Notices
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 497

Thread: 7 Fatal Flaws of Evolution

  1. #201  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    I read somewhere that there was speculation that some of the Ediacarian lifeforms may represent another division of life.
    They were most likely Eukarya from their size, whether they were of a different kingdom than animalia or plantae is debateable. There aren't many paleontologist that work with pre-Cambrian fossils.
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Wow archy. Hatred, liar, unethical, ... Lots of tough words.

    Take a deep breath. I am still waiting for an answer as to why Gen 1:30 says evolution is impossible.
    okay, I remember he did admit he made a mistake and quoted the wrong verse, the harping on him for it is getting old. IIRC he said he meant to cite Gen 2:1
    I'm looking for that post now
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    thank you to whomever restored the thread title. i will say no more on the act and let it be forgotten.
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I certainly could have missed something in the volume of the posting in this thread. My intention is not to go for a particular verse of the bible, but rather to get an explanation for why the bible denies evolution as claimed by archy.

    This is Gen 2:1-3

    001: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
    002: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
    003: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

    This says to me that God finished his work in 6 days and rested on the 7th. It does not tell me about future creations.
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    of course you would but if you read verse one you would see the word 'finished' meaning that evolution cannot exist, because the work was done in 6 days not millions of years.

    there are NO future creations.
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    granted, but I feel it necessary to state that it says nothing about mutation, something we know to exist. mutation is change, and is NOT what god made. can you account for that in the bible?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  7. #207  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    So I been sitting here for days waiting for you to say

    Here is Gen 1:29-31
    029: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    030: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    031: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    and
    001: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
    002: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
    003: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
    and the word finished means that no more creation can happen.

    Wow. Been waiting for maybe a week to hear that. Just wow is all I can say.

    No wait a minute. The word finished is in the sentence that says heaven and earth are finished. and right there in Gen 1:30 it mentions birds, beast, the creepeth things, and herbs upon the earth.

    So why are these that are not heaven and earth covered by your claim?
     

  8. #208  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    don't see your problem. the Bible is quite clear.
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    hokie said:

    So if you do not want ancestors to exist then you have to invoke creation many times over the history of the earth
    .

    You are correct that we do not get to choose our relatives. However, the Bible does sort of follow a creation pattern similar to evolution.

    The third day of creation talks about the creation of plant life. I cannot explain why the creation of the sun and the moon are depicted on the fourth day. Lower animals are mentioned on the fifth day while what we consider higher animals are created on the sixth day along with humanity.

    So the Bible chronology is plants, lower animal life forms (fishes and birds and maybe reptiles mentioned there too) followed by the higher life forms of mammals. (Unfortunately Moses apparently thought whales were fish.)
    .
    Unless you are insisting on 24-hour days, I see no reason these periods of time could not be spread out over several millenia in such a way that God could have created things in a progression similar to what evolution predicts.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    don't see your problem. the Bible is quite clear.
    I can read. The bible says nothing about evolution.

    Now please explain to me why the bible is clear and how. Just because I can't see it does not mean that I can't understand. Please take the time to explain yourself.
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    don't see your problem. the Bible is quite clear.
    Can you please explain to me then, Archy, how it is that the planet has changed since creation? it is something that people have observed across millennium. read the origin of species, Darwin watches change in the Galapagos after an earthquake. how does that happen if creation was 'finished'?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  12. #212  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Thanks for the post Dayton. Hope you aren't castigated for your comments on the durations.

    What if the durations are not the same length of time. I mean, what if day 1 in the bible is not the same length of what we call time as day 2. I understand that the world translated to day could also mean an indeterminate length of time. So unless creation on a particular day were simultaneous it's possible that creation were spread across time in that day.

    Does this negate the possibility of evolution? My mother's dachshund and my sister's great dane looked so different (and let me tell you they acted so different one could have been an alien from who knows where!) but were all canines. I have been unable to find anything that suggests that this process was prevented from proceeding to other wondrous creatures.
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Cross Breeding! how does genesis account for that?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  14. #214  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    I'm not sure if this observation qualifies as a fatal flaw for evolution or a fatal flaw in the way creationists have been reading their textbook.

    The 24 hour period of one earth day is governed by the rotation of the sun, however there appears to have been no sun until it was introduced on day 4.

    So at the very least, it makes perfect sense (maybe even to a religionist), that the first three days had no defining 24 hr. period. Therefore they could have been thousands, millions or billions of years in the making.

    Indeed, they could each have been differing lengths of time.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Thanks for the input Apopohis Reject, but look back a few post and get ready for archy's response.
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Perhaps God created the simulation and running the simulation produced us. In other words, perhaps both sides are right. The evidence against creationism keeps stacking up, that however doesn't rule out a creator, only the time frame to which people think things happen.

    I think we are just so arrogant that we have to assume God created the heavens and earth for us. Perhaps we are just a byproduct of an ongoing experiment, or as I like to see it a simulation. We also seam to think that billions of years is a long time, perhaps that is a mere blink of an eye to the creator. The big bang may actually be correct, the creator may have started everything out that way with the laws of physics to guide the end results. Let it all run and see what happens. It would even explain predictions of the future. Let it run, see what happens and then introduce some new variables. Perhaps give a few the ability to see what will happen based on what did happen to see if changes are made.

    Just a thought.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I think we are just so arrogant that we have to assume God created the heavens and earth for us
    Who said he did it only for us? He did it for Himself first because He wanted to and that lets you know that you are wanted.

    Just a thought.
    yet God would not be needed if he let things run randomly and how would he win people to Himself if He did not do it the way he said in Genesis? He would appear to be something not worth believing in and following for he could not control His own work. With Genesis you have no doubt that He can defeat evil, He can solve your problems, give you strength to make it through the tough times and so on

    You have to see the bigger picture here, not limit yourselves to what you want to see.
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The 24 hour period of one earth day is governed by the rotation of the sun, however there appears to have been no sun until it was introduced on day 4.
    yet rome survived until a new caesar was elected, what is your point? the 24 hour day does not rest upon the sun and the moon, they are just the objects placed in charge of the process.

    So at the very least, it makes perfect sense (maybe even to a religionist), that the first three days had no defining 24 hr. period. Therefore they could have been thousands, millions or billions of years in the making
    wrong assumption for you do not grasp how light works or how God created. last i heard, light does not need the sun to exist and i am checking onthat right now to verify.

    but your assumption is wrong as the qualifying words 'and evening and morning ...' tells us that it indeed was 24 hour days being described even before the sun was created.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6010046AAttB8e

    [url]http://www.truthnet.org/Genesis/Genesis-Chapter1/Genesis-Chapter-1-Creation-of-Universe.htm http://{scroll down}<br /> <br /> <d...</div> </div>
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    just fyi, no, light is not necessitated by the sun. It IS, however, necessary to have a source, and light most often comes from a high kinetic source (e.g. a star). for earth, the only place we know of to get light, in any substantial sense, is either a star or one of our own creation. beyond those, the only otherl sources are vague and non-lasting.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  20. #220  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    are kids a different species?
    think about it:
    1. they're shorter than us.
    2. they are not able to reproduce.
    3. they have inferior mental capabilities.
    4. they make different sounds from us..

    i mean, how is it possible for kids to evolve into grownups?
    i say it isn't possible.
    how can something so small become as big as us?
    and there's no evidence to prove the transitional form between child and grownup either.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Before you have a light source as the sun, moon and stars, you need to have existence of light. Light is a source of electro-magnetic energy, God’s word energized the principals of light which operate in the universe. Our eyes are designed to see a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, our eyes are finally tuned to collect these light waves, and then through intricate wiring these images are transferred to our brain.

    Without this unique development, we would not even be aware of the existence of light, light is more then we can see, what we see is a small portion. God’s word separates the creation of the physical properties of light, from the light source (the fourth day).
    A few flaws in this statement.
    1. Light is electromagnetic, not a source of
    2. The electromagnetic spectrum can be detected without eyes being sable to detect it so the claim that "we would not even be aware of the existence" is demonstrably wrong

    There are many scientific flaws on the truth net page linked to by archy.

    For example it states "Waves are typically rapid back and forth movements" right after discussing EM. EM waves are transverse, not longitudinal as described here.

    I looked up Genesis and reviewed the truth net org page and I see that the bible never mentions rotation. There is no mention of the earth turning. Yet it seems that an important part of the 24 hour claim is that the earth was turning at some point.
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Apopo said:

    The 24 hour period of one earth day is governed by the rotation of the sun, however there appears to have been no sun until it was introduced on day 4.
    Hate to be a stickler for details, but science is somewhat exacting when citing details. The 24-hour period of one earth day is governed by the rotation of the Earth, not the Sun.

    The idea that the sun and moon were not introduced until day four after at least plant life already existed is a very perplexing aspect of the Genesis creation story in view of the fact that the plant process of photosynthesis is dependent upon sunlight. However, the Genesis story does say that God created light on the very first day so it is not as though the Earth was in total darkness until the fourth day.

    One can only speculate the possibility that verse four, despite seeming equal play to both, is focused on the Moon rather than the Sun since science believes the Moon was a Johnny-come-lately in our solar system.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Cross Breeding! how does genesis account for that?
    monohybrid or dihybrid crossing? plz add more detai, so i can understand what you trying to say.

    And archy thanks for your thread.


    ooo...i think the irst flaw , suggesting that after millions of years later life started to creep out of nowhere is well.. (worng).

    the theroy was, we were amino acids in a pool and due to radiation we started to develop complex cells. then mitosis/meiosis crap..( this just my background knoweldge)
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
     

  24. #224  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    However, the Bible does sort of follow a creation pattern similar to evolution.
    here is where dayton and many others make their mistake. the think the Biblical writers copied from or followed secular sources which would just be wrong. first, the Bible was written long before the evolutionary theory was even proposed thus it was darwin and company who have constructed their ideas AFTER the Biblical writings not vice versa.

    second, this shows the dception of those who support the evolutionary way. they have to make the theory attractive enough to unwary believers tus they construct it to look similar to what those people already believe.

    it is basically a trap and it looks like dayton has fallen into it.


    The third day of creation talks about the creation of plant life. I cannot explain why the creation of the sun and the moon are depicted on the fourth day
    as my source said, you need the light before you can have the object that rules it. just like the r.c.c when they elect a pope. the church is already in existence, it did not come into being upon the election of its ruler.

    the same for light. light had to exist before the ruler was made. one cannotbe a ruler when there is nothing to rule.

    So the Bible chronology is plants, lower animal life forms (fishes and birds and maybe reptiles mentioned there too) followed by the higher life forms of mammals. (Unfortunately Moses apparently thought whales were fish.)
    apparantly, you are NOT reading what scripture says and assume that God created according to your categories. 1:20 says: Let the water teem with living creatures...' and 1:24 says 'let the land produce living creatures...'

    so of course whales would be included in with other fish because they live in the water.

    A few flaws in this statement.
    i am still searching on this topic and may start another thread here as i do not want to venture into the science forums for this limited topic.

    There are many scientific flaws on the truth net page linked to by archy.
    right now it is just a link for information, i did not say it was a definitive link. fel free to post better ones that are honest.
     

  25. #225  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    here is where dayton and many others make their mistake. the think the Biblical writers copied from or followed secular sources which would just be wrong. first, the Bible was written long before the evolutionary theory was even proposed thus it was darwin and company who have constructed their ideas AFTER the Biblical writings not vice versa.
    The bible was written anywhere between 50 ad and 400 ad. Long after the start of the universe, would you not agree?

    Or did Adam write the bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    second, this shows the dception of those who support the evolutionary way.
    Only if you can provide proof that the bible was written before nature was first observed?

    Otherwise your point is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    they have to make the theory attractive enough to unwary believers tus they construct it to look similar to what those people already believe.
    Yes, it's all a conspiracy...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is basically a trap and it looks like dayton has fallen into it.
    Aha. Naturally.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as my source said, you need the light before you can have the object that rules it.
    Scared of the dark, are we? Hehe.

    Does this mean that, in the dark, you cease to exist?

    Or are you refering to pair production of particles from photons?

    Or, as I somewhat suspect, do you have no idea what you're talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    just like the r.c.c when they elect a pope. the church is already in existence, it did not come into being upon the election of its ruler.
    Wow. Talk about obscure metaphors.

    So matter is the ruler of light? Interesting idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the same for light. light had to exist before the ruler was made. one cannotbe a ruler when there is nothing to rule.
    Erm... Now you're suggesting light predates god are you? So light predates something that made light, and has always existed?

    When you try and think about the logic behind some religious ideas, it makes no sense at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    apparantly, you are NOT reading what scripture says and assume that God created according to your categories. 1:20 says: Let the water teem with living creatures...' and 1:24 says 'let the land produce living creatures...'
    Well, that's it proved then...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    so of course whales would be included in with other fish because they live in the water.
    And bats with birds the same?

    This god fellow doesn't seem to be that inteligent.

    Or, if he categorises them differently, where did our method of categorisation come from? Since god aparantly knows everything...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am still searching on this topic and may start another thread here as i do not want to venture into the science forums for this limited topic.
    Rightly so; there is no science behind anything you say.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Disputing Archaeologists 7 fatal flaws with one youtube video...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQ1CzlMuXk
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Archy said:

    here is where dayton and many others make their mistake. the think the Biblical writers copied from or followed secular sources which would just be wrong
    I hardly think so. Moses wrote Genesis some 1,500 years BC, more than 3,000 years before Darwin's writings gave credence to evolution. So, in what way can you possible claim that I think Moses copied Darwin. If anything, Moses recorded this progression long before evolution predicted it. This is a perfect example of your idiocy.

    Drowsy Turtle said:

    The bible was written anywhere between 50 ad and 400 ad. Long after the start of the universe, would you not agree?
    This shows a stupidity equal or surpassing that of Archy. Such asininity is equally as reprehensible as anything Archy says. Some of the extent documents have been carbon dated to 100 BC and they had to have been written before that. Or does carbon dating work only on fossils?

    With these two it is difficult to figure out who represents ignorance, misinformation and disinformation the best. I guess it is equal opportunity -- both sides have their retards.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  28. #228  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Way to go Dayton - get everyone on your side.
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I hardly think so. Moses wrote Genesis some 1,500 years BC, more than 3,000 years before Darwin's writings gave credence to evolution. So, in what way can you possible claim that I think Moses copied Darwin. If anything, Moses recorded this progression long before evolution predicted it. This is a perfect example of your idiocy.
    ionstead of insulting someone, why not ask a simple question 'are you sure you read it correctly?' would go a lot further than 'your idiocy'. if moses wrote it long before darwin constructed the theory then 'evolution' did not 'predict' it.

    suffice it to say that the secular world does the copying from scriptures.

    With these two it is difficult to figure out who represents ignorance, misinformation and disinformation the best. I guess it is equal opportunity -- both sides have their retards.
    daytons' post proves my statement in the other thread. such name calling is uncalled for and way out of line.
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Both Dayton and Arch are right on points. Both sides of this discussion can be incredibly ignorant, foolish, and believe themselves to absolutely correct, disregarding what anyone else says. BUT, as Arch pointed out, the whole name calling and blatant attack on people isn't really necessary, it's not nice and it just gives them 1 more thing to complain about. I do agree with Dayton here, though.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  31. #231  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Archy said:

    ionstead of insulting someone, why not ask a simple question 'are you sure you read it correctly?' would go a lot further than 'your idiocy'. if moses wrote it long before darwin constructed the theory then 'evolution' did not 'predict' it.
    Evolution is not really a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question. I am sure that evolutionists did not develop their progression of the development of life based on the Bible and felt certain they were coming to this astounding "discovery" completely out of the blue. Is the fact that evolution and the Bible follow similar patterns purely a coincidence or perhaps because that's the way things went?

    It would be stupid for anyone to ask you if you thought you read it correctly. Like many of the non-believers posting here, you have a serious problem with being able to differentiate between facts and opinions; between conjecture and valid conclusions.

    So let me ask this Archy: If it came down to a circumstance where you needed brain surgery (some think that would not be a bad idea right now), would you want a surgeon whose only training was from reading the Bible or would you prefer a surgeon who had a medical degree, a residency and experience in brain surgery?

    The thing you seem unable to understand is that the Bible is not a science text. There is nothing in the Bible that is ever going to teach anyone anything about science. It is the story of the spiritual relationship between God and His created beings. It discusses some aspects of our relationships in the physical world and makes some observations about our physical world, but mostly the Bible tells us how we can know God exists and have a spiritual relationship with Him. It is also somewhat instructive on interpersonal relationships. It is summed up in the one great law: "Love God with all your soul and all your heart and all your mind; love your neighbor as much as you love yourself."

    For the most part, there is very little controversy between science and the Bible until someone decides that one, in some way, is a commentary on the other, or uses one to try to disprove the other.

    When it comes to evolution and Genesis, neither one disproves the other and the problems arise when one faction or the other tries to show how they conflict.

    The only real questions are: Did God create and, if so, to what degree did God create? Did God create a single-celled life form and build on that to produce the diversity of life which has inhabited our planet. Certainly, the Genesis story does not preclude or insist on that possibility. Or, when it says he created animals according to their "kind," does that mean he created life at some other levels of the taxonomy charts? The Bible does not preclude or insist on that possibility.

    Science has not answered these questions, either, even though a lot of people are more than willing to jump to conclusions based on incomplete information.

    What you don't seem to realize is that the first five of your listed "seven fatal flaws" exist independent of the Bible. The Bible in no way addresses these questions, they are about the meanings of the evidence we have before us which the Bible does not even comment on other than to say "God dunit."

    Morality is only tangently related to the Bible in that the Bible tells us some of the behaviors God approves of and some which he disapproves giving us examples from which we should be able to figure out the propriety of other behaviors. Societies which have developed without the benefit of the Bible have adopted similar assessments of behaviors as being socially productive or counterproductive. But it is also only tangently related to science in that it relates to the way in which we use science. An atom bomb is neither moral nor immoral, only its use comes under moral scrutiny. Behaviors produce moral questions.

    The final "flaw" has absolutely nothing to do with evolution but is an opposite internally conflicted statement akin to those often used by atheists. It is basically the argument that if what you don't believe is true then what you believe is untrue. To which I must say to you, as I do them -- Welllllll duhhhhhhh. You cannot use that which you don't believe as proof of what you believe.

    You seemingly fail to comprehend that if aspects of evolutionary theory are wrong, it is because they are wrong on their own merits, not because the Bible is right. If you want to argue against evolution, argue against the evolutionists' interpretations of the evidence and/or the lack thereof.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  32. #232  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So let me ask this Archy: If it came down to a circumstance where you needed brain surgery (some think that would not be a bad idea right now), would you want a surgeon whose only training was from reading the Bible or would you prefer a surgeon who had a medical degree, a residency and experience in brain surgery?
    Surely prayer alone could heal any illness?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  33. #233  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    It would be stupid for anyone to ask you if you thought you read it correctly. Like many of the non-believers posting here, you have a serious problem with being able to differentiate between facts and opinions; between conjecture and valid conclusions
    just like MM, dayton does personal attacks when shown he is in error concerning his beliefs about science and his faith. people seem to want to have the best of both worlds and with God that is just impossible. you have to choose--either you believe God or you don't.

    So let me ask this Archy: If it came down to a circumstance where you needed brain surgery (some think that would not be a bad idea right now), would you want a surgeon whose only training was from reading the Bible or would you prefer a surgeon who had a medical degree, a residency and experience in brain surgery?
    this is another common analogy used by those who do not believe in attempts to justify their disobedience to God. It is a compeltely absurd formof thinking, meant to distort the reality and uses the typical evolutionist strategy of comparing apples and oranges.

    it demonstrates the levels of ridiculousness they are willing to go to prove their lies. 1. he manipulates the answer by presenting stupid choices. between an untrained person adn a trained one. he would have appeared more intelligent and credible if he asked- would you want a bible believing surgeon witha medical degree or a secular surgeon with a medical degree. that would have been the proper way to ask this question. yet he shows his fear by presenting idiotic opitons because he knows people would most likely choose the former and he would lose his argument.

    2. origins of life is NOT a scientific nor natural field. IT IS A SUPERNATURAL one and scientists are NOT trained in the supernatural so i would choose to go with the person trained in the supernatural not the one who was trained to omit it fromhis studies and experiments.

    in this case the secular scientist is equal to dayton's untrained bible reading surgeon in his question and the christian is the properly trained surgeon. so to answer his question i would never go with the secular scientist when dealing with the Bible, God, origins or any other supernaturtal event that has taken place--they are untrained and unqualified to deal with those issues.

    3. it is people like dayton and evolutionists who always go to the unrealistic to justify their bad choices and do not get beneath the surface and look for the reality. their desire is to do what they want not what God wants and that leads them astray.

    When it comes to evolution and Genesis, neither one disproves the other and the problems arise when one faction or the other tries to show how they conflict.
    Genesis and the rest of the Bible does disprove evolution, it is a matter of choice not science. We have the evidence happening every day for creation none for evolution.
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So let me ask this Archy: If it came down to a circumstance where you needed brain surgery (some think that would not be a bad idea right now), would you want a surgeon whose only training was from reading the Bible or would you prefer a surgeon who had a medical degree, a residency and experience in brain surgery?
    Surely prayer alone could heal any illness?
    mm you do know this medical degree "doctor" can kill you during sugery and if surgery don't work then prayer is the other result.

    also i do not find your statement funny.

    more than 3 billion religious ppl seem to be wrong and your majority of thousands are right ... now that funny

    Can natural selection explain why we have morality and a lion or tiger doesn't or from the start of us humans walking on earth we started seeking a "GOD".
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    more than 3 billion religious ppl seem to be wrong and your majority of thousands is right ... now that funny
    99% of the world also thought that the world was flat and the center of the universe. Two hundred years ago, no one knew anything of DNA. Infact, no one knew anything of heredity either. DNA was not known. 1000 years ago, no one knew that bacteria existed. Simply because there is a majority on the situation does not mean they are RIGHT. Infact, in this case, the majority is WRONG.
    And prayer has never been known to work.. People have done studies and prayer has done jack shit.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    more than 3 billion religious ppl seem to be wrong and your majority of thousands is right ... now that funny
    99% of the world also thought that the world was flat and the center of the universe. Two hundred years ago, no one knew anything of DNA. Infact, no one knew anything of heredity either. DNA was not known. 1000 years ago, no one knew that bacteria existed. Simply because there is a majority on the situation does not mean they are RIGHT. Infact, in this case, the majority is WRONG.
    And prayer has never been known to work.. People have done studies and prayer has done jack shit.
    oo... so Zulus knew the earth was flat , about 90% of humans at that knew nothing about the earth the had better things to think about. the 10/ 20 % were explores who thought the earth was flat(mostly Westerners and perhaps Arabs), unless you think 99% of humans account for white people. example: in one of Sinbad movies, he traveled to the end (edge in other terms)of the world to get a magic object,

    so non-religious people have done studies on prayer , by asking god if he can make the sun vanish or re-create the earth . before the scientist thought of making experiments on prayer to see if it worked they would have already failed due to their unbelief or faith in a GOD
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    What about the studies done by godless scientists that evaluated believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Or, what about the studies done by believers who evaluated other believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Prayer doesn't work.
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    What about the studies done by godless scientists that evaluated believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Or, what about the studies done by believers who evaluated other believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Prayer doesn't work.
    am i suppose to believe you a nonbeliever because you said so..

    studies than on prayer from people who prayed to god but had no answers probally did not know what prayer is.

    you do not pray to god because you want a new bike or PlayStation. it used to widen one's faith
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
     

  39. #239  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I kinda forgot about Gods servant. He makes even less sense than archaeologist, if that can be possible.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  40. #240  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So let me ask this Archy: If it came down to a circumstance where you needed brain surgery (some think that would not be a bad idea right now), would you want a surgeon whose only training was from reading the Bible or would you prefer a surgeon who had a medical degree, a residency and experience in brain surgery?
    Surely prayer alone could heal any illness?
    mm you do know this medical degree "doctor" can kill you during sugery
    Your point is....?

    Water can kill you, should I stop drinking it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    and if surgery don't work then prayer is the other result.
    Worth a try on the off-chance I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    also i do not find your statement funny.
    Ah well. I'm sure you could have surgery to have your sense of humour corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    more than 3 billion religious ppl seem to be wrong and your majority of thousands are right ... now that funny
    Absolutely hilarious.

    As I've pointed out numerous times, popularity of a theory does not affect it's credibility, nor whether it is true.

    Incidentally, I am not closed to religion. If given reason to accept the existance of a god, I would. But I still wouldn't open myself to a life of pointless servitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Can natural selection explain why we have morality and a lion or tiger doesn't or from the start of us humans walking on earth we started seeking a "GOD".
    Yes, as it happens. Religion encourages communal living between members of a species, and helps justify the killing of those who compete with you.

    Or, another line of thinking; looking back over history, we see theists killing atheists quite a bit. So along these lines, the atheists become wiped out by the theists, so naturally the whole population eventually becomes religious. With the introduction of secular law, however, atheism became accepted by society, and so is now beginning to grow.

    So you see, there's actually a number of reasons why a species would become religious. And you can't prove that lions don't have religion or morals. You just assume that, because your faith tells you they don't.

    Using a chess metaphor; CHECK.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    What about the studies done by godless scientists that evaluated believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Or, what about the studies done by believers who evaluated other believers who prayed for others and found no benefit?

    Prayer doesn't work.
    am i suppose to believe you a nonbeliever because you said so..
    No. Don't believe me. I'm not really all that smart or knowledgeable. I would say check the publications at the bottom and see what they had to say. Some of them were religious adherents seeking to show a correlation. They failed.

    studies than on prayer from people who prayed to god but had no answers probally did not know what prayer is.
    Cop out answer. Not worth the photons it was typed on.

    you do not pray to god because you want a new bike or PlayStation. it used to widen one's faith
    I don't pray to a god for anything. Why waste my time on a fool's errand?

    References:

    Benson H., J. A. Dusek, J. B. Sherwood, P. Lam, C. F. Bethea, et al. (2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer." American Heart Journal 151(4), 934-42.

    Bishop, Jeffrey P., and Victor J. Stenger. (2004). "Retroactive Prayer: Lots of History,
    Not Much Mystery, and No Science." British Medical Journal 329, 1444-46.

    Byrd, Randolph C. (1988). "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population." Southern Medical Journal 81(7), 826-29.

    Cha, K. Y, D. P. Wirth, and R. A. Lobo (September 2001). "Does Prayer Influence the Success
    of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial." Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46(9), 781-87.

    Flamm, Bruce L. (2002) "Faith Healing by Prayer." Review of "Does Prayer Influence the Success of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial," by K. Y. Cha, D. P. Wirth, and R. A. Lobo, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 6(1), 47-50.

    Harris, W. S., M. Gowda, J. W. Kolb, C. P. Strychacz, J. L. Vacek, P. G. Jones, A. Forker, J. H. O'Keefe, and B. D. McCallister (1999). "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit." Archives of Internal Medicine 159, 2273-78.
     

  42. #242  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    more than 3 billion religious ppl seem to be wrong and your majority of thousands is right ... now that funny
    99% of the world also thought that the world was flat and the center of the universe. Two hundred years ago, no one knew anything of DNA. Infact, no one knew anything of heredity either. DNA was not known. 1000 years ago, no one knew that bacteria existed. Simply because there is a majority on the situation does not mean they are RIGHT. Infact, in this case, the majority is WRONG.
    And prayer has never been known to work.. People have done studies and prayer has done jack shit.
    this is just wrong.


    What about the studies done by godless scientists that evaluated believers who prayed for others and found no benefit
    i could explain this to you but your attitude and heart are not ready for the answer.

    though i will cite one example. back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy.

    Prayer works and it reveals God. people may not get the answers they want all the time but that is becuas eGod has the right to decide to answer or not. like a parent he does not grant all desires.

    heart attitudes play a part in the equation as well.

    question: do you really expect unbelieving people to grasp or be shown how prayer works when they do not believe in the recipient of those prayers?

    you could do all the studies you want and if there were answers guess what, just like evolutionary decisions, the researchers choose the worng answer. they might say--it was coincidence or something similar.
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    Ok, this guy HAS to be a troll.. Its a 50% chance that the baby is either a boy or girl! It was a coincidence!

    Jeese you're a moron!
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I am aware of the studies to which SkinWalker refers.

    My recollection is that they found that among people who did not know they were being prayed for, there was no measurable difference between their healing and people who were not being prayed for.

    When it came to patients who prayed or knew they were being prayed for, there was a slight, but measurable, more positive result.

    This led to the conclusion that prayer, in and of itself, had no effect, but the awareness of prayer apparently had some positive effect on attitude which is considered an aid in healing.

    This would be in keeping with the idea that prayer is about changing the person, not about conning God into doing something. Prayer is about getting the person to agree with God, not about getting God to agree with the person.

    Prayer usually works on this wise: the more you praise God for, the more you find to praise Him for; the more you thank God for, the more you find to thank him for; the more agree with God on, the more you find to agree with Him on; the more you ask of Him within his will, the more you come to understand His will.

    The opposite is also true: the more you curse God, the more you will find to curse him for; the more you blame God, the more you will find to blame Him for; the more you disagree with God on, the more you will find to disagree about; the more you ask for things out of his will, the more you think prayer is unsuccessful.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Actually, in the study conducted by the religious researcher (funded by the Templeton Foundation if memory serves), it was found that cardiac patients that knew they were being prayed for did worse, though only slightly.
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    archy said:
    this is just wrong.
    This is the strongest argument every presented on this forum. It is so convincing, it will probably shut off discussion completely.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Skinwalker said:

    Actually, in the study conducted by the religious researcher (funded by the Templeton Foundation if memory serves), it was found that cardiac patients that knew they were being prayed for did worse, though only slightly.
    I am sure that out of a number of studies, the results are going to vary, especially when the differences are not all that different, anyway. I have read some of the conclusions drawn from some of the studies and I think what I said in my post was based on someone's conclusions based on comparing several studies.

    I could not dispute that a specific study might well show something different from a composite of several studies. If we took the results of only one state's polling, it might well be different from the total vote. Probably if we looked at the results from each state, it would be rare, indeed, for an individual state's percentage results to be the same as the national percentage results as a whole. Not all studies are going to come to the same result.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    When it came to patients who prayed or knew they were being prayed for, there was a slight, but measurable, more positive result.

    This led to the conclusion that prayer, in and of itself, had no effect, but the awareness of prayer apparently had some positive effect on attitude which is considered an aid in healing.
    The term here is placebo effect. It's a very common thing in medicine, and it is proven to improve the likelyhood of healing. A person who is in good spirits, is a lot more likely to give it the extra little bit, if thats all it will take to pull through, which I'm sure is a good benefit of prayer. It gives you something to live for, kind of. So yeah, on that account, I completely agree with you that prayer works. However:
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy.
    THIS is the most asinine thing I've EVER heard as a way to prove not only that prayer works, but that God is real.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  49. #249  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    How is it that a perfect God has created so many imperfect things ? The answer is very simple, the imperfect things are simply doing the imperfect tasks perfectly. We argue that others are flawed in their logic and only the word of God is the correct one. This is true, however the word of God is through everyone, even those you disagree with. You are all doing exactly what you were suppose to do with divine precision. If you refute my statement you are doing so precisely as God intended you to with absolute perfection. This is why God is absolutely perfect.

    Carry on now with your perfectly orchestrated argument over exactly what you were intended to argue about with the precise words God intended. Just remember however to always bring a towel.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Thanks mister Adams...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    When it came to patients who prayed or knew they were being prayed for, there was a slight, but measurable, more positive result.

    This led to the conclusion that prayer, in and of itself, had no effect, but the awareness of prayer apparently had some positive effect on attitude which is considered an aid in healing.

    This would be in keeping with the idea that prayer is about changing the person, not about conning God into doing something. Prayer is about getting the person to agree with God, not about getting God to agree with the person.
    this raises many questions andi wonder if the people involved both those praying and receiving prayers, had any faith in Jesus, were sincere intheir praying and so on.

    this is why you cannot use science to examine christianity or other religions. with christianity there is so much more involved than just saying--- be a part of a study group ---

    this study ignores all those real life participants who had their prayers answered, who have been healed through prayer, who have talked with Jesus and so on. Experience, not experiment is the key and the researchers should have interviewed those people to get a better grasp of what is involved with talking to God and making requests from Him.

    this study, hopefully someone has a link to it so i can get more details, sounds like it is basing its conclusion on limited data and because the researchers did not get what they 'predicted' or asked for concluded that prayer doesn't help. they forgot that God has at least 3 ways to answer and that a 'no' answer does not mean that prayer did not work.

    How is it that a perfect God has created so many imperfect things
    Yet God did not create imperfect things. If you re-read the creation chapter you would see all the times where He said 'and it was good...' in this case the english word 'good' is referring to 'perfect'.

    it was at the fall of man that imperfection, corruption etc. entered the world. it did not enter via God's work.

    We argue that others are flawed in their logic and only the word of God is the correct one.
    this is limited in that it ignores or forgets that people have the help of Christ and the Holy SPirit to make sure they get it right.

    This is true, however the word of God is through everyone, even those you disagree with
    this would be false as there are those who are called false teachers, false prophets and so on. 1 john gives you the description of those who are of God.
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    archie, he was quoting The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy, he wasn't (I hope) being serious. THAT was for comic effect, though, I'm very certain. Made me giggle
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  53. #253  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Yet God did not create imperfect things. If you re-read the creation chapter you would see all the times where He said 'and it was good...' in this case the english word 'good' is referring to 'perfect'.

    it was at the fall of man that imperfection, corruption etc. entered the world. it did not enter via God's work.
    God being perfect is unable to create imperfection, God created all that exists and is incapable of creating imperfection. Imperfection is actually perfection. It is only by the perfection of God that we see it as imperfection. It is still perfection. All that exists having been created by an absolutely perfect God is absolutely perfect.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Yet God did not create imperfect things. If you re-read the creation chapter you would see all the times where He said 'and it was good...' in this case the english word 'good' is referring to 'perfect'.

    it was at the fall of man that imperfection, corruption etc. entered the world. it did not enter via God's work.
    God being perfect is unable to create imperfection, God created all that exists and is incapable of creating imperfection. Imperfection is actually perfection. It is only by the perfection of God that we see it as imperfection. It is still perfection. All that exists having been created by an absolutely perfect God is absolutely perfect.
    Since the eye only works at 20% proficiency, can we conclude that God is not perfect, thus he does not exist?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  55. #255  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    Ok, this guy HAS to be a troll.. Its a 50% chance that the baby is either a boy or girl! It was a coincidence!

    Jeese you're a moron!
    you can read it for yourself, it is recorded n the book, Run Baby Run by nicky cruz.

    God being perfect is unable to create imperfection, God created all that exists and is incapable of creating imperfection. Imperfection is actually perfection. It is only by the perfection of God that we see it as imperfection. It is still perfection. All that exists having been created by an absolutely perfect God is absolutely perfect.
    God didnot create evil nor imperfection thus imperfection is not perfect./
     

  56. #256  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    Ok, this guy HAS to be a troll.. Its a 50% chance that the baby is either a boy or girl! It was a coincidence!

    Jeese you're a moron!
    you can read it for yourself, it is recorded n the book, Run Baby Run by nicky cruz.
    Yeah, but its hardly a miracle, is it? Asking for one outcome out of two, and getting the one you want, when there is a 50.01% chance og getting the desired outcome anyway...

    OK, if there's a god my leg will turn into gold....

    It didn't happen. Clearly no god.


    FYI, how many people, on the other hand, prayed for somethign and never got it? Compared to this one person who got something he, in all likelihood, would have got without any outside forces anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God didnot create evil nor imperfection thus imperfection is not perfect./
    You book of misguiding would disagree.

    According to the bible, god created everything, including light apparantly.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  57. #257  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Yeah, but its hardly a miracle, is it? Asking for one outcome out of two, and getting the one you want, when there is a 50.01% chance og getting the desired outcome anyway...
    I seem to recall a company some years back, who offered to assure the sex of a couple's baby for a fee. They offered a full refund if the 'treatment' was unsuccesful.
     

  58. #258  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Yeah, but its hardly a miracle, is it? Asking for one outcome out of two, and getting the one you want, when there is a 50.01% chance og getting the desired outcome anyway...
    I seem to recall a company some years back, who offered to assure the sex of a couple's baby for a fee. They offered a full refund if the 'treatment' was unsuccesful.
    Brilliant idea!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  59. #259  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this study ignores all those real life participants who had their prayers answered, who have been healed through prayer, who have talked with Jesus and so on. Experience, not experiment is the key and the researchers should have interviewed those people to get a better grasp of what is involved with talking to God and making requests from Him.
    How many of the over quarter million people, many of them devote Christians, who were killed in a tsunami, had their prayers answered on that day?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The fisherman who prayed that the fish come to him that day probably did.
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    This prayer tack has had some foolish stuff in it.

    If there were some proof that Wilkerson's child would have been a girl but for Nikki's prayer, then you could say prayer had something to do with it. If one prayed for the sun to rise tomorrow and it did, does that prove the effectiveness of prayer? If one prayed for the sun to not rise tomorrow and it did anyway, would that prove prayer is ineffective?

    If you take a hot pad and unsuccessfully try to pound a nail in with it, does that prove the hot pad does not work? Does it prove that pounding a nail will not drive it in? Does it prove that a nail cannot be pounded in?

    When you improperly employ the wrong tool, with the wrong technique, for the wrong purpose and do not get your desired result, it is not proof that the tool does not work, nor that the technique does not work, nor that the purpose cannot be achieved. It merely shows that that particular tool cannot be used in that way to achieve that result.

    James 4:3 tells us, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss. . ."
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  62. #262  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Is there actually some mention of prayer in the bible? Or has the whole concept been completely fabricated?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Difficult to believe that Drowsy has never heard of the Lord's Prayer. Guess he was more than drowsy; just plain asleep
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  64. #264  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    There are several, if memory serves, that are practically quintessential to Christianity, and are instructed upon in the Bible. Please, Dayton, MM, Arch, correct me if I'm wrong there.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  65. #265  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    How many of the over quarter million people, many of them devote Christians, who were killed in a tsunami, had their prayers answered on that day?
    1. do not know, i am not privy to their prayers. only God is.

    2. who said they were praying. as i recall it hit without warning.

    3. the word 'no' is an answer you assume that for a prayer to be answered the petitioner must get what he/she asks for and that isn't the case.

    4. read e.m. bounds onprayer to give you a better idea of what it is.

    If there were some proof that Wilkerson's child would have been a girl but for Nikki's prayer, then you could say prayer had something to do with it.
    yet God knew what cruz was going to pray long before he did, thus prayer had something to do with the sex of the baby.
     

  66. #266  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    yet God knew what cruz was going to pray long before he did, thus prayer had something to do with the sex of the baby.
    That is certifiable. That more than any other statement you have made on this forum demonstrates beyond any doubt that you lack intelligence. That is just dumb beyond belief. I cannot believe how dumb that is. I am awestruck by the magnitude of the pure stupidity you demonstrate by such a remark. I am genuinely embarrassed on your behalf that you could make such an assinine statement. Did I mention I thought it was dumb? How can anyone with two neurons to rub together make such a dumb statement? Words fail me. I just find myself reading and re-reading what you wrote and my brain is overwhelmed by the assessment - dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.......like a sea of stupidity rolling over the landscape, swallowing up everything it encounters.

    Incredible.
     

  67. #267  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    John I'm not sure why you bother. If you recall William McCormik had the same type of rational. The whole concept of being right just because they are right and well anyone who doesn't agree is clearly wrong because I am just right all the time because, well God said so.

    Perhaps God in his infinite perfection made Archy perfectly flawed in his thought process to an absolute degree of precision that only God could achieve. Perhaps there is a purpose that we will never understand behind that design.

    Now I'll go off topic a little bit, just because I can.

    Archy doesn't follow the word of God, Archy follows the word of man. Nobody on earth can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything at all written by man is actually the true word of God, I don't care how many times they try or what references to tales they give about unproven events happening. There is just no way to prove it. Without proof it is no different then saying gnomes and leprechauns exist. They can say it all they want, it doe not make it true, nor does it give them the right to portray it as the truth.

    While I may believe in God I refuse to believe the word of man is the true word of God, just not gonna happen. Have faith in God, not the unproven writings of hundreds of men throughout history claiming they are passing along the word of God.

    By the way God told me I should stop allowing people to spread falsehoods on this forum about his wishes

    Some people just give the belief in God a really bad name, I think it's one of the reasons why there are so many atheists.

    As to prayer, it's useless in the context that people use it. I've found in my life that I always get what I need if I need it. I've never found that talking to myself every night at the dinner table has made the food taste any better

    I will say one prayer however, I pray that Archy see's the truth behind what it is he is doing and the truly flawed logic in his ways. If I were to use his type of logic I would be running around with a bunch of guys trying to burn witches.

    Faith, not Fanaticism.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
     

  68. #268  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am not even goping to waste time answering the 2 previous posts, at this time. the fact that one is an abuser and the other enables the abuse is beside the point.

    when they are ready an din the right frame of mind, then i will respond.
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am not even goping to waste time answering the 2 previous posts, at this time. the fact that one is an abuser and the other enables the abuse is beside the point.

    when they are ready an din the right frame of mind, then i will respond.
    I'll have to admit he was a bit harsh. I think it's just caused by an extreme level of frustration. I'm pretty sure that's a medical condition and might excuse his behavior to a degree. You may want to say a prayer for his speedy recovery just in case, it may help.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
     

  70. #270  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am surprised that this thing has not beenlocked yet. it as gone well past its purpose.
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    it has new purpose. and besides, it isnt malicious, why lock it?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  72. #272  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Arcane_Mathematician wrote;
    There are several (prayers), if memory serves, that are practically quintessential to Christianity, and are instructed upon in the Bible. Please, Dayton, MM, Arch, correct me if I'm wrong there.
    If I may also be permitted to respond.

    Indeed A_M, you are absolutely correct, the best known being 'The Lord's Prayer'; which seems to have been Biblically handed down to us, even today with the curious termination – 'Amen' - remaining as the quintessential deferment of all Christian prayers. But from whence does such an odd (yet seemingly significant) conclusion originate?

    Strangely, and more essentially I would suggest; alarmingly enough, this is not a ‘word’ as such, but rather a name – and a most significant name at that.

    For Amen was indeed the mythical creator god of ancient Egyptian folklore - the same almighty ONE, whom Moses called ‘his people’ to courageously reject in entirety. For it certainly was NOT the physical slavery in the granite quarries and wheat fields of which we have been forever led to believe, from which the 'children' were being called out, but rather the spiritual suppression under a lawful religious tyranny - via religion no less – to a mythical physical/spiritual contrivance; an almighty yet removed man/‘god’ if you will.

    Yet amazingly today, we find the entire planet via various nuances; still honouring this same mythical, physical/spiritual deity, with the healthiest slice thereof yet deferring directly to ‘HIM’ in every uttered ‘prayer’.

    For we have indeed been astoundingly persuaded to honor the inscrutably cryptic, and in some measure physical presentation, even if it is profoundly mythical; rather than the SPIRITUAL REALITY – as entirely observable by (and within) every living human; particularly those who revile and reject any, and all prevailing religion/s as much as (did) Moses 3500 years ago, and (does) Apopohis Reject today.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    You know, if you are coming down on the religious element for writing stuff that flies in the face of known scientific facts, I think you ought to do the same when the scientificos post rubbish about religion.

    Apopo says:

    even today with the curious termination – 'Amen' - remaining as the quintessential deferment of all Christian prayers. But from whence does such an odd (yet seemingly significant) conclusion originate?

    Strangely, and more essentially I would suggest; alarmingly enough, this is not a ‘word’ as such, but rather a name – and a most significant name at that.

    For Amen was indeed the mythical creator god of ancient Egyptian folklore - the same almighty ONE, whom Moses called ‘his people’ to courageously reject in entirety
    This is absolute poppycock. Amen is used in the Old Testament about 10 times and comes from the Hebrew word emeth which carries the meanings certainty, truth, trustworthyness and carried such connotations as assuredly, establishment of, faithful, right, sure, truely.

    Amen is used in the New Testament and comes from the Greek word amen which meant trustworthy or surely and carried with it the connotation of "so be it." which is the same connotation we put on it.

    It is possible that Egyptian had a similar word which had some meaning to Egyptians that it did not have with Hebrews. Japanese has a word kaka which translates to English as the "sound of laughter."

    However, used as an English word it has a completely different meaning which pretty much sums up the entirety of the post I quoted from.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  74. #274  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Hey Dt, do you not recognise the astounding irony within your entire observation?

    You shamelessly promote your particular version of the generalised but mysterious man/deity; 'God', as being all-powerful and all-knowing, so how do you reckon 'HE' missed noticing the obvious resonance with the ancient Egyptian pagan all powerful head'god' Amen when he 'wrote' his memoirs through the pen of his human scribes?

    I mean; do you think HE missed this convergence in a moment of rare stupidity? Or would you consider it a more likely possibility HE promoted such an obvious coincidence in order to provide a point of confusion to anyone with two neurons to rub together?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  75. #275  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Um, okay. Amun was the creator diety... Your point? By the time of moses, Amun was Amun-Ra, and in sharp decline as a major diety. I don't see any relevence in pointing out that his name resembles a Greek word... the Hebrew word and it's relation may wold some water, but the greek one no. Try again.

    The entire coincidence is of Human design, not a God's design. Please, try to be more rational on this, lest you look like archy boy banting about how you know everything.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  76. #276  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Um, okay. Amun was the creator diety... Your point? By the time of moses, Amun was Amun-Ra, and in sharp decline as a major diety. I don't see any relevence in pointing out that his name resembles a Greek word... the Hebrew word and it's relation may wold some water, but the greek one no. Try again.
    Um, okay. Greek word? Hebrew word? Holding water? Did you even attempt to read my previous post before investing time in such detached rhetoric? Or perhaps you would like to - try again?

    Lest we make 'Archy boy' appear intellectual.

    Remember your own signature; 'Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something'
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    That "amen" and "Amun" appear to be cognates of each other is coincidental. There is no logical and reasoned link between the two. There are many such linguistic similarities that don't have true cognate relationships.
     

  78. #278  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Because of the recent change in the name of this sub-forum to The Scientific Study of Religion, this topic might be better continued in this thread: Seven Misunderstandings of Evolution from a Creationist POV.
     

  79. #279  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Because of the recent change in the name of this sub-forum to The Scientific Study of Religion, this topic might be better continued in this thread: Seven Misunderstandings of Evolution from a Creationist POV.
    I do not mean to be difficult, and will happily go where directed, however I feel this discussion is currently in precisely in the correct location, for it is a palpable investigation along scientific lines into religion per-se, and particularly how it has progressively managed to blur the lines of understanding the bloody obvious, to the point of anaesthetising the world into a drowsy stupor of irrational complacency.

    Moreover, it is from this drowsy stupor of the religiously promoted nebulous misconstruction, that we heed the alarm raised in Revelation 18:4; such that we are currently being called to 'come out of her' - from out of the overwhelmingly cabalistic and unknowable religious din, into the warming light and clarity of the discernable and definable.

    That "amen" and "Amun" appear to be cognates of each other is coincidental. There is no logical and reasoned link between the two.
    There is no coincidence involved, but rather a very definitive, reasoned and pervasive link, which makes 'them' one and the same. Provable you ask? I would proffer; absolutely!

    Well, at least - to anyone not determined to remain neck deep in the murky religious concoction/s in which the world has been living since refusing the previous alarm to 'come out of her' - specifically on that occasion; ancient Egypt - clearly being a precursor 'test-tube' paradigm.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Because of the recent change in the name of this sub-forum to The Scientific Study of Religion, this topic might be better continued in this thread: Seven Misunderstandings of Evolution from a Creationist POV.

    Moved to new thread as requested

    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    origins of life is NOT a scientific nor natural field. IT IS A SUPERNATURAL one and scientists are NOT trained in the supernatural so i would choose to go with the person trained in the supernatural not the one who was trained to omit it fromhis studies and experiments.
    I completely disagree. For archy everything seems to be a supernatural question. I don't believe it. When, not if, when man creates life then we will know a lot more about the origin of life.
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    though i will cite one example. back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy.

    question: do you really expect unbelieving people to grasp or be shown how prayer works when they do not believe in the recipient of those prayers?

    you could do all the studies you want and if there were answers guess what, just like evolutionary decisions, the researchers choose the worng answer. they might say--it was coincidence or something similar.
    This is not a study. It is the sort of anecdotal evidence given as the power of prayer. It is meaningless. This tells us nothing. The only defense archy has for anything is that all evidence to the contrary must be wrong since it disputes his religious yackety yack.
     

  83. #283  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I completely disagree. For archy everything seems to be a supernatural question. I don't believe it. When, not if, when man creates life then we will know a lot more about the origin of life.
    no you won't for man is missing the main ingredient of life-- God breathed life into man. scientists cannot do that. they may clone a body but that is about it.

    oh an scientists have no clue what the original conditions are and even if they come close, they will not be able to compare if they are right or not because they do not know the original conditions thus they do not know what calibrations they need to make to rectify their mistakes. at best they will have nothing an dyou want to put your lives on the line for nothing?

    This is not a study. It is the sort of anecdotal evidence given as the power of prayer. It is meaningless. This tells us nothing. The only defense archy has for anything is that all evidence to the contrary must be wrong since it disputes his religious yackety yack.
    as i have said before i give you evidence from a published source and you find some way to dismiss it. the problem lies with you.
     

  84. #284  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    no you won't for man is missing the main ingredient of life-- God breathed life into man. scientists cannot do that. they may clone a body but that is about it.

    oh an scientists have no clue what the original conditions are and even if they come close, they will not be able to compare if they are right or not because they do not know the original conditions thus they do not know what calibrations they need to make to rectify their mistakes. at best they will have nothing an dyou want to put your lives on the line for nothing?
    1. We are not missing any ingredients.
    2. I am not talking about cloning, I am talking about life from nonlife
    3. The original conditions do not have to be met to create life
    4. Calibration is not the correct word
    5. No idea why this puts anyone's life on the line

    the problem lies with you.
    Just because it's in writing does not make it true. For instance, the bible is written and in many cases is not true.

    It does not follow from the story that prayer worked. If you do not understand that, then the problem is with you.
     

  85. #285  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I completely disagree. For archy everything seems to be a supernatural question. I don't believe it. When, not if, when man creates life then we will know a lot more about the origin of life.
    no you won't for man is missing the main ingredient of life-- God breathed life into man. scientists cannot do that. they may clone a body but that is about it.
    Only a matter of time. The first completely synthetic ribosome was created recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    oh an scientists have no clue what the original conditions are and even if they come close, they will not be able to compare if they are right or not because they do not know the original conditions thus they do not know what calibrations they need to make to rectify their mistakes. at best they will have nothing an dyou want to put your lives on the line for nothing?
    Terribly incoherent, but I think I know what you mean.

    But to create new life, you experiment to find the optimum conditions. The first life may have come into existance in sub-optimum conditions, so to recreate the suspected conditions for abiogenesis would be foolish.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This is not a study. It is the sort of anecdotal evidence given as the power of prayer. It is meaningless. This tells us nothing. The only defense archy has for anything is that all evidence to the contrary must be wrong since it disputes his religious yackety yack.
    as i have said before i give you evidence from a published source and you find some way to dismiss it. the problem lies with you.
    'A published source'

    Right.

    Fiction is published, is it not? I hardly think you would be happy if I gave you quotes form The Lord of the Rings. So stop giving me quotes from an equally unreliable book (the bible).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    And sayeth Gollum, "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"

    And thus Gandolf had sayeth “There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.”
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  87. #287  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Fitting quotes, actually.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  88. #288  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    verzen and drowsy are way off topic but their presence proves my point.
     

  89. #289  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    verzen and drowsy are way off topic but their presence proves my point.
    That's not proof, it's just lies and conjecture.....
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  90. #290  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    after 20 pages, they have failed to present anything credible in defense of their belief and can do nothing but copy someone else and turn it into a personal attack.
     

  91. #291  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Arch - We have supplied countless bits of evidence for the scientific FACT of evolution. You choose to ignore it.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  92. #292  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Archy you are a hoot.

    the one thing I have learned by doing a little studying on the side as we passed through these 20 pages is that the bible is more riddled with inconsistencies than I originally thought. I have you personally to thank for showing me that the bible is clearly not the word of God.

    Much appreciated, friend
     

  93. #293  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    after 20 pages, they have failed to present anything credible in defense of their belief and can do nothing but copy someone else and turn it into a personal attack.
    No credible defense needed, owing to the lack of credible attack.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  94. #294  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    after 20 pages, they have failed to present anything credible in defense of their belief and can do nothing but copy someone else and turn it into a personal attack.
    I have sent u a large dinosaur bone in the post

    the proof is here but we have hidden in it in-between the words
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    not one of you has provided one shred of evidence and you have not made your case.
     

  96. #296  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    not one of you has provided one shred of evidence and you have not made your case.
    Always the laughable post.
     

  97. #297  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    The sun isn't real. If I dumb myself down enough I can prove it with 6 facts.

    #1 You can't touch it.

    #2 You cannot make one out of play dough.

    #3 You cannot show me where the sun is at night time.

    #4 The scientific evidence shows that it would have to be a lot bigger than the earth, but that is obviously impossible.

    #5 Nobody remembers when it came into existence.

    #6 And most importantly, there is this simple experiement: look at what is supposedly the sun, then close your eyes. Now you will still see a bright spot no matter which direction you look.

    See! That proves it and you evil "sun people" cannot refute my arguments or come up with one shred of evidence from reputable sources that the sun really exists.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  98. #298  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Just playing along with the sarcasm, if we are going to refute archies stuff its only fair to have a bash at this as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    The sun isn't real. If I dumb myself down enough I can prove it with 6 facts.

    #1 You can't touch it.
    but u can feel its warmth

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    #2 You cannot make one out of play dough.
    If u heat the play dough up enough u might be able to, perhaps throw in some H2 to get the process up and running

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    #3 You cannot show me where the sun is at night time.
    its always underneath u even if u stand on ur head

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    #4 The scientific evidence shows that it would have to be a lot bigger than the earth, but that is obviously impossible.
    No its just much closer than the scientists claim it to be, nothing to do with size

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    #5 Nobody remembers when it came into existence.
    Archy remembers he has been here awhile he watched it get created

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    #6 And most importantly, there is this simple experiement: look at what is supposedly the sun, then close your eyes. Now you will still see a bright spot no matter which direction you look.
    This is 100% true and cannot be countered by any argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    See! That proves it and you evil "sun people" cannot refute my arguments or come up with one shred of evidence from reputable sources that the sun really exists.
    Its true I cant find anything on this in the scientific literature

    Now its ur turn to ignore the facts MM, I mean Archy.....
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  99. #299  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    An episode of the Leno show has the "Jay Walking All-Stars" answering the question:

    Where is the North Pole?

    The answer goes like this:

    Star: There is no North Pole.
    Mod: Why do you say that?

    Star: Doesn't Santa Claus live at the North Pole?
    Mod: Yes.

    Star: Santa Claus is faked isn't he?
    Mod: Yes.

    Star: So if Santa is supposed to live at a fake place, then the place must be fake.
    Mod: So where is the South Pole?

    Star: Silly, if there is no North Pole, then there can't be a South Pole. (giggling)
    Mod: (dead silent)

    Star: I love trick questions. (said smiling)
     

  100. #300 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

    This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.
    Perhaps this misconception is due to thinking of evolution as a 'thing'. Essentially nature causes the major mechanism: 'natural selection', not evolution itself. Nature does not know to kill off individuals that cannot find food. It simply does. Therefore leaving all the food to those that can. Another mutation causes some of the next generation to be even better at finding food (therefore eating all of it). And nature (not some mystic intelligence called 'evolution') wipes out all the old form. Unless of course a mutation leads some of the original creatures to eat another kind of food (this is why we have more than one type of organism).

    Berkeley University puts it more succinctly: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
    I think its more about the inability of the human mind to conceptualize the time periods involved in the process of evolution

    for example most people who are against evolution, do agree with the ability to breed horses or dogs or in more scientific examples flies, to make minor adjustments their debate always is around the ability to create the diverse amount of life we see today

    Its their inability to super extend the period of the last few thousand years of animal breeding we have done to species like dogs in comparison to the millions of years that evolution has been doing it for
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •