural history, but when you do your voice is a clanging bell. Quote Then you have the idosity to say I am delusional and don't understand science when in fact it is you who can't produce your proof of a “theory” which has never been proven and full of “missing links” . Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, it deals in empirical evidence.  As for missing links, now you are making a joke of yourself in the eyes of any reasonably educated person.  Your kind of creationism follows this logic: every time a new intermediate species is found, you will say that there used to be one missing link and now there are two.   By the way, what does “idosity” mean? Stuart Stu. This is silly; that is called focusing. When the mind is focused on something,thats what you concentrate on,and thats what you only see. If you focus on a dot in a circle; you just see, the dot. You can do that with your camera. You are just dealing with the mechanics of the brain. The mind is different,it has a conscience. Not all brains work the same,but all has the same thing and that is called conscience. And I hope you have one too,because conscience can be subdued,and eventually totally blocked out. If one does not believe in the supernatural,that is because the mind is not capable to go past the natural. What you see is what you get,and what you see is just the outside. He can not see the inside. Beautiful on the out side,but can not see the poison inside. wakeup.

Looks like you are basically agreeing with me.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 30 2013,03:46)

Stu……..Sorry about the misspelled word, i meant Audacity , and i do know what it means.

OK. So how do I have the audacity to suggest you don’t understand science? I don’t think it is audacious at all. It is a pretty straightforward observation.

Quote

So where can you point us to find the trillions of gradual skeletal fossils that should be scattered every on this earth showing all the billions of years of “gradual” changes taking place , has they all just disappeared or vanished some how?

Why do you think there should be trillions of skeletal fossils? Fossils are rare. To become fossilised you would need to die falling into sediments in water that covered you relatively quickly before microorganisms had time to degrade the collagen that holds your bone minerals together. How many places do you know near where you live where that would happen?

The tissues of the bog people were preserved by the chemistry of the soil in which they were buried, although the acids present dissolved the minerals in their bones. Those examples aren’t of that much interest to an evolutionary biologist because they are all modern humans.

There are some well-known difficulties with hominid fossils, for example rainforests are particularly poor at making fossils so the transition our ancestors made from the trees to the land has not been easy to follow through the fossil record. But in case you are in any doubt about that transition happening, you should check out your plantaris muscle running down your lower leg. It would help you grip your foot onto a tree branch, and in other arboreal apes that muscle has exactly that function, but in us it is pretty much useless, and in fact 9% of us don’t even have one.

But none of this matters really, because thanks to the work of a compatriot of mine, Allan Wilson, you can study the gradual evolutionary changes without reference to any fossils at all. The fossils have been used to develop a tree of life that shows the ancestry of species over the past 500 million years, and that same tree of life is written in the similarities and differences in the proteins and the DNA of species alive today. In fact the analysis of DNA gives a more accurate tree of life and our transition from the trees to the land has been pinned down much more accurately that way.

Quote

And tell us this, “O” SELF Made wise one, if you can, What came first the chicken or the egg , have you ever figured that out yet?. My bet is on the Chicken how about you Stu?

Eggs (although not chicken eggs) have existed much longer than chickens. Chickens are birds that evolved from dinosaurs, so your next question should be what came first, a feathered dinosaur or its egg? And the next point would be that eggs have existed longer than dinosaurs, which in turn evolved from archosaurs, so next you ask which came first, the archosaurs or the egg? But eggs existed before the archosaurs…

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 30 2013,00:03)

Wow, maybe proof they are evolving into Atheists do you think? Or maybe they are like kids who love the parents, but still want to go out and explore the world. But notice what happens when you move, like kids they follow, but are not attached to you the whole time. Also, imagine if you were sent to give them a message about their creator. And they said where is he, and you said in a higher dimension and he can see everything you do. Only to hear back, “don't believe it”. “We got here by Evolution alone”. “There is no creator”. “There is no one above us who can see all that we do”. “Get out of here”. I guess you would shake your head and say, “oh really. What if I showed you the complex source code that you are made from”. And they replied, “don't be silly we evolved and so did our plane of existence”. It just happened.   You would likely laugh at their ignorance given their foolish conclusions. Especially if you endowed them with enough common sense to know better.

I'm not laughing at their ignorance.

Stuart

[Stu]

The fish check out the “creator” idea then see there is nothing in it and wander off.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,21:46)

Stu even thinks I believe that the iPhone was not created and that living things were according to my last post.

Do you?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,21:27)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2013,20:53) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,00:06) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 27 2013,19:50) Hi T8, The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org One can maintain Faith while letting go of the false doctrine of Bible perfection. Philosophy of Religion (1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings. (1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation. (1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial. (1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy. (1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error. (1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman. Colter You also have these options: * Don't post screeds of irrelevant trash from your Book of Stolen Intellectual Property (if you must refer to that moronic tome at all, why not link to the screed elsewhere, then we will find it easier to ignore). and * Have a stab at staying on-topic in this thread. thanks, Stuart (1434.3) 130:4.4 A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition. Your problem Stu is that you are a one eyed Kiwi who's life seems dedicated to convincing others of the virtues of partial blindness. I was replying to Ed Colter

Thanks for pointing out my problems to me Colter. I guess posting screeds of bad science fiction and stolen science in a thread where they don't belong isn't one of those problems I have to deal with myself.

Were you thinking of dealing with them yourself?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 29 2013,01:47)

Stu….. And do you know how your own mind is fooling you?

I can close one eye and be completely unaware of the blindspot caused by the exit of the optic nerve from the retina, and yet can also demonstrate the existence of that blindspot, leading to the conclusion that my brain is making up the missing part in my vision. I can hear the sound of hooves in the night and imagine all sorts of fanciful possibilities, perhaps zebras or unicorns, then can look outside and see that it was horses after all. I can watch videos like this one:

Quote

You boast of evolution but can't find one of the trillion of changes it would take to bring about a gradual change of all the millions of different species on this earth .

I showed you a whole series of them in relation to the evolution of the eye. Did you read that, or are you just in broadcast mode?

You are a bit like those with no love as outlined by Saul of Tarsus in Corinthians 13. You have no love of the reality around you. It would be fine if you never mentioned natural history, but when you do your voice is a clanging bell.

Quote

Then you have the idosity to say I am delusional and don't understand science when in fact it is you who can't produce your proof of a “theory” which has never been proven and full of “missing links” .

Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, it deals in empirical evidence. As for missing links, now you are making a joke of yourself in the eyes of any reasonably educated person. Your kind of creationism follows this logic: every time a new intermediate species is found, you will say that there used to be one missing link and now there are two.

By the way, what does “idosity” mean?

Stuart

[Stu]

[Stu]

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 28 2013,21:44)

Stuart, The only reason that I wrote to you with that 'story' which was very short, is because I have never been an atheist, so I cannot (no matter how hard I try) put myself into the shoes of an Atheist in that way.

I don’t think you have tried very hard then. I think I can put myself in the shoes of a christian and see why you would believe all that. There are very many non-believers who have been able to put themselves in those same shoes and analyse the situation in great detail.

On the other hand, why do you think christianity inflicts such a disability of lack of empathy on you?

Quote

One thing that I have done is questioned everything.

I disagree strongly.

Quote

Despite God revealing Himself to me years ago, and despite all of the amazing things that happened to me, I did turn my back on God the deeper I thought about things. I could not understand a lot of things in scripture especially in the old testament. To me it sounded just as you say. And then was the eternal conscious torment doctrines, and even the words in scripture that seemed to prove it. To me, that was not a God of love but some monstrous being that demanded us to worship Him and if we did not then we would be ETERNALLY tormented. Well, what kind of a God WAS THAT? And what kind of people WERE CHRISTIANS? It scared me that humans could think so inhumanely, to worship a God who would do that to us. So, the more I thought about it, the less I liked that God and I walked away. I still believed that God existed, but I just felt the opposite and was quite disturbed by things. But, Stuart, here is the thing. God soon showed me that this teaching of man was false. It was a hideous thing to believe about God, who is love, and anybody who believes this does not know God because God is love, and i believe this because I have felt it, and witnessed it through creation, life, scriptures, and knowing God.

I don’t think your disagreement is with me as much as it is with other believers in your ancient Mesopotamian man-god celestial conspiracy theory.

I will leave it at that for now.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,22:03)

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 28 2013,21:44) Stuart, The only reason that I wrote to you with that 'story' which was very short, is because I have never been an atheist, so I cannot (no matter how hard I try) put myself into the shoes of an Atheist in that way. One thing that I have done is questioned everything. Despite God revealing Himself to me years ago, and despite all of the amazing things that happened to me, I did turn my back on God the deeper I thought about things. I could not understand a lot of things in scripture especially in the old testament. To me it sounded just as you say. And then was the eternal conscious torment doctrines, and even the words in scripture that seemed to prove it. To me, that was not a God of love but some monstrous being that demanded us to worship Him and if we did not then we would be ETERNALLY tormented. Well, what kind of a God WAS THAT? And what kind of people WERE CHRISTIANS? It scared me that humans could think so inhumanely, to worship a God who would do that to us. So, the more I thought about it, the less I liked that God and I walked away. I still believed that God existed, but I just felt the opposite and was quite disturbed by things. But, Stuart, here is the thing. God soon showed me that this teaching of man was false. It was a hideous thing to believe about God, who is love, and anybody who believes this does not know God because God is love, and i believe this because I have felt it, and witnessed it through creation, life, scriptures, and knowing God. 1st John 4:16 [8] He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. [16] So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. [17] In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world. [18] There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. And then I looked into it more and found verses which showed the opposite, and I learnt the Greek words which supported the opposite. I will leave it at that for now. 2besee, You are just casting your pearls before swine. I've dealt with Stu on multiple forums for years now, many have opened their hearts to him and he just stabs back. He is NOT a sincere seeker of “truth” rather it is his hobby to pick arguments with religious people in a mean spirited way. You are dealing with “the darkness.” Colter

There's nothing quite like attacking the man rather than the ball, is there Colter.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,00:06)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 27 2013,19:50) Hi T8, The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org One can maintain Faith while letting go of the false doctrine of Bible perfection. Philosophy of Religion (1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings. (1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation. (1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial. (1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy. (1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error. (1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman. Colter

You also have these options:

* Don't post screeds of irrelevant trash from your Book of Stolen Intellectual Property (if you must refer to that moronic tome at all, why not link to the screed elsewhere, then we will find it easier to ignore).

and

* Have a stab at staying on-topic in this thread.

thanks,
Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:09)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2013,00:44) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,18:18) Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in. Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding? I wouldn't know.  Mine's Android. Stuart Yes Android too has evolved significantly to the point that it could supplant the iPhone if its competitive features keep evolving at the rate that is has in the last year. Evolution is amazing. No need for a creator at all. The evolution of the Web is even more impressive.

So you claim that designed objects don't need designers, and living things that were not designed do need designers.

Of course you do.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,00:03)

You aren't even consistent within threads of the same forum. On another thread you claimed “Science doesn't deal in certainties” while on this thread you have a certain age for the universe? …..and it's not 72 time's, that's just the age of our local universe created by Christ Michael,  some have calculated the UB's assertion at 40 trillion years old when considering the age of the first of 7 supper-universe's. These universes are said to expand and contract giving the impression of “young universe” to scientists. Many former Atheists made these same small minded claims as they insisted on viewing reality in one dimension. Colter

Science does deal with “certainly not”.

If the UB was well-written then at least it might serve as mildly diverting science fiction. Some even rate it as such.

But it's poorly written, stolen, and out-of-date.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts