Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

An Appeal For Justus


TheRedneckProfessor

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I see it now, Ravenstar and MM.  I was trying to give Justus the benefit of the doubt. Stupid me.  WendyDoh.gif

 

I'll wait for his answer to the Prof's question, but I won't be holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's start from the beginning, with Abiogenesis?   Seems that as of yet there hasn't been any plausible theory found yet that can explain how non living matter turned into living matter in order for evolution to being with.  

 

If you can't establish a pluasible working theory to explain how it could have started, then there is no sense in speculating how it would work.  Unless you can have verifiable data that records such random mutation necessary for the theory of evolution then you all you would have would be  your hope without evidence. 

 

SWould you like to see a known process by which a  non-living organism can be molecularity manipulated into spontaneously emerging into a living organism?  

 

According to this report, a young physicist at MIT, Jeffrey England, has a promising theory on abiogenesis:

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

 

Well let's start from the beginning, with Abiogenesis?    

No, son.  I didn't ask you to explain your lack of knowledge concerning abiogenesis.  I asked you to explain evolution, as you understand it.  We'll get around to the ridiculous creationist claim that "life came from non-life" later.

 

For now, stay focused on the subject at hand.

 

You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that at this time there is no evidence to scientific validate your faith in the evolution.  Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence not seen.  But a liar abides not in the truth, and in such you apparently have no problem  misrepresenting the obvious.  

 

You remind me of the street preacher trying to tell me that a man can walk on water by faith.   If water has the density of 999.97 kg/m³  and flesh has the density of 1060 kg/m³, it aint going to happen unless the density is somehow altered to result surface density being greater than the density of the object on the surface.  

 

Matt 14:30-31

30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

 

 

I understand your need to resort to ad hominems when faced with questions you either can't or don't want to answer.  You immediately feel defensive and need to lash out because you don't understand the subject at hand and don't want to have to admit it.  Moreover, you know that what you are claiming--that there is no evidence to support evolution--is simply not true.  I know that secretly you don't want to have to face the evidence that would shatter your entire worldview.  Trust me, I've been there.

 

However, there is no place for that here.  What I am attempting to do is present to you the evidence which does support the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as I have seen many posts in which you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of it.  I am trying to help you to see the truth of reality. 

 

You say you are not here to preach.  You claimed in another thread that you had question you thought we could answer.  Are you listening?  Are you willing to examine the evidence?  Or would you rather lash out and remain in ignorance?  If you dont want my help, or anybody else's here, just say so; just admit you'd rather remain ignorant of how evolution works.  We'll all gladly turn our attention to CeilingCat.

 

As far as anyone's intellectual honesty is concerned, you may want to prove yours by simply addressing the OP in an honest manner. 

 

Bump.

 

What will it be, Justus?

 

Bump.  Bump.

 

Come on, son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justus was online and posted in the SDforIH thread.  Looks like RNP's questions are not a priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Justus was online and posted in the SDforIH thread.  Looks like RNP's questions are not a priority.

Speaks volumes for itself, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no bad students. Only bad teachers.

 

Edited to add:  That was supposed to be a snide remark about Justus, BTW.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Are you still here, Justus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Super Moderator

So, Justus, I see you have commented on the "Too Stupid to Know..." thread.  Strangely, you've not commented on this thread--the very thread in which it has been neatly demonstrated that you lack the competence to know that you don't understand the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

My offer still stands; and we are all eagerly awaiting the opportunity to pull you up out of your incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Super Moderator

Since you're back again, Justus, are you ready to tackle the Theory of Evolution?  Or are you choosing to remain willfully ignorant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks surely don't need my contribution. I just want to make one comment to Justus. You criticized ex Christians as to evolution since we can't prove that life came from non-life. It was explained to you that the initiation of life is not the subject of evolution. I don't know if you picked up on that or not. But it raises a point at least in my mind on the initiation of life on earth. We exchristians do not claim to have the answer to the initiation of life as of this time. But you and all fundamental Xtians clam that life was created by god out of dust. Would you please inform us as to exactly how that happened in terms  other than pure fantasy or magic? Tell us how god accomplished that feat step by step. How does your god's  explanation differ from other creation gods of other r4eligions? And why you think your god's explanation is superior? Rip

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

Are you still here, Justus?

Nope, he is hopping onto other threads and quoting us scripture, then leaves again. Typical christian, asked to provide any shred of evidence at all and he/they are no where to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you still here, Justus?

Nope, he is hopping onto other threads and quoting us scripture, then leaves again. Typical christian, asked to provide any shred of evidence at all and he/they are no where to be found.

 

 

Thanks for bumping this up, CeilingCat. I had a few questions from another thread about what Justus is trying to accomplish with his presence here, and this thread helps. After reading it, all I can say is holy shit. What was that?

 

Perhaps, RedneckProfessor, you've attempted too much. Instead of trying to instruct Justus in science and evolution, maybe you should have laid a little foundation by starting with grammar and composition. I couldn't make head nor tails out of any sentence he wrote--but maybe it was just me. Will anyone here fluent in whatever language Justus was trying to communicate in interpret for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

StJeff,

 

This thread was a response to Justus' constant appeal to evolutionary fallacies, such as the idea that evolution is random, or that "life can't come from non-life" (which isn't even part of evolution).  The goal wasn't so much to render Justus with a better understanding of a subject he obviously finds incomprehensible (though, had that been allowed to happen, I would have been more than pleased); rather, the goal was to expose Justus as a willing imbecile who chooses intentional ignorance over the simplest understanding of fact and scientific evidence.  His responses were what I expected them to be; and many lurkers have seen, and will continue to see, the heavy cost of being dumb on purpose.

 

His atrocious grammar and general lack of communication skills notwithstanding, even a five-year-old child can understand the basic biology behind descent with modification, as Redneck Jr. displays on a near-daily basis.  The fact that he cannot communicate clearly what he doesn't adequately understand himself is yet more fodder upon the pyre of his reckless disregard for intellectual honesty, as, I'm sure, many lurkers have also seen.  Indeed, what is communication, if not the sharing of ideas?

 

Thus, Justus has served well his purpose in this thread--exposing the awful brutality of choosing to remain in darkness when light so willingly offers itself.  If only one single doubter is spurred by this topic to further their own education into natural selection, thereby bringing themselves one single step closer to freedom from the truth of religion's lies, then our collective efforts will not have been in vain.

 

With that said, it really is much nicer to communicate with people who can spell correctly and formulate complete sentences.

 

Thanks,

TRP

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedneckProfessor,
 

 

 . . .the goal was to expose Justus as a willing imbecile who chooses intentional ignorance over the simplest understanding of fact and scientific evidence.

 

 

Indeed! Sometimes the best argument against Christianity is to invite Christians to communicate their beliefs, then step back and enjoy the show. I appreciate it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abiogenesis:

 

Amino acids, simple sugars, and other organic matter exists in space, even complex organic molecules.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

 

There's been research showing that metabolic systems can arise without cells, naturally from non-living matter.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

 

2 (or 3) of the 4 nucleotides have been produced in laboratory.

 

Single cells naturally evolving to multicellular (I think it was brewers yeast used in the experiment).

 

And much more.

 

Abiogenesis isn't a mystery anymore. What's missing is the exact order, steps, conditions, etc when and where it happens.

 

Besides, our body uses non-living matter, metabolize it, and produce living matter form it, through chemistry, so it's ridiculous to argue that nature can't produce living things, since that's what we're doing constantly, internally, each one of us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justus, Justus, wherefore art thou? There are questions to be answered, and the souls of us Xtians to save.  Rip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anyone noticed how the quality and quantity of the current crop of self-professed Christians on this forum are at a rather low ebb?

 

I count three - Ironhorse the Oblivious, End3 the Dysfunctional and Justus the Ignorant.

 

Slim pickins' indeed.

Dn'ot thta frogot t hat trll A1 teh staek sawse.

Thanks Red.....for engaging in my nispelltastic weekend party also Its nice that I'm forgotten by some and remembered by little. Am I rare because I'm too stupid to remember or am I rare because I barely make a difference?

 

In any case

 

Just chiming in my 2cents

 

We all know abiogeneis and evolution is different. However.....

 

It is chronological.

 

Non life to life must come *first*(abiogeneis)

 

Then that life transfer of DNA and diversification happens (evolution)

 

So yes they are different but they are strictly chronological like 123456789

 

 

If we are wrong about the first step the then we could be wrong about the second step if we branched our knowledge from a false or unknown foundation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anyone noticed how the quality and quantity of the current crop of self-professed Christians on this forum are at a rather low ebb?

 

I count three - Ironhorse the Oblivious, End3 the Dysfunctional and Justus the Ignorant.

 

Slim pickins' indeed.

Dn'ot thta frogot t hat trll A1 teh staek sawse.

Thanks Red.....for engaging in my nispelltastic weekend party also Its nice that I'm forgotten by some and remembered by little. Am I rare because I'm too stupid to remember or am I rare because I barely make a difference?

 

In any case

 

Just chiming in my 2cents

 

We all know abiogeneis and evolution is different. However.....

 

It is chronological.

 

Non life to life must come *first*(abiogeneis)

 

Then that life transfer of DNA and diversification happens (evolution)

 

So yes they are different but they are strictly chronological like 123456789

 

 

If we are wrong about the first step the then we could be wrong about the second step if we branched our knowledge from a false or unknown foundation

 

 

 

This is stupid.  It's like arguing that the Korean War didn't happen simply because we don't know what was the first human war.  Sure they were chronological.  

 

But knowing what was the first war for humans is not required to examine all the evidence that the Korean War was a real event.  Likewise we don't have to know

 

exactly how the first life formed from non-life in order to understand all the evidence we see around us that demonstrates that evolution is how biology works.

 

We cannot be wrong about evolution.  Knowing the first step is not required.  Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure i Dont need to know everything about a girls first boyfriend 10 years ago how big his steak is or how long it can marinate in order for me to trust her. But its helpful to know certain patterns on that relationship for me to look our for if ibstarr one with her. In anyvase That's not what I'm saying

 

My point is evolution is could never have began or exist. If abiogeneis didn't come first.

 

And is this the part where you say....so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My point is evolution is could never have began or exist. If abiogeneis didn't come first.

 

So you are an atheist now?  That is news to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I could be an athiest in the closet but I was told there might be spaghetti monster in there and I hate spaghetti and macaroni baked potatoes ribs greens and chitlinds. My family ofter ask me if I am actually black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though, evolution is a known fact.  You are not going to prove it doesn't happen.  You might as well assert that gravity is an illusion.

 

If you really want to believe in God then you should go the route of inspired evolution.  This is the route the Catholic Church went when they

 

realized evolution was the truth.  You simply accept evolution happens and you believe that God designed evolution to work this way and

 

God set the abiogenesis in motion.  It will give you fewer headaches.  It's not as good as pure science without any blinders or God colored

 

glasses but denying evolution is willful ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are intellectual giants like c.s lewis and others willfully blind? Are christian scientists willfully blind? Or are they special pleading and the non Christian scientists and not? Cuz they flawless and would never use confirmation bias like one would accuse s Christian scientists of.

 

Any christian who attended a university and graduated with the highest education is willfully blind?

Lawyers and doctors or even Christians that also have a career in biology, archeology, physics and chemistry are they all willfully blind too?

 

 

Is it really that black and white that evolution is the throne of truth for how life transpired and the diversification?

 

Is this the part where you focus my last phrase and ignore the rest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'The rest' is meaningless in this discussion.  Pat Robertson has even seen that evolution happens - Ken Ham is an embarassment to him.  My opinion - yes, all willfully blind, because they're comfortable that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C. S. Lewis was not an intellectual giant.  But yes there is a lot of self deception going on.  Beliefs can be emotionally based.  

 

This is not rational.  Somebody can be very rational in on specific area such as their career and yet be irrational about mythology.

 

Yes, evolution is that black and white.  Evolution is true.  There is no room for any other answer.  All the museums in the whole

 

world (Not counting Ham's joke) are full of the evidence of evolution.  We know more about evolution than most other things.

 

Of course I'm sure you will continue to believe evolution is wrong no matter how much evidence you are shown.  Those who 

 

reject evidence for their own assumptions are not persuaded by evidence.

 

 

 

 


Is this the part where you focus my last phrase and ignore the rest?

 

I'm not trying to ignore part of your message.  It's just impossible to tell what you mean by some things.  Sometimes I can't

 

even guess.   

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.