bdp Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 .... you have small mindedness, tunnel vision, ignorance, self importance, are extremely condescending and full of hypocrisy. Agreed - not a whole lot of love and compassion coming from this one, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 You don't seem interested to find out the truth yourself. I absolutely am, which is why I adhere to the scientific method of seeking it. What you are doing is the opposite. It's like the study on Fox News viewers released last week, which reveiled they are not only less informed than average, but actually more misinformed about world events than those who rarely watch the news or read the newspaper. What ICR is saying, is based on findings of main stream science. Data mining is not using MS science, it's a method of spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Since you probably do not believe anymore that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation. This sounds like you assume origins of life and the universe is the single most important reason to believe or not believe in God. For me, it's an extremely peripheral item to be researched only when and if I have time and/or interest. The topic is simply not relevant to life on this planet in this universe. Ethics, however, are. An ethical God would be able--like I am when offended or disbelieved--to forgive those who offend and don't believe in him without someone being killed to pay the price. He would also be able--like I am regarding my existence--to present empirical and irrefutable proof of his existence when called upon. Like my human teachers, the Great Teacher Jesus would be able to answer my questions, or confess that he doesn't know the answers. And, if he truly doesn't know the answers, an ethical teacher does not claim omiscience (to be all-knowing). So if you believe in God only because he is the only plausible reason you can think up to explain life, then I say you have your priorities mixed up. One thing we know for sure is that we are stuck on this planet for quite a few decades and if we don't make up our minds to make it a pleasant time for everyone, woe to all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 The arise of DNA clearly belongs to the quest of abiogenesis. Not necessarily. All that was needed for natural selection to get started was a self-replicating molecule. You assume the first replicating molecule was DNA. That is very likely a false premise, at least according to current abiogenesis hypotheses. Care to admit there is no requirement that DNA was the first self-replecating molecule upon which natural section could act? Let's see if you are intellectually honest. Ten to one odds that you are not. the RNA world is not a alternative, viable option to DNA. http://www.icr.org/article/77/ The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by evolutionary scientists, themselves. The simplest form of life imaginable would require hundreds of different kinds of molecules, perhaps thousands, most of them large and very complex. With respect to this point, Van Rensselaer Potter states, "It is possible to hazard a guess that the number is not less than 1,000, but whether it is 3,000 or 10,000 or greater is anyone's guess."2 This statement not only acknowledges the immensity of the problem, but also is a tacit admission of how little is really known or knowable about the problem. In addition to these many molecules, which would include the large and complex protein, DNA and RNA molecules, each with up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence, the origin of life would require many complex and dynamically functional structures, such as membranes, ribosomes, mitochondria (or energy-producing complexes of some kind), etc. Furthermore, life requires marvelous coordination in time and space, with many regulatory mechanisms. To believe that all of this came about by mere chemical and physical processes, does indeed constitute an immense exercise of faith. As yes, Gish, the Master Creationist Whore. You really are a creationist chump. Here, read some reality about Gish: http://mypage.direct...riter/gish.html Besides, the article is not relevant to the question I posed to you, which you conveniently ducked. So, I'll ask it again, in bold: Do you admit there is no requirement that DNA was the first self-replecating molecule upon which natural section could act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 You don't seem interested to find out the truth yourself. Its not my business to try to change your attitudes . LOL!!!! Spoken as a true christard! You do not seem interested in finding the truth out for yourself either: .... you have small mindedness, tunnel vision, ignorance, self importance, are extremely condescending and full of hypocrisy. That's what I do so miss about being around your types! and you dont have much left, than personal attacks. quit a admittance of bankrupcy of your standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 and you dont have much left, than personal attacks. quit a admittance of bankrupcy of your standpoint. careful, realist, he'll bite your legs off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 and you dont have much left, than personal attacks. quit a admittance of bankrupcy of your standpoint. ... says the idiot that "cut and pastes" every thing he says and with such a limited mind that has not been able to work out he still believes in Santa! Truth hurts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 careful, realist, he'll bite your legs off. ... I actually think he is just a troll! The only "packed" posts he puts on here is someone elses cut and pasted shit ... the rest are just his wind up comments! bdp, I'll watch my legs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I just discovered this one yesterday. At 400+ posts on his thread, he's not a post-and-run guy, apparently. But does he engage exChristians on their own ground in other threads, or does he just play in his own little sandbox that he marked out on the beach here in this one thread? Hey believer, you missed my post. But that's okay. Then I don't have to engage you in a sparring match over a cut-and-paste or worn-out argument that was refuted two hundred years ago. It just goes to prove that you can't think outside the box even for topics of discussion when it comes to challenging atheists. Then again, Christies can't think outside the box because their religion is by definition The Box. Sorry, fella, if your question was genuine about what we think is the existence of life and the universe, you wouldn't be treating our answers the way you are. Post #2 was one of the most decent replies I've ever seen to such an obvious believer. Your question was disingenius. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ...and you dont have much left, than personal attacks. quit a admittance of bankrupcy of your standpoint. Telling someone the truth about their publicly-posted behaviour is a "personal attack" now? BIG, you *are* small-minded. You do have tunnel vision, filtering an entire universe through your Christian beliefs. You are woefully ignorant of how science works and what it actually teaches. You present as self-important, condescending and hypocritical. You have lost this argument, just as you lost the argument at WWGHA, and claiming victory will not make you any less a loser. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 and you dont have much left, than personal attacks. quit a admittance of bankrupcy of your standpoint. On the other hand I have been respectful to you. You asked for an explanation as to why naturalism is better than an explanation parallel to: -The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it -The Flying Spaghetti Monster works in mysterious ways -The Flying Spaghetti Monster sends us telepathic messages, sometimes -When this doesn't make sense the Flying Spaghetti Monster is testing our faith even though He already knows everything Compare that to the explanation that two membranes are on an eternal cycle of colliding, forming galaxies which cool off so the cycle repeats. And during the recent cycle one of the stars happened to have conditions that allow life. Somehow life got started. Then evolution resulted in the variety of life we see today. This naturalistic explanation can be tested and improved. It makes predictions. The God explanation shuts down conversation. What happened? GodDoneIt! How? Why? GodMovesInMysteriousWays! Furthermore when we apply Occham's Razor the natural explanation has less unknowns and less unexplained issues so it is superior. That is why the naturalistic explanation is superior to the religious explanation. I think people are being rude to you because you refuse to listen. It doesn't mean the arguments they made, before they got fed up, were bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 No, no, no. MyMistake, you're wrong. The pixies are real. It's obvious. They created the universe. There's no spaghetti monster, but pixies are real. No one can prove they don't exist, so they must exist, and since the Universe must have a beginning, it must've been the pixies doing it. Another name for the pixies is Higgs Bosons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The Book of Legion The Beginning 1 In the beginning Natural Entailments created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was very hot and liquid water was nowhere to be seen, and Natural Entailments were here. 2 The earth cooled and thus allowed liquid water to form. 3 Then very soon thereafter Natural Entailments gave rise to the first organisms, the first natural systems on earth which were closed to efficient causation. 4 With the advent of organisms Natural Entailments gave rise to evolution, a process whereby reproducing organisms compete for limited resources. 5 A thoroughly brutal four billion years later a species emerged with new cognitive abilities allowing for language and tool use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 This naturalistic explanation can be tested and improved. how can it be tested ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 This naturalistic explanation can be tested and improved. how can it be tested ? First, I want to stress that science is built upon an epistemology. These are philosophical ideas, a handful of which must be assumed as being true. We test hypotheses by making predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 This naturalistic explanation can be tested and improved. how can it be tested ? Go to any isolated ecosystem in the world. There you will find new species. Always. New species form because the life that migrates there adapts to their new environment. It's the evidence that caused Darwin to realize species evolve and it's the evidence that forced all of science to accept Evolution. Now that we find bacteria in the driest desert, the coldest ice along with all kinds of creatures in the deepest ocean and along the steam vents it all agrees. Really you could go to your local secular community college and sign up for a science course. There is only so much I can do from posting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 This naturalistic explanation can be tested and improved. how can it be tested ? Go to any isolated ecosystem in the world. There you will find new species. Always. New species form because the life that migrates there adapts to their new environment. It's the evidence that caused Darwin to realize species evolve and it's the evidence that forced all of science to accept Evolution. Now that we find bacteria in the driest desert, the coldest ice along with all kinds of creatures in the deepest ocean and along the steam vents it all agrees. Really you could go to your local secular community college and sign up for a science course. There is only so much I can do from posting. The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution...... Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornnormal Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution...... Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would. Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" would be: "Move along, nothing to see here!", but I like what you just said better. Who is not fed up with this guy yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution...... Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would. I am making the question to who made the assertion, and brought the issue up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" I'll take you by your word. Nothing really to do here, anymore. Gone...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Gone...... I am Two Wolves, son of Hidden Storm, and I say there are many in this tribe. Stay if you wish and speak with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornnormal Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" I'll take you by your word. Nothing really to do here, anymore. Gone...... OK, my bad. Sorry, I shouldn't have ironically misinterpreted mymistake's words , because that is obviously too offensive for you. Just go on and continue the pointless debate about theoretical physics, because that will totally get you to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 OK, my bad. Sorry, I shouldn't have ironically misinterpreted mymistake's words , because that is obviously too offensive for you. Just go on and continue the pointless debate about theoretical physics, because that will totally get you to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution...... Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would. Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" would be: "Move along, nothing to see here!", but I like what you just said better. Who is not fed up with this guy yet? What guy? Oh, that guy. The guy that asked for a "better" explanation and got one from me but he refuses to answer to. Pixies are real and much better explanation to the existence of the Universe. But he intentionally refuses to see the Absolute Truth, and he does so because he's most likely evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts