And So We Wait...

[Justus]

[sorry thing posted multiple times

[Justus]

0123456789

[Justus]

Dang,if the mouse had been a trigger I would have laid down some ground fire.....

[Justus]

Sorry thing posted multiple times

[mymistake]

 I have been waiting on the Redneck to put the horse before the cart with the simple question of what basis did the house of evolution reasonably expect to provide shelter and protection to those who seek refuse from the flood of violent men when abiogenesis and evolution are intrinsically connected like a fetus to the mother.  

 

 

What basis  . . .  did the house of evolution  . . .   reasonably expect  . . .    to provide shelter and protection  . . .  to those who seek refuse

 . . .   from the flood of violent men  . . .  when abiogenesis and evolution  . . .  are intrinsically connected like a fetus to the mother?

 

 

 

It's such a simple question!  It's not loaded full of assumptions or falsehood.  Because that would make it complicated.  And clearly it is a simple question.  (/sarcasm)  

 

 

 

Oh by the way Justus, abiogenesis and evolution are not connected.  When doctors are putting together the annual flu vaccine and estimating which strands of the flu will be the most successful they do not first need to determine how life came to exist on Earth.  In fact there is no part of evolution study that requires abiogenesis.  If abiogenesis is involved then it is the search for how life started.  So your question is pointless since the question requires a nonexistent condition.

 

What flood of violent men?  How melodramatic.

[Ravenstar]

It doesn't matter HOW life started or got here for evolution to be true.

 

Panspermia, biochemistry, flying spaghetti monster, gawd… parallel dimensions, it doesn't change a damn thing. Evolution is a fact, it works, it's being used every single day in many sciences.

 

Do we want to know how life started? Sure… but it's not necessary for evolutionary theory. We are not going t stop curing diseases or trying to save endangered animals because we don't yet know the very beginnings. Strangely we have some REALLY good ideas about abiogenesis, that are unravelling this mystery.The discovery of certain clays and microbes, finding microbes and bacteria deep in the earth that are anaerobic and get their energy from minerals, deep sea volcanic vents that harbour tons of life at heat and pressures we didn't think possible… life under the antarctic ice.. fresh and sea water… extremophiles of all kinds.. simple bacterias and algaes that seem to be just about everywhere we look.

 

Evolution however does not in any way fall apart because we do not yet have this tiny piece of the puzzle.

 

idjit… you sound like Ray Comfort and his stupid non sequitur analogies.

 

'Common sense' means nothing in science. If anything it is frequently wrong.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Well heck, I've been in another forum defending my comment that maybe light doesn't travel at the constant speed c ,even in a vacuum.  

 

 

 

 But then again,  according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c.  

 

 

Justus,

 

Please provide a link to this 'other' forum, so that we may see what you've written there.

 

Please also supply links to the (accredited and peer-reviewed) source/s which state that light might be able to travel faster than c.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[Justus]

It doesn't matter HOW life started or got here for evolution to be true.

You sound like a fundamentalist saying that they are going to believe their Bible no matter what the truth is.

 

P.S. You really might look into your anger issues.

 

 

 

Just like your existence  But God has a plan for you, a good one

 

[Justus]

 

 

 

Well heck, I've been in another forum defending my comment that maybe light doesn't travel at the constant speed c ,even in a vacuum.  

 

 

 

 But then again,  according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c.  

 

 

Justus,

 

Please provide a link to this 'other' forum, so that we may see what you've written there.

 

Please also supply links to the (accredited and peer-reviewed) source/s which state that light might be able to travel faster than c.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

 

Now you are not going to tell me scientist would lie?   http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3987

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Well heck, I've been in another forum defending my comment that maybe light doesn't travel at the constant speed c ,even in a vacuum.  

 

 

 

 But then again,  according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c.  

 

 

Justus,

 

Please provide a link to this 'other' forum, so that we may see what you've written there.

 

Please also supply links to the (accredited and peer-reviewed) source/s which state that light might be able to travel faster than c.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

 

Now you are not going to tell me scientist would lie?   http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3987

 

 

Not at all, Justus.  

 

The scientists involved aren't lying.    You've just ***ed up.   Like this.

You wrote... But then again,  according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c.  

 

But the title of this paper is  Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light

 

From the paper itself...

 

One sentence summary: The group velocity of light in free space is reduced by controlling the transverse spatial structure of the light beam.

 

And...

 

The slowing down of light that we observe in free space should also not be confused with slow, or indeed fast, light associated with propagation in highly nonlinear or structured materials (3, 4). Even in the absence of a medium, the modification of the speed of light has previously been known.

 

Yes.  The modification (reduction) of the speed of light in hollow waveguides has been known for decades, Justus.

 

For example, within a hollow waveguide, the wavevector along the guide is reduced below the free-space value, leading to a phase velocity [nu phi] greater than c. Within the hollow waveguide, the product of the phase and group velocities is given as [nu phi nu _g,z = c ² ], thereby resulting in a group velocity [nu _g,z] along the waveguide less than c.

 

Yes, the phase velocity of light is calculated to be greater than c, but the phase velocity is not the actual speed of light itself.  

That's why the group velocity is always less than c and why the one sentence summary (see above) refers to the group velocity of c being reduced.  

The true value of c (once the calculations are completed) is always the group velocity, NOT the phase velocity.

 

You can read about your mistake, here...

http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics

 

But I reproduce the essential information for your benefit, here...

 

Phase velocity and group velocity

Phase velocity is an almost useless piece of information you'll find in waveguide mathematics; here you multiply frequency times guide wavelength, and come up with a number that exceeds the speed of light!

 

Be assured that the energy in your wave is not exceeding the speed of light, because it travels at what is called the group velocity of the waveguide:

 

The group velocity is always less than the speed of light, we like to think of that this is because the EM wave is ping-ponging back and forth as it travels down the guide. Note that group velocity x phase velocity = c2.

Group velocity in a waveguide is speed at which EM energy travels in the guide. Plotted below as a percentage of the speed of light ©, we see how group velocity varies across the band for WR-90 (X-band) waveguide. Note that the recommended operating band of WR-90 is from 8.2 to 12.4 GHz. At 8.2 GHz the signal is slowed to 60% of the free-space speed of light. At the lower cutoff (6.56 GHz), the wave is slowed to zero, and you can outrun it without breathing hard.

 

Please try and understand what you claim to be knowledgeable about before you post Justus.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I believe God created us with free will so therefore I do not believe God plans (or directs) our every move.

 

God exists outside of time. As a result he does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows.

He views time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments.

 

This means God knows actions of humans through all time but this knowledge does not violate our free will.

 

If you truly believed this, Ironhorse, you would act accordingly.  Unfortunately, although I hate to keep beating a dead horse (pun intended), your actions demonstrate otherwise. 

 

You have told outright lies on this website.  You have broken promises on this website.  You have given your word that you would answer the questions put to you and address the counterpoints made against your arguments; and then you have failed to do so.

 

If you really believed that "god knows the actions of humans through all time", you'd be convinced that god knows of your lies and dishonesty.  This would lead you to repent and make restitution.  Since you haven't done so, the only logical conclusion is that you do not actually believe what you claim to believe.

 

Since you can offer nothing more than the statement, "I believe", and given that you have demonstrated this statement to be false, I see no compelling reason why anyone should listen to anything more you have to say.

 

Have a good day,

TRP

[bornagainathiest]

 

(snip)

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

 

 

The Lion's Den IS a very hostile environment for any Christians who enter it, TrueScotsman.

 

They enter at their own peril and should heed the warning given here...

 

Lion's Den Rules

Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians. 

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged. However, all posters to the Lion's Den are still expected to adhere the general rules of decorum as delineated in the Forum Guidelines. In other words, conversations in the Lion's Den are intended to be permissively unrestrained without devolving into repetitious verbal abuse. Those who are identified as repeatedly abusive -- in this section or any section of this website -- may be suspended or banned from posting without notice. 

 

Note: In view of the fiery nature of the discussions which occur in the Lion's Den, only those with a fairly thick skin should participate. 

 

For more orderly and serious debate, go to the "Colosseum." 

 

For controlled formal debate, go to the "Arena."

 

Here in the US, if you fail to heed the, "Don't Walk" sign, then you've only got yourself to blame if you get hurt.

 

Anyway TS, why don't you ask me why I'm behaving in this way...?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

BUT REGARDING THE REDHEAD Fellow,

I graciously waived contesting the validity of the Primordial atom hypothesis. I have been waiting on the Redneck to put the horse before the cart with the simple question of what basis did the house of evolution reasonably expect to provide shelter and protection to those who seek refuse from the flood of violent men when abiogenesis and evolution are intrinsically connected like a fetus to the mother.  

 

Biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life. The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed  this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. Source: Atheism.about

 

However, I do find it interesting how one can have any reasonable expectation that scientific principle can be established from a series of random derivates

 

As you can see from your own source, the Theory of Evolution begins with the assumption that life already existed. 

 

You, therefore, have not been waiting patiently on me to put the horse in front of the cart.  Instead, your attempt at changing the conversation to abiogenesis was nothing more than a deflection; because your fierce pride will simply not allow you to admit that you don't have the first clue how evolution actually works. 

 

This is precisely why you rely so heavily on copying and pasting from sciency sounding sources.  It is nothing more than an attempt at fooling yourself, as well as us, into thinking you comprehend more than you actually do.

 

You are fooling no one but yourself. 

 

Whenever you're ready to admit the truth and sit at the feet of those who can teach you, my thread will be available.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

One thing about some of the posts of some of the people whom BAA mentioned:  they preach something to promote Christian claims, then it's refuted, then after some months they preach the very same thing, without refuting the refutations, as though nothing had been said in reply the first time.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

(snip)

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

 

 

The Lion's Den IS a very hostile environment for any Christians who enter it, TrueScotsman.

 

They enter at their own peril and should heed the warning given here...

 

Lion's Den Rules

Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians. 

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged. However, all posters to the Lion's Den are still expected to adhere the general rules of decorum as delineated in the Forum Guidelines. In other words, conversations in the Lion's Den are intended to be permissively unrestrained without devolving into repetitious verbal abuse. Those who are identified as repeatedly abusive -- in this section or any section of this website -- may be suspended or banned from posting without notice. 

 

Note: In view of the fiery nature of the discussions which occur in the Lion's Den, only those with a fairly thick skin should participate. 

 

For more orderly and serious debate, go to the "Colosseum." 

 

For controlled formal debate, go to the "Arena."

 

Here in the US, if you fail to heed the, "Don't Walk" sign, then you've only got yourself to blame if you get hurt.

 

Anyway TS, why don't you ask me why I'm behaving in this way...?

 

Because some stranger on the internet didn't respond to your critique?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

I hold the Christians who enter the Den accountable for their words, their claims and their promises... for the sake of the lurkers, the newly-deconverted and the members of this forum.

.

.

.

 

Care to revise your estimation of my motives, TS...?

[Thackerie]

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

 

 

This is a support forum for ex-christians and people in the process of becoming ex-christians. It's only natural that regular members are suspicious of fundigelicals who come here with what we perceive as an intent to challenge us, insult us, and/or bring us back into the christian cult. In the latter case, in particular, they're like booze salesmen going to an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting and saying, "Here, have a drink. It's good for you."

 

Also, we are aware that these forums are viewed by a lot of lurkers who are still contemplating moving beyond christianity. We question people like Iron Horse and Ordinary Clay intensely so the lurkers can see their shallowness and mendacity exposed -- that is, so they can see why we are no longer christians and thereby make a more well-informed decision with respect to their own religious affiliation or lack thereof. You could consider it a public service.

 

Besides, christians who choose to come to our EX-christian site and post in the Lion's Den are warned in advance. "Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. ... An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged." They know what they have chosen to get into, so I don't feel sorry for them at all.

[mymistake]

 

It doesn't matter HOW life started or got here for evolution to be true.

You sound like a fundamentalist saying that they are going to believe their Bible no matter what the truth is.

 

 

Those two ideas are nothing alike.  Scientists are not following a sacred text such as the Bible.  They follow the evidence.  The evidence indicates that life evolves.  

 

Not knowing how life got started is irrelevant to this evidence.  However you have a problem with this because you believe your Bible no matter what the truth is.

 

Your beliefs require that abiogenesis is wrong and evolution is wrong and God created our universe even if there is no evidence for that. 

 

Nice projection you have there.

[mymistake]

 

Indeed, it's foolish to expect you'll persuade someone over the internet.  If someone doesn't have an solid answer, they probably won't respond.  To continually bring it up doesn't seem to be a fruitful effort, more like an exercise in futility.

 

 

 

It is too bad that not having solid answers does not stop Christians from preaching.  Christians everywhere love to preach.  

 

I was at a Birthday party yesterday and Christians spontaneously began to discuss where Jesus visited while he was dead.

 

As if!  Really Christians?  At a birthday party?  Can't we let kids play without indoctrination and nonsense?

 

 

 

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate that Christians do not have solid answers.  All this preaching sounds great unless

 

it is questioned.  When closely examined it falls apart at every step and is nothing but hot air.  We don't care that the preacher

 

doesn't give up.  But we do notice that it takes Ordinary Clay six months to build up his ego every time he gets embarrassed.

 

Supposedly every day he is in direct communication with a God that can create the universe using only words and yet God

 

never helps when ex-Christians ask the tough questions.  Yeah, right.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

(snip)

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

 

 

The Lion's Den IS a very hostile environment for any Christians who enter it, TrueScotsman.

 

They enter at their own peril and should heed the warning given here...

 

Lion's Den Rules

Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians. 

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged. However, all posters to the Lion's Den are still expected to adhere the general rules of decorum as delineated in the Forum Guidelines. In other words, conversations in the Lion's Den are intended to be permissively unrestrained without devolving into repetitious verbal abuse. Those who are identified as repeatedly abusive -- in this section or any section of this website -- may be suspended or banned from posting without notice. 

 

Note: In view of the fiery nature of the discussions which occur in the Lion's Den, only those with a fairly thick skin should participate. 

 

For more orderly and serious debate, go to the "Colosseum." 

 

For controlled formal debate, go to the "Arena."

 

Here in the US, if you fail to heed the, "Don't Walk" sign, then you've only got yourself to blame if you get hurt.

 

Anyway TS, why don't you ask me why I'm behaving in this way...?

 

Because some stranger on the internet didn't respond to your critique?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

I hold the Christians who enter the Den accountable for their words, their claims and their promises... for the sake of the lurkers, the newly-deconverted and the members of this forum.

.

.

.

 

Care to revise your estimation of my motives, TS...?

 

From my experience, it doesn't appear that there has ever been serious debating on here.  

 

Other members would disagree.

 

The environment is certainly not one for a rational and respectful discussion on the matter.  

 

The rules are quite clear, TS.  

For rational and respectful discussion Christians should go OUTSIDE of the Den.  

If they put themselves in harms way... that's our fault, not theirs?

 

I'm just telling you how it appears to be.  

 

And it appears to me that you've made up your mind about me.  

However, I'm willing to admit that appearances can be deceptive and that I'm wrong about you prejudging me.

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong about how it appears to you?

 

That you don't have much better to do, but gather up a long list of posts that haven't been addressed.  Sometimes from a long time ago.

 

I see.

In your book Christians can be excused from holding to their promises, from being accountable for their claims and for their beliefs ...if sufficient time has elapsed. Yes?

 

If they wanted to respond, wouldn't they have done it then?

 

When we refute their claims, destroy their arguments and expose their lies, of course they don't want to respond!

 

 

[mymistake]

From my experience, it doesn't appear that there has ever been serious debating on here.  The environment is certainly not one for a rational and respectful discussion on the matter.  

 

 

Feel free to start a serious debate in the Colosseum.  All threads there are treated seriously.  Or if you want something really formal you may PM a request to one of the moderators to allow you to start a thread in the Arena.  There are plenty of people who would rise to the challenge.

 

 

The Lion's Den is the place for preachers to preach.  The reason no serious debates happen here is that no serious Christians show up.  Plenty of people are willing to be serious but so far they are all on the ex-Christian side of the issue.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

One thing about some of the posts of some of the people whom BAA mentioned:  they preach something to promote Christian claims, then it's refuted, then after some months they preach the very same thing, without refuting the refutations, as though nothing had been said in reply the first time.

 

Indeed, it's foolish to expect you'll persuade someone over the internet.  If someone doesn't have an solid answer, they probably won't respond.  To continually bring it up doesn't seem to be a fruitful effort, more like an exercise in futility.

 

It is not an exercise in futility.  Rather, it is an effort to do what we can for honest lurkers, doubting christians, and those who have been abused by religious indoctrination.  I consider it both a duty and an honor.

[mymistake]

 

 

From my experience, it doesn't appear that there has ever been serious debating on here.  The environment is certainly not one for a rational and respectful discussion on the matter.  

 

 

Feel free to start a serious debate in the Colosseum.  All threads there are treated seriously.  Or if you want something really formal you may PM a request to one of the moderators to allow you to start a thread in the Arena.  There are plenty of people who would rise to the challenge.

 

 

The Lion's Den is the place for preachers to preach.  The reason no serious debates happen here is that no serious Christians show up.  Plenty of people are willing to be serious but they are all on the ex-Christian side of the issue.

 

That's right, "no serious Christians show up," that's because people don't usually subject themselves to ridicule and attacks when no benefit can be gained unless they're an irrational person.

 

Hence, you'll likely get Christians who aren't the best thinkers.

 

I am not here to debate the truthfulness of the tenets of Christianity, but am just dropping into the thread to state my opinions about the nature of this forum.  And why no one should expect to hear back concerning these arguments.

 

You create a place for preachers to preach, which will likely bring the "odd" ones and then continually bring up the past arguments that they haven't addressed.  It seems to me that they didn't come here to respond to every argument, but to preach whatever it is they want.

 

From the Ex-Christian end, everything seems emotionally infused and bitter.  Which of course leads to the volatile environment, which leads me to wonder why people are disappointed when the kind of people it attracts don't respond.  Puzzling.

 

 

 

TrueScotsman don't be disingenuous.  You have already been in a serious debate on ex-C.  When you could not defend your assertions you resorted to personal attacks.

 

Did you notice your thread was moved to the Lion's Den because of your behavior?

When a new Christian comes along I alway start off polite with them.  Things become rude when the Christian becomes rude.

 

You whine about the lack of seriousness but where are the serious Christians?  You have the opportunity to step up and be that serious Christian.

 

Like I said pick any topic you like for the Colosseum or the Arena.  However if you do, you will not be allowed to use personal attacks instead of proper debate.

[mymistake]

So TS you complain about a problem but you won't step up.

[mymistake]

 

So TS you complain about a problem but you won't step up.

I'm not a serious Christian.  So I have no real invested interest to try to convince anyone here, or debate it at length. 

 

 

 

 It would seem there is no problem for you to complain about then. 

 

 

 

In other news:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

 

 

concern troll

A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending. 

 

A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, "I don't think it's wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government." Or, "This controversy is making your side look disorganized."

[mymistake]

 

 

Alright, the unfruitful debating can continue now...

 

 

 

I find the Lion's Den debates to be extremely fruitful.

 

Every lie in Christian theology gets smashed between the rock of logic and the hard place of reality.