Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

[Bladers]

The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life. It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O. A cell is alive-as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind).

In time, it dies. An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long. But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.

Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happened by chance with-out an intelligent cause? Maybe there's a chance that computers could be formed by a series of hurricane, lightning and earthquake by chance. Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it to melt & created wirings, then the wind placed it in location where in trillions of years earthquakes shook it & the design may possibly turn into a laptop computer!

But this won’t happen in a single step, but through random chance, the processor was made first, then the speakers, the keyboard, monitor and so forth, all by chance. No one dares to question the laws of physics (LOL). Is this possible? NO!

This analogy is IMPOSSIBLE, there’s no "chance" natural resources contain the necessary tools to create a detailed and complex laptop computer (soldering iron, laser beams, mechanical precision, proper timing &position, etc.) This requires intelligent cause. Though impossible, that analogy can be mentally visualized, unlike the claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning can gather atoms and molecules together, and then form it into mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of the cell’s parts all at once then bring it to life.

For many years of observation and study, biochemists can only limitedly identify and label what’s contained in a cell. but they have never successfully created one. Considering all the technologies modern science has to offer (electron microscope, etc.) they can even split an atom into half! Yet even then NOT ONE scientist are able to successfully create a single cell, NONE! If this was the case, why then do atheist claim that series of earthquake, wind, & lightning created life forms by accident "chance" when scientist with far better technology than wind & sunlight can't?

To use "natural physics" as an explanation for the atom to transform into a cell is not only unscientific, but also impossible! The cell is so tiny that as observed & studied, earthquake & lightning is incapable of creating it. Many biochemists testified, "The cell is as complex as the city of San Francisco ".

It's impossible to form a tiny part of the cell such as the complex nucleus, or mitochondria, or any of cell’s parts alone out of gathering atoms, how much more impossible it is to create the whole body of cell all at once! For the whole entire body go hand in hand. It is like putting a human body parts together & bring it to life: putting a cell together is even far more impossible because of its tiny size. The impossible of the impossible.

I don’t care how many millions of years lightning, earthquake and wind has. Fact is natural resources cannot gather the atoms/inert compounds, molecules together & shape it to become a cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, mitochondria, etc. & thousands of other parts to form a cell, the wind cant do it, earthquake cant, neither lightning (too strong) for a cell is extremely defenseless delicate life form.

I don’t care how many millions of years quantum physics, hurricane, or lightning have, FACT is no life form & creatures in this known universe can exist & function with one eye & no brain behind it, or one leg without muscles to move it. Fact is it’s all or nothing!

Don’t try to compare organisms to automobiles, car parts can wait before creating the rest of the parts, did u actually think there’s a brain lying around waiting for the rest of the parts to develop? Your strange you know that, u watch too much cartoon network! I don’t care how tiny or huge life form is (ostrich egg, cell, insects, etc) or how much time quantum physics, quantum mechanics, lightning, & wind have, the fact is the whole parts of the living organism must appear all at once or it will never survive! Impossible, no "chance" at all.

This is your "belief/theory", the brain luckily appeared (nucleus), then the eyes luckily appeared, then the nose luckily appeared, etc. thousands of parts appeared all at once by luck (magic)! Super impossible! Any life form survive & grew in size because of their digestive system, liver, throat, intestines, acid, rectum, brain, muscles, etc. And to you, the complex, tiny & delicate, mitochondria, cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, ribosome, etc. thousands parts of cell's body working together all appeared AT ONCE BY ACCIDENT thanks to earthquake, wind & fire. Super extra miraculously incredibly impossible!!

Another especially strong evidence of God is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the big bang some fifteen to twenty billion yrs ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed.

The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions: only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is one in a zillions zillion. Add together each of the chances & u have something far more impossible than a laptop computer formed by series of hurricane, lightning, and earthquake.

Fact is not one scientist with all the modern technology are able to successfully create a living cell, or any life form in the lab out of "atoms/particles", what made u think lightning, sunlight, earthquake accidentally did it? Not a chance. Just as there’s no "chance" a detailed laptop computer can be formed by earthquake, sunlight, wind, & lightning in a trillion years, no living cell can b formed the same way, this HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER EVER WILL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.the impossible of the impossible.

[heyhey]

Kobe is all da proof I need

[Rosie Cheeks]

You're dumb and their is no god for 2 reasons

1. You're dumb

2. Their is no god

[EarlTheGoat]

You're dumb and their is no god for 2 reasons

1. You're dumb

2. Their is no god


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Nice nick and nice avatar.

[DonDadda59]

My goodness there is so much fail in that plagiarized post. I was going to address that paragraph by paragraph, but I think I'll just ask 2 things for now- 1) Where is that article from and when was it written 2) If God is responsible for creation, why is cell replication even necessary? Why don't people/animals/etc pop out of thin air fully formed by God's divine intervention? God made Adam out dust, Eve out of baby back ribs, but from then on he decided to leave it to replication/reproduction for life to occur?

[bballer]

tl;dr

[miller-time]

My goodness there is so much fail in that plagiarized post. I was going to address that paragraph by paragraph, but I think I'll just ask 2 things for now- 1) Where is that article from and when was it written 2) If God is responsible for creation, why is cell replication even necessary? Why don't people/animals/etc pop out of thin air fully formed by God's divine intervention? God made Adam out dust, Eve out of baby back ribs, but from then on he decided to leave it to replication/reproduction for life to occur?

i wouldn't even waste my time. the whole thing is just a copy paste job.

[branslowski]

My goodness there is so much fail in that plagiarized post. I was going to address that paragraph by paragraph, but I think I'll just ask 2 things for now- 1) Where is that article from and when was it written 2) If God is responsible for creation, why is cell replication even necessary? Why don't people/animals/etc pop out of thin air fully formed by God's divine intervention? God made Adam out dust, Eve out of baby back ribs, but from then on he decided to leave it to replication/reproduction for life to occur?

I don't believe in god....But some will say the only reason he didn't continue to create life is because he wanted beings to fend for themselves, make their own decisions, evolve as a race of their own doing.

[Jello]

i wouldn't even waste my time. the whole thing is just a copy paste job.
Just like DonDadda copies and pastes too.:rolleyes:

[shlver]

My goodness there is so much fail in that plagiarized post. I was going to address that paragraph by paragraph, but I think I'll just ask 2 things for now- 1) Where is that article from and when was it written 2) If God is responsible for creation, why is cell replication even necessary? Why don't people/animals/etc pop out of thin air fully formed by God's divine intervention? God made Adam out dust, Eve out of baby back ribs, but from then on he decided to leave it to replication/reproduction for life to occur?
Really? This is the dumbest argument against creation I've seen in a long time.

[DonDadda59]

Really? This is the dumbest argument against creation I've seen in a long time.

It's not an argument. It's a question.

Care to give your two cents?

[shlver]

It's not an argument. It's a question.

Care to give your two cents?
There are a bunch of scientific approaches to breaking down his plagiarized argument, but all of those questions can be simply answered with "yes" or "I don't know." You really didn't do anything but ask the question similar to "Why do math in your head, when you have a calculator?"

[DonDadda59]

There are a bunch of scientific approaches to breaking down his plagiarized argument, but all of those questions can be simply answered with "yes" or "I don't know." You really didn't do anything but ask the question similar to "Why do math in your head, when you have a calculator?"

Ok. That's nice.

But what's your take on the question?

[shlver]

Ok. That's nice.

But what's your take on the question?

If God is responsible for creation, why is cell replication even necessary? Why don't people/animals/etc pop out of thin air fully formed by God's divine intervention? God made Adam out dust, Eve out of baby back ribs, but from then on he decided to leave it to replication/reproduction for life to occur?
I don't know to the first question, but if we assume God is responsible for creation we have to assume he had a purpose in designing it that way. They don't have to pop out of thin air, because God has provided us/animals/etc. with the necessary hardware? That makes sense. The last one can be answered simply yes.

[DonDadda59]

I don't know to the first question, but if we assume God is responsible for creation we have to assume he had a purpose in designing it that way. They don't have to pop out of thin air, because God has provided us/animals/etc. with the necessary hardware? That makes sense. The last one can be answered simply yes.

Thank you.

So if we assume (like the article's author) that God is the architect of the cell and he programmed it to self replicate and carry out other functions, but outside/natural forces don't have an effect... then how do you explain an occurrence like this?

A genetic deformity:

http://siamfoundation.org/movies/uploaded_images/elephant_man-723429.jpg

Or victims of Agent Orange:

http://www.kianh.org.uk/pictures/Anh%20and%20Trang.jpg

Examples of deformity caused by genetic mutation or natural/outside forces say what exactly about God's perfect divinely hand-crafted, pre-programmed creation? In your opinion.

[shlver]

Thank you.

So if we assume (like the article's author) that God is the architect of the cell and he programmed it to self replicate and carry out other functions, but outside/natural forces don't have an effect... then how do you explain an occurrence like this?

A genetic deformity:



Or victims of Agent Orange:



Examples of deformity caused by genetic mutation or natural/outside forces say what exactly about God's perfect divinely hand-crafted, pre-programmed creation? In your opinion.
Who said it was perfect?

[DonDadda59]

Who said it was perfect?

Fine :rolleyes:

Take out the word perfect, then answer the question.

[Sarcastic]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101008-science-space-saturn-titan-haze-life-amino-acids-bases/

Saturn's Largest Moon Has Ingredients for Life?

[QUOTE]The chemical "letters" used to write the basic code for life on Earth might exist on Saturn's largest moon, according to new research presented Thursday.

The findings suggest the building blocks of life on Earth may have originated in the air, not only in primordial "soup" on land.

Based on lab experiments, scientists concluded it's possible the thick atmospheric haze on Titan contains the five so-called nucleotide bases used in DNA and RNA, as well as some simple amino acids

[shlver]

Fine :rolleyes:

Take out the word perfect, then answer the question.
If the machinery to replicate cells is not perfect, then it's bound to make mistakes. This should be obvious.

[DonDadda59]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101008-science-space-saturn-titan-haze-life-amino-acids-bases/

Saturn's Largest Moon Has Ingredients for Life?

Now that's how you copy & paste.

You can add Gliese 581g to the list. Which is why I was wondering when this article was written.

Plus the whole science not being able to create cells is somewhat outdated since a self-replicating synthetic genome was made at the Venter Institute.

So yeah... back to the future prophesy gimmick.

[shlver]

Now that's how you copy & paste.

You can add Gliese 581g to the list. Which is why I was wondering when this article was written.

Plus the whole science not being able to create cells is somewhat outdated since a self-replicating synthetic genome was made at the Venter Institute.

So yeah... back to the future prophesy gimmick.
:facepalm Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[DonDadda59]

If the machinery to replicate cells is not perfect, then it's bound to make mistakes. This should be obvious.

Well it's obvious to me. I'm just wondering why certain people think that natural forces can't affect 'God's machinery' when we see it happening all the time. And if nature/outside forces can alter/change cell coding and force mutation... why should anyone believe that God created the machine in the first place? It's obvious that if he did program the cell, it's a flawed system (made by a flawed being?) that is CLEARLY affected by nature.

[Sarcastic]

Now that's how you copy & paste.

You can add Gliese 581g to the list. Which is why I was wondering when this article was written.

Plus the whole science not being able to create cells is somewhat outdated since a self-replicating synthetic genome was made at the Venter Institute.

So yeah... back to the future prophesy gimmick.


You don't even have to go that far away. I think it is likely that we will find some form of life in our own solar system one day (not including earth).

[shlver]

Well it's obvious to me. I'm just wondering why certain people think that natural forces can't affect 'God's machinery' when we see it happening all the time. And if nature/outside forces can alter/change cell coding and force mutation... why should anyone believe that God created the machine in the first place? It's obvious that if he did program the cell, it's a flawed system (made by a flawed being?) that is CLEARLY affected by nature.
Where did I say that it can't be affected by nature/outside forces? Explain how it's a flawed system and it is faulty logic to think that perfect beings can only make perfect things.

[DonDadda59]

:facepalm Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

You remember this, right?


U.S. scientists create first 'synthetic life'

U.S. researchers have created the world's first "synthetic life," a strain of bacteria created with man-made DNA.

"This is the first self-replicating cell we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," team leader Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., told USA TODAY's Dan Vergano. Venter has been a leader in human genome mapping as well as synthetic biology.

The breakthrough is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology," Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College and editor of the journal Artificial Life, toldScience magazine.

The sci-fi strain of the blue bacteria, which are not infectious, is in a freezer and headed to a museum.

Regarding the broader implications of the research, the Venter Institute writes, "Throughout the course of this work, the team contemplated, discussed, and engaged in outside review of the ethical and societal implications of their work.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/05/us-scientists-create-first-synthetic-life/1



Where did I say that it can't be affected by nature/outside forces? Explain how it's a flawed system and it is faulty logic to think that perfect beings can only make perfect things.

I was addressing the OP's article and the assertion that nature/natural forces do not affect the basic cell/DNA/etc. Disease, mutation, etc makes it a flawed system, especially one that was crafted by a divine being. What is your definition of perfection? Especially considering we are supposedly made in his image, Elephantiasis and all.

[Hazard]

Chaos theory, look into it.

[Jackass18]

If the machinery to replicate cells is not perfect, then it's bound to make mistakes. This should be obvious.

Is God proud of his shoddy work?

[shlver]

You remember this, right?






I was addressing the OP's article and the assertion that nature/natural forces do not affect the basic cell/DNA/etc. Disease, mutation, etc makes it a flawed system, especially one that was crafted by a divine being. What is your definition of perfection? Especially considering we are supposedly made in his image, Elephantiasis and all.
They didn't create a cell though They constructed a genome from scratch and inserted it into an EXISTING bacterial cell... So they created working DNA, not a cell in its entirety.

Where in the article does it assert that? Reread the article again please.
Man created in God's image does not assert man is perfect. God resides in spirit and does not have a physical body, so our physical bodies and imperfections do not reflect God. I see two meanings in the phrase "created in God's image": God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose.

[shlver]

Is God proud of his shoddy work?
Nah, it's not shoddy at all. It's an extraordinarily accurate system.

[Sarcastic]

Why would a perfect being make a world that is so imperfect?

[shlver]

Why would a perfect being make a world that is so imperfect?
I don't know God's motives.

[DonDadda59]

They didn't create a cell though(Created mitochondria, ribosomes, ER, Rough ER, etc) They constructed a genome from scratch and inserted it into an EXISTING bacterial cell... So they created working DNA, not a cell in its entirety.

Where in the article does it assert that? Reread the article again please.


I know that, which is why I said 'somewhat' originally. But humans being able to program self-replicating DNA sequences via a computer and implanting them into other cells is a HUGE step towards creating life/cells.


Man created in God's image does not assert man is perfect. God resides in spirit and does not have a physical body, so our physical bodies and imperfections do not reflect God. I see two meanings in the phrase "created in God's image": God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose.

So basically being made in God's image has nothing to do with our physical beings but by our being alive and having free will? So when someone uses their free will to go on a serial killing spree or to rape children, that's a reflection of God? :wtf:

Looks like you might want to rethink that.

[shlver]

I know that, which is why I said 'somewhat' originally. But humans being able to program self-replicating DNA sequences via a computer and implanting them into other cells is a HUGE step towards creating life/cells.



So basically being made in God's image has nothing to do with our physical beings but by our being alive and having free will? So when someone uses their free will to go on a serial killing spree or to rape children, that's a reflection of God? :wtf:

Looks like you might want to rethink that.
He has free will which is a reflection of God, but a person choosing to sin or go on a killing spree or raping children is a reflection of man's evil nature. What's so hard to understand about this?

[Hazard]

So is Jesus planning to die for our sins again anytime soon? Cause uhh you know.. I refuse to take responsibility.

[shlver]

So is Jesus planning to die for our sins again anytime soon? Cause uhh you know.. I refuse to take responsibility.
Burn in hell then.
http://dreamalittledream.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/two-thumbs-up.jpg

[Hazard]

Burn in hell then.
http://dreamalittledream.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/two-thumbs-up.jpg
Wait that's not right I thought that if I accept Jesus as my saviour then I'm saved? Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

[DonDadda59]

He has free will which is a reflection of God, but a person choosing to sin or go on a killing spree or raping children is a reflection of man's evil nature. What's so hard to understand about this?

The part where you said free will is Godly and the existence of free will within us is a reflection of that Godliness. It makes perfect sense actually when you actually read the bible and see how many genocides, pestilences, and general 'evil' God personally committed. So is it safe to say that since by our nature we are a reflection of God, and we are naturally evil... that God by nature is evil himself?

[branslowski]

God once got a guy fired, killed his whole family aswell.....Just to see if he keeps the faith.


Also made Eve have sex with her sons...And her daughters had sex with the Brothers...To create us all....Which should be wrong right?...

[shlver]

Wait that's not right I thought that if I accept Jesus as my saviour then I'm saved? Are you saying the Bible is wrong?
Nope, that's right, but Jesus already died and resurrected.:cheers:

[shlver]

The part where you said free will is Godly and the existence of free will within us is a reflection of that Godliness. It makes perfect sense actually when you actually read the bible and see how many genocides, pestilences, and general 'evil' God personally committed. So is it safe to say that since by our nature we are a reflection of God, and we are naturally evil... that God by nature is evil himself?
I never said free will is Godly. I assumed you had a basic knowledge on the Biblical story on the fall of man, but I see I'm wasting my time here.

[Hazard]

Nope, that's right, but Jesus already died and resurrected.:cheers:
Ok good, where does he live at? I need to talk to that mofo about all the priests butt f*cking children.

[chungerball]

If the machinery to replicate cells is not perfect, then it's bound to make mistakes. This should be obvious.

But I thought God was perfect in every way possible? I thought he couldn't make such mistakes as let his creations become mutated?

[Hazard]

I'm just f*cking around man, if you're religious that's cool. One problem I have with some religious people is that they force it down other peoples throat, and they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. I have met plenty of religious people who do not fall into that catagory, so personally I feel the way you live your life is your own business. As for myself, I believe man created God in their own image.

Same shit can be said about some atheists as well.

[Bladers]

Now that's how you copy & paste.

You can add Gliese 581g to the list. Which is why I was wondering when this article was written.

Plus the whole science not being able to create cells is somewhat outdated since a self-replicating synthetic genome was made at the Venter Institute.

So yeah... back to the future prophesy gimmick.


Well it's obvious to me. I'm just wondering why certain people think that natural forces can't affect 'God's machinery' when we see it happening all the time. And if nature/outside forces can alter/change cell coding and force mutation... why should anyone believe that God created the machine in the first place? It's obvious that if he did program the cell, it's a flawed system (made by a flawed being?) that is CLEARLY affected by nature.


I don’t care what theory you use, theory of evolution, big bang theory, eternally oscillating universe theory, eternallypatheticatheist theory, the delusionallostkids theory, alter-elasticity theory, etc. I don’t care about supernova, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, physical pendulum, Casanova, formula E=MC2, mchammer djmix, probability, nsync-nelly dynamics, thermodynamics, virtual particle, critical density, entropy, electromagnetic force, cosmic background radiation, thermonuclear fusion, superfreak mechanics, wave mechanics, optics, etc.

You can give names to what already exist as u wish, call it “stupido mechanics” do whatever u want, fact is NOT ONE among ALL of this can demonstrate creation of ANY life form, from cell to creatures. I don’t care if u measured force, angle, sound, speed, distance, length, time, weight, mass, inertia, force & torque of earthquake, wind, lightning, light, cars, airplanes, my foot up your butt, etc. (laws of physics), Fact is your measuring tape, paper, pen,& Casio stop watch cannot demonstrate creation of ANY life form.

You can give names to elements that already exist (periodic table) & play around with it, mix it up etc. or clone humans off existing egg cells, so what. I don’t care if another scientist will come up with a new ways of mathematics other than “geometry & square root” naming it “geostupidroots” explaining m=5, b=3, u=1, d=4. D+U+M+B=13. -d=-4. 4(d=u)=?, etc.

What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. If I make such claim, do I have proof that indeed it was God (All knowing: alpha & omega) that created the first life form? Yes I do. The proof is this. Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from biological to technological. Don’t say, "Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed sandcastles, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible.

I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.

[DonDadda59]

I never said free will is Godly. I assumed you had a basic knowledge on the Biblical story on the fall of man, but I see I'm wasting my time here.

You said this "God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose".

And I know the story of the fall of man, but since you brought up some new theories on the nature of man and the meaning of him being created in God's image, I'm starting to look at it from another viewpoint. What was at the core of man's fall?

You guessed it- man's free will. God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? But with a little persuasion from a talking snake, Eve made the conscious decision to disobey the lord and eat the fruit and Adam made the conscious decision to follow suit. From there, man was born with original sin and only subservience and complete obedience to the Son of God became the only way for man's soul to be redeemed.

Now, if Ephesians 1:3-5 is the truth, then God already knew long before he created Adam and Eve what they were going to do, step by step. Does this make free will an illusion? I think so, but let's suspend basic logic for a while and say it doesn't...

So God in his infinite wisdom, gifts the first two humans with free will, knowing that they will choose to disobey him and cause their own downfall. Not only that, but everything in existence was created by God, including the talking snake. Is it possible that the fall of man was an inside job perpetrated by Jehovah himself to enslave mankind's soul? :eek: I mean he could've simply not given Adam and Eve free will and they would've lived according to his rules forever as Godly beings. But he did, knowing what decision they were going to make long before they made it. He even sent his agent, his creation to persuade them to eat the fruit.

And now the only way to save yourself from an eternity of fire and brimstone is to accept his son as your lord and savior? Talk about blatant nepotism. So basically he created free will to orchestrate a monopoly on our souls. Machiavelli would be proud :pimp:

[DonDadda59]

I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.

You missed the boat. Sythetic self-replicating genomes were already created using a computer program and implanted into cells, giving them "life". So no, it's not impossible, it just hasn't been perfected yet.

Stick to street preaching and repeating your crackpot friend's never-gonna-happen predictions.

[artex]

if you are reading this you are god

[miller-time]

[QUOTE=Bladers]I don

[lurch67]

Of which God are you speaking? If it is the Old Test. God, were all going to burn in Hell. Unless of course you have built temples and slain purified offerings such as goats. If churchleaders from just 200 yrs ago could see how our society lives today, they would deem us all heathens and condemn us to hell fire.

Ever find it odd that God (as perfect as he is) has adapted his requirements for worship throughout history to accomidate the masses? Christians break one (at min.) of the ten commandments every week. "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy." The Sabbath begings Friday night and ends Saturday night. When do most people go out drinking and poon chasin' the most? Friday and Saturday. Real holy huh. Then they worship on the wrong day, Sunday. This would have been an unforgivable sin back in the day.

While we are talking about sins, anyone else feel Jesus has been raised to God status. Christians seem to have placed Jesus ahead of God, ignoring another commandment, sinners!!!

But none of that matters I guess when that old loop hole of holding what is true on Earth shall be held true in the Kingdom of Heaven. Must be nice to be able to hold that one over St. Peter at the Gate. "Hey Pete, none of us did what we were actually told, but the Big Guy basically let us make it up as we went. So if you could just happen to open up that Gate right there, we'll be on our way. And to think Pete, you went and got yo' self crucified upside down to get up here."

[Bladers]

You said this "God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose".

And I know the story of the fall of man, but since you brought up some new theories on the nature of man and the meaning of him being created in God's image, I'm starting to look at it from another viewpoint. What was at the core of man's fall?

You guessed it- man's free will. God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? But with a little persuasion from a talking snake, Eve made the conscious decision to disobey the lord and eat the fruit and Adam made the conscious decision to follow suit. From there, man was born with original sin and only subservience and complete obedience to the Son of God became the only way for man's soul to be redeemed.

Now, if Ephesians 1:3-5 is the truth, then God already knew long before he created Adam and Eve what they were going to do, step by step. Does this make free will an illusion? I think so, but let's suspend basic logic for a while and say it doesn't...

So God in his infinite wisdom, gifts the first two humans with free will, knowing that they will choose to disobey him and cause their own downfall. Not only that, but everything in existence was created by God, including the talking snake. Is it possible that the fall of man was an inside job perpetrated by Jehovah himself to enslave mankind's soul? :eek: I mean he could've simply not given Adam and Eve free will and they would've lived according to his rules forever as Godly beings. But he did, knowing what decision they were going to make long before they made it. He even sent his agent, his creation to persuade them to eat the fruit.

And now the only way to save yourself from an eternity of fire and brimstone is to accept his son as your lord and savior? Talk about blatant nepotism. So basically he created free will to orchestrate a monopoly on our souls. Machiavelli would be proud :pimp:

God didn't wan't to create a bunch of robots.
He doesn't derive pleasure from robot worship...
He doesn't want any zombies.:no:

[chungerball]

Of which God are you speaking? If it is the Old Test. God, were all going to burn in Hell. Unless of course you have built temples and slain purified offerings such as goats. If churchleaders from just 200 yrs ago could see how our society lives today, they would deem us all heathens and condemn us to hell fire.

Ever find it odd that God (as perfect as he is) has adapted his requirements for worship throughout history to accomidate the masses? Christians break one (at min.) of the ten commandments every week. "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy." The Sabbath begings Friday night and ends Saturday night. When do most people go out drinking and poon chasin' the most? Friday and Saturday. Real holy huh. Then they worship on the wrong day, Sunday. This would have been an unforgivable sin back in the day.

While we are talking about sins, anyone else feel Jesus has been raised to God status. Christians seem to have placed Jesus ahead of God, ignoring another commandment, sinners!!!

But none of that matters I guess when that old loop hole of holding what is true on Earth shall be held true in the Kingdom of Heaven. Must be nice to be able to hold that one over St. Peter at the Gate. "Hey Pete, none of us did what we were actually told, but the Big Guy basically let us make it up as we went. So if you could just happen to open up that Gate right there, we'll be on our way. And to think Pete, you went and got yo' self crucified upside down to get up here."

HAHA!!! This guy speaks the truth. If religious (Christian) beliefs and acceptances gradually change over time, then what does that say about the validity of the bible? :confusedshrug: It used to be that gays were thought to have an evil disease that needed to be cured, but now many churchgoers actually accept gays. What the hell contradiction is that? Conclusion....the bible is f*cking man made. If you were gay a few centuries ago, your so called Christian believers would shun your asses out of town. Then there are the priest child molesters of the Catholic faith, whose own hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

[vinsane01]

God didn't wan't to create a bunch of robots.
He doesn't derive pleasure from robot worship...
He doesn't want any zombies.:no:

You know what god wants and where he derives pleasure from? Cool..

What else do you know? We are all ears!

[Bladers]

the fact is not one of the theories you listed are attempts to explain where life came from. a theory or model is used to explain a specific set of data, none of those theories include data relevant to the origin of cells, organelles, nucleotides or amino acids.

i seriously don't buy the idea that anything you say is what you actually believe because no one can possibly be that stupid.

So then If none of what I provided gives prove to an Intelligent Creator.

Then here is what you are providing: There was void, nothing, then we came from nowhere like mathematics "-we r,-1234567890=1234567890."

So if your a teen & mom caught you holding 3 bottles of beer, just tell her

[TennesseeFan]

Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.

[lurch67]

Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.
Speaking of the resurrection, have you read all the accounts of this in the bible? Each and every one of these varies wildly. You would think that the story that is to be the basis of a religion would have at least been consistant....

[TennesseeFan]

Speaking of the resurrection, have you read all the accounts of this in the bible? Each and every one of these varies wildly. You would think that the story that is to be the basis of a religion would have at least been consistant....

Yes there are variations and interpretations, but it happened nonetheless.

[Sarcastic]

Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.


Care to show us any of that evidence?

[lurch67]

Yes there are variations and interpretations, but it happened nonetheless.
Wrong, it is alleged that it happened.

[TennesseeFan]

Care to show us any of that evidence?

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.

[lurch67]

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.
Thats just so week on so many levels, for starters the bible is proof of nothing.

[TennesseeFan]

Thats just so week on so many levels, for starters the bible is proof of nothing.

False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.

[Sarcastic]

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.

The bible is not archaeological evidence.

[chungerball]

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.

:facepalm That's what we call blind faith. :lol

[TennesseeFan]

The bible is not archaeological evidence.

That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.

[TennesseeFan]

:facepalm That's what we call blind faith. :lol

Yea, but that faith raises the dead.

[Sarcastic]

That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.

Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.

[chungerball]

Yea, but that faith raises the dead.

You can't be serious....or you just might be. I believe in raising the dead as zombies, but not fully functional human beings. Have you seen movies like dawn of the dead?

[TennesseeFan]

Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.

Actually, it can only be as old as 40 years old. But the Book of Acts was written by Luke before the Gospel of Luke, as early as 37AD to 40AD. All the things that happened in the Pentecost is the affirmation of the healing and spiritual power of Jesus Christ. Which affirms the Gospel.

[Sarcastic]

Actually, it can only be as old as 40 years old. But the Book of Acts was written by Luke before the Gospel of Luke, as early as 37AD to 40AD. All the things that happened in the Pentecost is the affirmation of the healing and spiritual power of Jesus Christ. Which affirms the Gospel.

None of that is scientific.

[TennesseeFan]

You can't be serious....or you just might be. I believe in raising the dead as zombies, but not fully functional human beings. Have you seen movies like dawn of the dead?

No, like I know stuff like this happens in North Africa every now and then. I had a friend who witnessed a resurrection. He has a friend that goes to UT hospital to pray over patients. He never prayed over the dead though. There was a guy who has been dead for several hours and they went to harvest his organs, and he said "hey can I pray for him" and they said "why? hes dead?" and he said "I know, but I want to see if he can come back to life" and they said "uh sure go ahead". My friend Nick was sitting on the bench outside the room. His friend laid hands on the dead body and said "In the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to live", and he came out the door and the man was following him. Healing still happens today, no doubt.

[TennesseeFan]

None of that is scientific.

They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.

[boozehound]

That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.
as an archaeologist, I cannot begin to tell you how much is wrong with this statement. THis thread is embarrassing

[Sarcastic]

They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.

The findings are not scientific.

[boozehound]

Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.
pretty much all of them are. regardless, there are no bibles that are material artifacts from the immediate decades after his death.

[TennesseeFan]

The findings are not scientific.

Scientific tests on ages of scrolls are scientific findings :facepalm

[lurch67]

False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.
Again stories written about people centuries after they are dead without any other form of documentation are proof of nothing. Period. The bible and every single thing in it has to be taken in faith. Faith is the oppisite of proof. The whole resurrection story was stolen for pagan mythology in order to convert them. There is only one original story form the bible, old test or new, the story of Moses. Even the stories of Eden, Noah, and even the adventures of Jesus himself, are rehashed tales of other relgions prior to rise of Judaism.

And where are these people who rise from the dead with no assistance from medical personel? Is there a wave of Zombies coming we need to know about? I have brought people back from clinical death as an EMT, so does this make me a mircle worker too?

[boozehound]

They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.
what scrolls are you talking about? The dead sea scrolls? Sure, some of those date to around the time of jebus, but none of them are NT in the slightest.

[Jackass18]

Nah, it's not shoddy at all. It's an extraordinarily accurate system.

Everything is shoddy unless you accept mediocrity (and calling it mediocre is being generous).

[boozehound]

Scientific tests on ages of scrolls are scientific findings :facepalm
are you also a young earth creationist who denies the age of the earth as estimated by radioactivity? Then you cant also use those same dating principles to hold up your argument.

[TennesseeFan]

pretty much all of them are. regardless, there are no bibles that are material artifacts from the immediate decades after his death.

False all of the NT books and letters range from 37AD to 98AD. The Gospels and Acts range from 37AD to 67AD. All of this was scientifically tested, the only things scholars debate over is the accuracy of the dates, not the precision.

[boozehound]

False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.
Really? Weak 4th hand records of "first hand" eyewitness accounts? Really? and, people come back from the "dead" more often than you think.

[boozehound]

False all of the NT books and letters range from 37AD to 98AD. The Gospels and Acts range from 37AD to 67AD. All of this was scientifically tested, the only things scholars debate over is the accuracy of the dates, not the precision.
show me a citation for these dates. and what are they actually on? I assume you are talking about AMS radiocarbon dating of papyrus? I cannot find any info, so anything to point me in the right direction would be good.

[TennesseeFan]

are you also a young earth creationist who denies the age of the earth as estimated by radioactivity? Then you cant also use those same dating principles to hold up your argument.

It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.

[lurch67]

No, like I know stuff like this happens in North Africa every now and then. I had a friend who witnessed a resurrection. He has a friend that goes to UT hospital to pray over patients. He never prayed over the dead though. There was a guy who has been dead for several hours and they went to harvest his organs, and he said "hey can I pray for him" and they said "why? hes dead?" and he said "I know, but I want to see if he can come back to life" and they said "uh sure go ahead". My friend Nick was sitting on the bench outside the room. His friend laid hands on the dead body and said "In the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to live", and he came out the door and the man was following him. Healing still happens today, no doubt.
So, you know a dude who knows a guy that talked to a dude who knows some dude that has a relitive who heard of a guy that knows....... Wow your proof is so hard to refute.

[TennesseeFan]

Really? Weak 4th hand records of "first hand" eyewitness accounts? Really? and, people come back from the "dead" more often than you think.

No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air.

[boozehound]

show me a citation for these dates. and what are they actually on? I assume you are talking about AMS radiocarbon dating of papyrus? I cannot find any info, so anything to point me in the right direction would be good.
and you are full of it. Just from the wiki wiki wack, you can clearly see that the oldest dated scrap of the bible is from the first half of the 2nd century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manus cripts

[TennesseeFan]

So, you know a dude who knows a guy that talked to a dude who knows some dude that has a relitive who heard of a guy that knows....... Wow your proof is so hard to refute.

Nick is a good friend of mine, and he saw the dead guy walk out of the room. The guy has spoken at church events and stuff. I can get his name and everything.

[boozehound]

It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.
Well first, the accuracy of a radioactive dating technique is based on the half-life of the element. So, yes, for carbon, the upper limits are about 40k. But there are lots of other dating techniques based on the same radioactive principles.


Also, I agree that you can hold your belief in the bible and not be a YEC. Just wondering if you were.

[lurch67]

No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air.
Don't read much do you. Rodenberry developed an entire language and history for multiple races of aliens in star trek. So by your logic, interstellar travel should be a couple yrs away then.

[boozehound]

It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.
also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.

[lurch67]

Nick is a good friend of mine, and he saw the dead guy walk out of the room. The guy has spoken at church events and stuff. I can get his name and everything.
And nobody ever makes things up to swindle people out of money.........:rolleyes:

[chungerball]

No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air.

Well, the balloon boy and his family swore that they didn't plan a hoax either, so those people "might" have been fibbing too broski.....and I use the word might very cautiously. The end result is jail time for mama and papa.

[boozehound]

and you are full of it. Just from the wiki wiki wack, you can clearly see that the oldest dated scrap of the bible is from the first half of the 2nd century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manus cripts
again, any evidence for earlier dates than this? Or will you just ignore it? Anyhoo, Im done with this thread.

[TennesseeFan]

and you are full of it. Just from the wiki wiki wack, you can clearly see that the oldest dated scrap of the bible is from the first half of the 2nd century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manus cripts

Those are the dates they were found, not written.

These are the dates they were written, determined by scholars (not just run-of-the-mill middle class Christians, but highly intelligent professors and apologeticans.

[miller-time]

i'm a ****ing idiot

yes i know.

do you actually think i'm going to waste my time responding to all that tripe?

this thread is a damn mess.

[TennesseeFan]

And nobody ever makes things up to swindle people out of money.........:rolleyes:

Nick isn't like that. You would have to know him. Hes the kind of guy that would sell his house and everything he owned for the betterment of mankind. And all his events he has spoken at have been non-profit. You probably won't believe it, because this is over the internet, but if you were here and knew him you would think differently about it.

[boozehound]

Those are the dates they were found, not written.

These are the dates they were written, determined by scholars (not just run-of-the-mill middle class Christians, but highly intelligent professors and apologeticans.
uh, so, where are the earlier radiocarbon dates? and, no those are the estimated dates of the writing, based on either paleography of the script or actual radiocarbon dating of the cellulose. why dont you bother reading the link before dismissing it.

Again, I wait with baited breath for any citation (even from a crockpot) with earlier RC dates for NT manuscripts.

[TennesseeFan]

Well, the balloon boy and his family swore that they didn't plan a hoax either, so those people "might" have been fibbing too broski.....and I use the word might very cautiously. The end result is jail time for mama and papa.

Yes, all the accounts and testimonies of being blind, tormented, dead, and lepers are all a coincidence :facepalm

You don't make stuff like this up. No one is that creative.

[chungerball]

Nick isn't like that. You would have to know him. Hes the kind of guy that would sell his house and everything he owned for the betterment of mankind. And all his events he has spoken at have been non-profit. You probably won't believe it, because this is over the internet, but if you were here and knew him you would think differently about it.

You are correct sir. I don't believe it, just like how I don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I would certainly believe if he came back to life as a zombie because that would be the only logical answer here.

[TennesseeFan]

uh, so, where are the earlier radiocarbon dates? and, no those are the estimated dates of the writing, based on either paleography of the script or actual radiocarbon dating of the cellulose. why dont you bother reading the link before dismissing it.

Again, I wait with baited breath for any citation (even from a crockpot) with earlier RC dates for NT manuscripts.

"Traditional views assume that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well."

Look they were written and found in fragments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were found. Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.

[lurch67]

Yes, all the accounts and testimonies of being blind, tormented, dead, and lepers are all a coincidence :facepalm

You don't make stuff like this up. No one is that creative.
Again, whole industries have been made by people who are that creative.

[TennesseeFan]

You are correct sir. I don't believe it, just like how I don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I would certainly believe if he came back to life as a zombie because that would be the only logical answer here.

Not really logical at all. There are way more testimonies about the human heartbeat stopping and becoming functional again (whether it be a second to a few hours to several days) to the 0 amount of testimonies of zombies.

[TennesseeFan]

Again, whole industries have been made by people who are that creative.

60AD-90AD Western Asia and Middle East wasn't exactly your modern-day American entrepreneurial market land.

[Bladers]

yes i know.

do you actually think i'm going to waste my time responding to all that tripe?

this thread is a damn mess.

The thread is a mess because your fallacies are being exposed.
Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.

[lurch67]

60AD-90AD Western Asia and Middle East wasn't exactly your modern-day American entrepreneurial market land.
But people were just as creative back then.

[TennesseeFan]

But people were just as creative back then.

:eek:

[lurch67]

The thread is a mess because your fallacies are being exposed.
Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.
God is also just a theory.

There is no proof for nor against God's existance. Only evidence that can lend itself to one theory or another.

[sawyersauce]

Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.

From another perspective, God is just another theory filling in the blank too.

I can’t be bothered writing an essay to respond to the OP. So I’m just going to question the most significant part of its argument... It’s conclusion.

For arguments sake let’s say I'm convinced. Sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator. But why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren? Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities?

All this argument can hope to prove is that God is possible. Not definate, not the truth, but one possibility amongst many more. If we agree that an intelligent designer may exist, we agree to infinite possibilities of its form, not one. I’m happy to admit the God might exist, if you admit the all other potential creators are just as likely.

[Jackass18]

Tennesseefan was alive back then, travelled the lands interviewing people and documented their lack of creativity.

[Bladers]

Let’s say, sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator (the watchmaker analogy is not undeniable evidence, there are much stronger arguments out there, but whatever.) Why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren?


Those are myths and idols..


Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities?

Because to create this elegant universe and all the thing in them, you would need an all-knowing, all-powerful and conscious being.

[sawyersauce]

Those are myths and idols..



Because to create this elegant universe you would need an all-knowing and powerful being.

I edited my post to make it more readable - I have a habit of doing that. This is what it says now...

For arguments sake let’s say I'm convinced. Sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator. But why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren? Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities?

All this argument can hope to prove is that God is possible. Not definate, not the truth, but one possibility amongst many more. If we agree that an intelligent designer may exist, we agree to infinite possibilities of its form, not one. I’m happy to admit the God might exist, if you admit the all other potential creators are just as likely.


You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others? And I don't just mean the examples I gave I mean ALL other possibilites, they are infinite.

I can see you want to legitimise Christianity as a logical option. So give me a logical answer.

[miller-time]

You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others? And I don't just mean the examples I gave I mean ALL other possibilites, they are infinite.

trust me there is no point talking to the guy, you can go through line by with him and he will keep changing the topic or move the goal posts. he is either the worlds most dedicated troll or the worlds stupidest man.

[Bladers]

I edited my post to make it more readable - I have a habit of doing that.

You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others?

I can see you want to legitimise Christianity as a logical option. So give me a logical answer.

Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.

[boozehound]

"Traditional views assume that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well."

Look they were written and found in fragments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were found. Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.
again, these are not the dates found. these are estimates of the dates written (in the case of paleography) or the plant material quit photosynthesizing/dies (in the case of radiocarbon). The link you supplied gives the dates (based on papyrology) as anywhere from late first to 4th century. so................


re-read your quote here, and pay particular attention to the third word.

[Jackass18]

Why must everything aside from God have a creator?

Get out with all of your man-made concepts about God.

[sawyersauce]

Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.

So you're not arguing for the existence of the Christian God? Which is a very sepcific entity with an associated mythology.

You're just arguing for the concept of an intelligent designer?

Because those are two very different arguments. They do not equate to the same thing. And I think people reading this thread are confused.

[TennesseeFan]

again, these are not the dates found. these are estimates of the dates written (in the case of paleography) or the plant material quit photosynthesizing/dies (in the case of radiocarbon). The link you supplied gives the dates (based on papyrology) as anywhere from late first to 4th century. so................


re-read your quote here, and pay particular attention to the third word.

You obviously can't read. Any dates beyond the 1st century were when the fragments were found, and anything before were the estimations of when they were written. Those 60-90 dates aren't invisible, you should be able to see them.

[lurch67]

Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.
Just because you cant grasp concepts such as the big bang or natural selection or mutative adaptation, does not mean God exists.

[boozehound]

You obviously can't read. Any dates beyond the 1st century were when the fragments were found, and anything before were the estimations of when they were written. Those 60-90 dates aren't invisible, you should be able to see them.
those are not dates!

You are clearly a fool and that has nothing to do with your beliefs. For example, the fragments you linked to in your post were found in 1901!!!!!! and have been dated anywhere from the 1st century ad to 4th based on papyrology. No radiocarbon dates given.

So, again, link an actual manuscript that has a date (either paleography/papyrology or RC) from within 100 years of Jesus' life.

If you want to present this evidence as a support for an argument, I suggest that you, a) actually read the durn thing, and b) learn more about how things are dated.

[boozehound]

"Traditional views assume that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well."

Look they were written and found in fragments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were found. Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.
again, your quote is not from the link you provide. regardless, it does nothing to bolster your argument, as it says nothing about direct dates. all the direct dates are from at least 100 years after jesus' death. And, no, a RC date is not "when it was found".

Jesus, you must have the reading comprehension/intellectual capacity of a 3rd grader.

[Jello]

Just because you cant grasp concepts such as the big bang or natural selection or mutative adaptation, does not mean God exists.
Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm

[lurch67]

Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm


quote:
Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped. :end quote



This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.

[Jello]

quote:Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.

This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.
No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.

[lurch67]

No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.
So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.

[Jello]

So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.
They are two distinct theories. You were wrong, just stop.

[Jello]

also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.
Not true.:rolleyes:

[RaininThrees]

http://seemslegit.com/_images/f873f38ebb382656b4ee720311aa4265/1924%20-%20can%27t-hear-you%20creationism%20religion.png

[Jello]

Again stories written about people centuries after they are dead without any other form of documentation are proof of nothing. Period. The bible and every single thing in it has to be taken in faith. Faith is the oppisite of proof. The whole resurrection story was stolen for pagan mythology in order to convert them. There is only one original story form the bible, old test or new, the story of Moses. Even the stories of Eden, Noah, and even the adventures of Jesus himself, are rehashed tales of other relgions prior to rise of Judaism.

And where are these people who rise from the dead with no assistance from medical personel? Is there a wave of Zombies coming we need to know about? I have brought people back from clinical death as an EMT, so does this make me a mircle worker too?
Interesting. Seriously, you don't know shit about what you're talking about in this thread on both science and history.

[Jello]

Everything is shoddy unless you accept mediocrity (and calling it mediocre is being generous).
DNA replication is mediocre?:hammerhead:

[boozehound]

Not true.:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

[SittingWolf]

This guy jello really reminds me of shlver

[Jello]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
if you drop an object from a height under normal circumstances, it will fall. Is this a fact?

[Take Your Lumps]

http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg

LOL @ Turkey!

USA! USA!

[TennesseeFan]

again, your quote is not from the link you provide. regardless, it does nothing to bolster your argument, as it says nothing about direct dates. all the direct dates are from at least 100 years after jesus' death. And, no, a RC date is not "when it was found".

Jesus, you must have the reading comprehension/intellectual capacity of a 3rd grader.

Its there. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

[boozehound]

Its there. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
from your wiki

The individual books of the New Testament may be dated with some confidence to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The earliest fragment of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a piece of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. For this reason, dating the composition of the texts relies on textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence, as well as direct references to historical events in the texts rather than dating the physical manuscripts.

Frankly, this thread has made me lose any respect for you. Not because of your belief, but because of your complete lack of reading comprehension or understanding of the topic at hand. Its not that hard, try reading to understand sometime.

also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century (about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist).

[Jasi]

Are you guys debating evolutionism vs creationism?

[TennesseeFan]

from your wiki


Frankly, this thread has made me lose any respect for you. Not because of your belief, but because of your complete lack of reading comprehension or understanding of the topic at hand. Its not that hard, try reading to understand sometime.

also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century (about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist).

Book Dates determined by scholars
Gospel of Matthew AD 60-85
Gospel of Mark AD 60-70
Gospel of Luke AD 60-90
Gospel of John AD 80-95
Acts AD 60-90
Romans AD 57–58
Corinthians AD 57
Galatians AD 45-55
Ephesians AD 65
Philippians AD 57–62
Colossians AD 60+
1 Thessalonians AD 50
2 Thessalonians AD 50
Timothy AD 60-100
Titus AD 60-100
Philemon AD 56
Hebrews AD 80-90
James AD 50-200
First Peter AD 60-96
Second Peter AD 60-130
Epistles of John AD 90-100
Jude AD 66-90
Revelation AD 68-100


40AD-100AD is NOT 3rd OR 4th Century. That is 1ST AND 2ND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

[TennesseeFan]

No this is the link YOU posted.


and you are full of it. Just from the wiki wiki wack, you can clearly see that the oldest dated scrap of the bible is from the first half of the 2nd century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manus cripts

This is the link I posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

[TennesseeFan]

When it says "Earliest Known Fragments" those are fragments they DISCOVERED, that were WRITTEN from those times. These are some of the fragments, that they FOUND.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg/250px-P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg/250px-P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/P52_recto.jpg/200px-P52_recto.jpg

They didn't write out on century-old worn fragments of paper, these WERE FOUND.

[miller-time]

those are not dates!

You are clearly a fool and that has nothing to do with your beliefs. For example, the fragments you linked to in your post were found in 1901!!!!!! and have been dated anywhere from the 1st century ad to 4th based on papyrology.


again, these are not the dates found. these are estimates of the dates written (in the case of paleography) or the plant material quit photosynthesizing/dies (in the case of radiocarbon). The link you supplied gives the dates (based on papyrology) as anywhere from late first to 4th century. so................


also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century (about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist).



40AD-100AD is NOT 3rd OR 4th Century. That is 1ST AND 2ND.

he didn't exclusively say 3rd or 4th century... i haven't been following this discussion but the texts themselves were determined to have been written decades after the death of jesus, and the oldest texts we can physically hold date back to the 2nd to 4th centuries. i'm not sure where the confusion lies?

[RaininThrees]

If there was ever evidence for Darwinism, and survival of the fittest, let this be it:

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/10/rip_guy_on_scooter_misses_elev.php

[Take Your Lumps]

These threads get so heated...I think we need to relax. There is 150+ years of real evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection and there really is no use arguing with people on the internet who refuse to acknowledge those facts.

In a great secularly governed society such as ours (in the west), the zealots are eventually dragged along towards reason and progress; even if it is kicking and screaming.

Like I always say, I have no issue with people evoking gods at the edge of their knowledge as a tool to try and to put into words what they feel is mysterious. I get that.

Where you come off looking like a douche is when you hijack this perfectly rational, neutral deist outlook on existence and pervert it to not only support your hocus pocus religious beliefs...but to try and discredit real science.

[boozehound]

When it says "Earliest Known Fragments" those are fragments they DISCOVERED, that were WRITTEN from those times. These are some of the fragments, that they FOUND.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg/250px-P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg/250px-P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/P52_recto.jpg/200px-P52_recto.jpg

They didn't write out on century-old worn fragments of paper, these WERE FOUND.
dude you are way off. Radiocarbon dates the age of the parchment, not when it was found. Paleography dates when it was written based on linguistic elements, not when it was found.

That list of dates you put are just estimates of when they were written. They dont actually have any fragments of manuscripts from then, its an extension based on extreme supposition.

Most of these were found in the last several centuries (see the link you posted on the previous page, which was found in 1901). The dates based on RC and paleography, which you have ignored in favor of estimates of when they were written, suggest that the oldest written NT that survives, even in fragments, is from around 125 AD.


I have asked you repeatedly to provide a secure date of a manuscript, either RC or paleography, and you havent. You keep referencing links that disagree with you because they contain estimates of when they were written. Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about surviving manuscripts.

[Jackass18]

DNA replication is mediocre?:hammerhead:

You should bang yourself on the head since you don't know what you're talking about.

[vinsane01]

http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg

LOL @ Turkey!

USA! USA!

Add to my to do list:

Move to iceland, denmark or sweden.

[Jello]

You should bang yourself on the head since you don't know what you're talking about.
How is it mediocre? Please inform me.

[TennesseeFan]

dude you are way off. Radiocarbon dates the age of the parchment, not when it was found. Paleography dates when it was written based on linguistic elements, not when it was found.

That list of dates you put are just estimates of when they were written. They dont actually have any fragments of manuscripts from then, its an extension based on extreme supposition.

Most of these were found in the last several centuries (see the link you posted on the previous page, which was found in 1901). The dates based on RC and paleography, which you have ignored in favor of estimates of when they were written, suggest that the oldest written NT that survives, even in fragments, is from around 125 AD.


I have asked you repeatedly to provide a secure date of a manuscript, either RC or paleography, and you havent. You keep referencing links that disagree with you because they contain estimates of when they were written. Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about surviving manuscripts.

Yes, I am saying the dates I listed were the estimated years that they were written, and anything 200+ were dates when the torn and tattered fragments were found.

[Jello]

if you drop an object from a height under normal circumstances, it will fall. Is this a fact?
You gonna answer this booze?

[kentatm]

Yes, all the accounts and testimonies of being blind, tormented, dead, and lepers are all a coincidence :facepalm

You don't make stuff like this up. No one is that creative.


:roll: :applause:

brilliant!

Did you know Mary Shelley actually knew a Dr. Frankenstein but nearly all records of him were lost when his castle was burned down?

I mean, how could anyone have ever come up with something so fantastical unless it was true? It was a from a woman no less! No way she could have thought up any of that on her own in those days!

[boozehound]

You gonna answer this booze?
nope. its a stupid question. and yes, the object falling is an observable fact. as is the speed at which it falls, etc. causal explanations for why it falls, i.e. gravity, are not fact.

[Jello]

nope. its a stupid question. and yes, the object falling is an observable fact. as is the speed at which it falls, etc. causal explanations for why it falls, i.e. gravity, are not fact.
What? Physicists consider gravity to be fact as do the majority of biologists consider evolution to be fact.

[Jello]

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[miller-time]

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.

[Jello]

the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.
What? Evolution isn't natural selection...:facepalm LOL Gravity is a theory of how objects fall towards one another? This is sad...

[TennesseeFan]

Yes, all the benefits and organization that helps all the 'lesser' people in Third World countries are not contradictions to natural selection at all.

[Jello]

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[boozehound]

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your current conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)
That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover magazine, cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.

[Jello]

look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your current conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)
That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover magazine, cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.
Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.:facepalm
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.

[Jasi]

C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.

[Jello]

C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.
No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.

[boozehound]

Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.:facepalm
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.
No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.

[Jello]

No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.
Look. You made the statement

also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.
I said

Not true
Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.

[boozehound]

No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.
**** you and backpedal it right up your ass. He can call it a fact all he wants, his point is this "in science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Fact is only used in this sense with dealing with nimrods who dont understand scientific terminology properly. In science, fact means the most basic of understandings, observable/measurable data. Now, if you would read the link about this, you would see that the uses like Gould's are not only incredibly rare, but are in direct response to attacks on the "theory" of evolution.

[boozehound]

Look. You made the statement

I said

Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.
can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.

[boozehound]

can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.
since you cant be bothered to click a link.


When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.


The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[18]
Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[1][19]

[Jello]

can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.
No, because I know for an absolute "fact" that you're wrong.

[boozehound]

so, you agree jello, evolution is a fact as laid out under the above criteria?

[Jello]

so, you agree jello, evolution is a fact as laid out under the above criteria?
I accept evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next.
This is a fact.

[boozehound]

No, because I know for an absolute "fact" that you're wrong.
really? SO, he was using it to refer to evolution or gravity as fact? Or he was describing an observational data point? Uhm, no.

Sure, 1% of the time, the term fact means a highly tested and well grounded theory or law. the rest of the time, it means a direct observation. Which, cant actually be made due to our need for sensory perception to perceive or record anything!

Happy now? Jebus, you sure to like to nitpick a point. and thats saying something coming from me.

[Jello]

really? SO, he was using it to refer to evolution or gravity as fact? Or he was describing an observational data point? Uhm, no.

Sure, 1% of the time, the term fact means a highly tested and well grounded theory or law. the rest of the time, it means a direct observation. Which, cant actually be made due to our need for sensory perception to perceive or record anything!

Happy now? Jebus, you sure to like to nitpick a point. and thats saying something coming from me.
So this directly contradicts your original statement.:facepalm

[boozehound]

I accept evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next.
This is a fact.
but you do not accept differential breeding and phenotypic variation in a population drive those changes? Really?

[Jello]

but you do not accept differential breeding and phenotypic variation in a population drive those changes? Really?
That's not evolution... Those are the supposed mechanisms that drive evolution.:facepalm

[Jello]

Booze, I think you're the one that needs to brush up on the terminology.

[Jackass18]

How is it mediocre? Please inform me.

I said everything is mediocre.

[Jello]

I said everything is mediocre.
How is DNA replication mediocre? Answer the question please.

[Jackass18]

How is DNA replication mediocre? Answer the question please.

I said everything is mediocre based upon observation and experience. Why are you trying to make an argument that's not there?

[Jello]

I said everything is mediocre based upon observation and experience. Why are you trying to make an argument that's not there?
Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm

[Jackass18]

Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm

LOL, you're not making any kind of sense and yet I'm the dumbest poster on this board? You have 0 idea of what you're arguing about, and yet you're trying to make some sort of stupidass argument that's not even there, but I'm the dummy? GTFO please. Seriously, you're arguing for the sake of it, but you don't have a clue about what you're even arguing.

[Jello]

LOL, you're not making any kind of sense and yet I'm the dumbest poster on this board? You have 0 idea of what you're arguing about, and yet you're trying to make some sort of stupidass argument that's not even there, but I'm the dummy? GTFO please. Seriously, you're arguing for the sake of it, but you don't have a clue about what you're even arguing.
Explain to me how DNA replication is shoddy and mediocre and stop playing with words.

[Jackass18]

I was going off on a bit of a tangent and not specifically calling out 'DNA replication'. I'm talking about all of 'God's work'. If this is all God's work, then he made some shoddy products and a mediocre universe. According to the OP, God has such attributes as: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but this is what we have? All these flaws in a ****ed up world? Couldn't he have done better? What, did you want me to comment about mutation? If the process (DNA replication) is near perfect as they say it is, then in comparison to most things it's not shoddy, but I guess you were just looking to nitpick about something.

[Jello]

I was going off on a bit of a tangent and not specifically calling out 'DNA replication'. I'm talking about all of 'God's work'. If this is all God's work, then he made some shoddy products and a mediocre universe. According to the OP, God has such attributes as: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but this is what we have? All these flaws in a ****ed up world? Couldn't he have done better? What, did you want me to comment about mutation? If the process (DNA replication) is near perfect as they say it is, then in comparison to most things it's not shoddy, but I guess you were just looking to nitpick about something.
No you said that you were generous in calling DNA replication mediocre.

[Jackass18]

No you said that you were generous in calling DNA replication mediocre.

That "it" wasn't referring to something specific like DNA replication, but you can count it in with everything.

[chungerball]

Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm

You are a whiny little b*tch. I hate people like you.

[Jello]

You are a whiny little b*tch. I hate people like you.
Where did I whine? You're the one whining. Idiots on this board can't have an intellectual debate, I see.

[Jackass18]

Insulting everyone is a great way to have an intelligent debate.

[SinJackal]

Bladers has been watching that boring, biased Ben Stein documentary too much.

I love how the religious argument always only tries to attack the logical and researched idea of life, but never try to explain it with anything besides "God did it".

You can't prove something's true by claiming something isn't true. If not A, it's not automatically B. That's the biggest fallacy of all, and it's embarrassing that it's still being argued this way.

It's time to stop trying to "prove" God made life since there's no proof of it at all, there's only speculation. All religious nuts like Bladers can do is do their best to try and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claiming nobody knows 100% for sure how life started, so that it must be God.

We don't completely understand right this second, but how is that proof of a religion that was thought up out of thin air? At least scientific theories are based upon facts that we can see and have researched. Religious arguments are all built upon non-facts, and trying to disprove all evidence against itself 24/7.

Example: Religion didn't want anyone to think the Earth revolved around the Sun. Religion wanted everyone to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that this was a special place designed by God, where everything was designed around us. Clearly this is massively incorrect, and despite religious factions' futile attempts to torture and kill off people who tried to spread this information, we now know what's actually true.

Another example: Evolutionary theory. Here's a big one. Religious factions again fought tooth and nail to disprove this theory. Thankfully religious factions had far less power than they did in the past and couldn't just kill off anyone who tried to spread this information to protect their interests.

With the spread of information now almost completely unchecked, religious belief is at an all time low. Is this a surprise to anybody? Coincidence? Or inevitability?

Now, we have the hilarious altered argument (Bladers even did this in the OP) that evolution exists, but only after God created the first cell. :lol I'm happy to know that the religious argument has failed so hard, and to such a massive extent that their argument is now debased to the final, and lowly argument of, "God made the first cell, you can't prove otherwise!".

That's just pathetic. We can't prove that he didn't any more than you can prove he did. In fact, even if a scientist does create a cell on their own (one of the stupid arguments you made in the OP), you would simply say, see, look, it took an intelligent being to create a cell. When have we seen cells spawn out of nothingness? Until we see that, God made cells!

That's clearly the next step in the religious argument once we do make cells after we develop the means to do so. And at that point we obviously can't witness spontaneous cell production. . .and even by some chance we do, it'll be claimed God did it. You can't prove he didn't!

It's a circle of logic, created to prey upon the ignorant. Religion is built upon countless fallacies. Every religious argument is a fallacy by definition.

In conclusion, to Bladers, and everyone else trying to make people believe in what they have to peddle, we're living in an age where you have to give proof of your argument, you can't just try and debunk another argument then pretend that somehow validates yours. It doesn't.


In the end:

Science: Information.

Religion: Misinformation.

I'll take science, thanks.

[boozehound]

That's not evolution... Those are the supposed mechanisms that drive evolution.:facepalm
and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?

[Jasi]

Bladers has been watching that boring, biased Ben Stein documentary too much.

I love how the religious argument always only tries to attack the logical and researched idea of life, but never try to explain it with anything besides "God did it".

You can't prove something's true by claiming something isn't true. If not A, it's not automatically B. That's the biggest fallacy of all, and it's embarrassing that it's still being argued this way.

It's time to stop trying to "prove" God made life since there's no proof of it at all, there's only speculation. All religious nuts like Bladers can do is do their best to try and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claiming nobody knows 100% for sure how life started, so that it must be God.

We don't completely understand right this second, but how is that proof of a religion that was thought up out of thin air? At least scientific theories are based upon facts that we can see and have researched. Religious arguments are all built upon non-facts, and trying to disprove all evidence against itself 24/7.

Example: Religion didn't want anyone to think the Earth revolved around the Sun. Religion wanted everyone to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that this was a special place designed by God, where everything was designed around us. Clearly this is massively incorrect, and despite religious factions' futile attempts to torture and kill off people who tried to spread this information, we now know what's actually true.

Another example: Evolutionary theory. Here's a big one. Religious factions again fought tooth and nail to disprove this theory. Thankfully religious factions had far less power than they did in the past and couldn't just kill off anyone who tried to spread this information to protect their interests.

With the spread of information now almost completely unchecked, religious belief is at an all time low. Is this a surprise to anybody? Coincidence? Or inevitability?

Now, we have the hilarious altered argument (Bladers even did this in the OP) that evolution exists, but only after God created the first cell. :lol I'm happy to know that the religious argument has failed so hard, and to such a massive extent that their argument is now debased to the final, and lowly argument of, "God made the first cell, you can't prove otherwise!".

That's just pathetic. We can't prove that he didn't any more than you can prove he did. In fact, even if a scientist does create a cell on their own (one of the stupid arguments you made in the OP), you would simply say, see, look, it took an intelligent being to create a cell. When have we seen cells spawn out of nothingness? Until we see that, God made cells!

That's clearly the next step in the religious argument once we do make cells after we develop the means to do so. And at that point we obviously can't witness spontaneous cell production. . .and even by some chance we do, it'll be claimed God did it. You can't prove he didn't!

It's a circle of logic, created to prey upon the ignorant. Religion is built upon countless fallacies. Every religious argument is a fallacy by definition.

In conclusion, to Bladers, and everyone else trying to make people believe in what they have to peddle, we're living in an age where you have to give proof of your argument, you can't just try and debunk another argument then pretend that somehow validates yours. It doesn't.


In the end:

Science: Information.

Religion: Misinformation.

I'll take science, thanks.

This post is consistent.

The only problem is that it's based on a false assumption.

Religion (or at least the Catholic one - that I think you are referring to when writing) doesn't refute the theory of evolution at all. The Vatican has accepted the theory of evolution long ago.
It's really crazy how you Americans are so busy with this false debate on evolution, whereas in Rome they have solved it years and years ago.

The debate is actually on a completely different field, whereas you seem to think that somehow the Roman Church still states that man was made out of mud...?!

You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol

[rufuspaul]

and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?

Booze check your PMs.


Oh and organized religion is the root of all the world's problems......blah blah blah.

[rufuspaul]

You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol

No we just have the ones that like to touch you, you know, there.

Seriously the Catholic Church in the US is not even involved in any debate on evolution.

[Jasi]

No we just have the ones that like to touch you, you know, there.

Seriously the Catholic Church in the US is not even involved in any debate on evolution.

So why does this topic come out regularly in the US (not only on ISH, I mean)?
Seen from here, it really seems like a topical issue.
Seriously, that has always puzzled me.

Who doesn't accept the theory of evolution in the US?
Is this group big enough for other groups (atheists, Catholics, actually every group I can think of) to even care?

[rufuspaul]

So why does this topic come out regularly in the US (not only on ISH, I mean)?
Seen from here, it really seems like a topical issue.
Seriously, that has always puzzled me.

Who doesn't accept the theory of evolution in the US?
Is this group big enough for other groups (atheists, Catholics, actually every group I can think of) to even care?

Because Christianity in the US is dominated at the moment by a number of evangelical sects, ie the Southern Baptist Association, along with numerous mega churches that don't have any type of hierarchy and sort of make the rules up themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that but evolution has been a target of a lot of them and it really doesn't make them look all that smart.

[boozehound]

This post is consistent.

The only problem is that it's based on a false assumption.

Religion (or at least the Catholic one - that I think you are referring to when writing) doesn't refute the theory of evolution at all. The Vatican has accepted the theory of evolution long ago.
It's really crazy how you Americans are so busy with this false debate on evolution, whereas in Rome they have solved it years and years ago.

The debate is actually on a completely different field, whereas you seem to think that somehow the Roman Church still states that man was made out of mud...?!

You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol
the catholic church in the US supports the papal bull acknowledging evolution and biblical belief are consistent. Although there may be individual priests who present different view, I would imagine that they are told to shut it pretty quick.

ALmost every major organized religion in the US has issued a statement acknowledging that evolution and their faith are compatible. Its really just a fringe (but a really large one, kind of like one of those buckskin jackets) of "bible" churches/evangelicals that are rabidly anti-evolution/science. Unfortunately, they are in place on schoolboards all across the country, with an agenda to introduce their religious view into the science curriculum. Sad really, when Xtians talk about being oppressed in this country because they cant force everyone to publicly pray in the classroom. Ill show you oppression!

[rufuspaul]

the catholic church in the US supports the papal bull acknowledging evolution and biblical belief are consistent. Although there may be individual priests who present different view, I would imagine that they are told to shut it pretty quick.

ALmost every major organized religion in the US has issued a statement acknowledging that evolution and their faith are compatible. Its really just a fringe (but a really large one, kind of like one of those buckskin jackets) of "bible" churches/evangelicals that are rabidly anti-evolution/science. Unfortunately, they are in place on schoolboards all across the country, with an agenda to introduce their religious view into the science curriculum. Sad really, when Xtians talk about being oppressed in this country because they cant force everyone to publicly pray in the classroom. Ill show you oppression!

This. And that's the rub for Christians like myself. We tend to get lumped into this group because they are so vocal atm.

[Jasi]

Uh so it's the Evangelicals?
Wow.
I didn't know they were that big.
Thanks for the info!

[boozehound]

Because Christianity in the US is dominated at the moment by a number of evangelical sects, ie the Southern Baptist Association, along with numerous mega churches that don't have any type of hierarchy and sort of make the rules up themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that but evolution has been a target of a lot of them and it really doesn't make them look all that smart.
the baptist's (at least the national org) have a statement about evolution as well.

and yes, evangelicals/biblers are important in the US (even though its maybe 20 million people IIRC) because they vote as a block and run for local offices such as school board. GWB doesnt get elected in 2000 without the block support of these groups. of course, then the head of the national organization was caught buggering other dudes. but that doesnt matter right? As long as we get a fundamentally unscientific view taught in science classes, god will forgive all buttbuggery.

[boozehound]

Uh so it's the Evangelicals?
Wow.
I didn't know they were that big.
Thanks for the info!
they may not all identify as such, but the national evangelical congress? is a big part of it. Basically people who are xtian, but dont have a denomination. born againers, "bible" churches, evangelicals and so forth.


they spread so much mis-information about evolution (both the process as well as the various records of it) that a great deal of more casual people also buy into it. "Jimbo says evolution means there is no god. well, i believe in god, so evolution must be full of it." I bet 90% of those people polled who dont "believe" in evolution couldnt explain a single aspect of the theory, geologic record, embryology, etc.

[rufuspaul]

of course, then the head of the national organization was caught buggering other dudes. but that doesnt matter right? As long as we get a fundamentally unscientific view taught in science classes, god will forgive all buttbuggery.


That would be funny if it weren't true.:facepalm

[Jello]

and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?
You implied that I didn't accept those mechanisms, when we were talking about differentiating facts(evolution) and theories that attempt to explain evolution(natural selection, non-random differential breeding, etc). Those mechanisms are theories that attempt to explain how the fact of evolution occurs.

[Jello]

People debate with neg reps on this board.:oldlol: