One might also comment on the absurdity of trying to explain something for which there's ample evidence -- that is, all that exists -- on the basis of something supernatural for which there's none.The cartoon is from the good folk at Russell's Teapot.
RELATED: Religion, Cartoons
68 comments:
Well for starters at least Jesus Christ existed! He was crucified.
And many people clamed to have seen him after this and gave their lives as a testimony to their witness.
Nobody ever saw an ape man!
And there is plenty of internal evidence for Christ in Bible prophecy and Types that gives reason enough to the thinking man to have faith in the testimony of St Paul and co.
Israel was waiting for him!
As for the miracle aspect of this challenge. It is far more reasonable to postulate God can transcend the laws of Nature, than for Nature to defy them and produce godless miracles like spontaneous generation or self assemble the human brain!
The God hypothesis rationally aligns itself in an un-contradictory order whereas the theory of evolution requires contradictory reasoning as it must defy the laws of nature without a God!
Dawkins is wrong that the first cause must be simple! His obsession with the myth of evolution is not a valid reason to eliminate a complex first cause, and in fact the super complexity of reality indicates an even greater origin, not the reverse.
God is a rational postulate!
Dawkins is a fool!
Tim said...
Well for starters at least Jesus Christ existed! He was crucified.
So, what?
And many people claimed to have seen him after this and gave their lives as a testimony to their witness.
Yes , claimed. That says it all Tim.
And there is plenty of internal evidence for Christ in Bible prophecy and Types that gives reason enough to the thinking man to have faith in the testimony of St Paul and co. Israel was waiting for him!
Well, well , well Tim, biblical evidence. Bible has no evidences at all. People who use the bible for evidence of something omnipotent are deluded. If you say, evidence from evolution or big bang, then there is something physical there to be debated, but biblical evidence? You 've got to be joking here.
It is far more reasonable to postulate God can transcend the laws of Nature,
Aha! Postulate. Yep, postulate. In science for example in Physics, you postulate, then proceed to test the postulation and see if the experiment confirm the proposed postulation. In the biblical story, it has many postulations, but there is no repeatable way to test if those were merely a figment of who believe in those proposals imaginations. That means those proposals are not physically repeatable by way of experiments.
the theory of evolution requires contradictory reasoning as it must defy the laws of nature without a God!
No, Tim. If you believe your God, then it/he must be playing mind games with you. I mean , you think that he violates the laws of physics (nature) frequently to mislead his followers (or mankind). God proponents like you , would think that God only intervenes when it suits him/itself, but NEVER fuck and stop wars or other humans killing other humans. How hard do you fuck'n think that your God, would just stop the massacres taking place in Dafur, Sudan at the moment ? Easy, if it/he existd. Why the fuck'n God just watches and self-congratulates him/it self when human kills each other. Don't you think that he would intervene? The answer is 'No', according to you.
Falafulu Fisi,
as I am about to go to work I dont have time right now to give you a full answer.
Meet you here about 1am!
I will say your post reveals an immense dislike for God.
I only have time to add the fact that God did offer mankind an alternitive to wars and tyranny when he sent Christ in meekness with this very offer!
As you know what they did to Christ, you ought to understand the error of your position!
Blame Mankind for these evils not God!
The Brain being spontaniously generated,no evolutionest believes that thats why its called evolution not spontanious generation.The term evolution meaning very slow accent in complexity in tiny incremental steps each step in itself very probable and then ratcheted up and locked in by non random natural selection
If you think of God as a metaphor for the highest human aspirations and evolution as the mechanics of creation situations like Darfur begin to make sense. The Creator has no mind and therefore possesses neither compassion nor pity. It doesn’t exist as something that can intervene directly in any human situation. It’s up to humans and humans alone to sort things out.
Falafulu, there’s no point arguing with someone like Tim. You’ll get to the end and just have to start all over again with the same arguments. Why punish yourself?
Tim Wikirihi
The fact that you even mention spontaneous generation, which has nothing to do with evolution and is a concept that died in the late 19th century, shows that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You are criticising a set of ideas you call evolution, but which has nothing to do with anything you'll find in a textbook, should be the clearest sign that you have been duped. That's right, you've been lied to by the church leaders who fed you that rubbish.
If you do nothing else, read any short, popular book written by a scientist about evolution (Dawkins is excellent, whatever you think of his view on religion). Then, at least, you will not embarrass yourself with such silly criticisms.
Its Tim People.....the guy who see's ghosts and paints with his own poo....;-)
Matt b,
Spontaneous generation has everything to do with evolution!
Today the atheist prefers the term "Bio genesis" as they think by changing the name they escape Pasteur’s refutation which still holds good!
Please tell me what you call the godless origin of life?
Michael Fasher,
I love your Ratchet! Haw haw! It's like Dawkin's imaginary "scaffolds and cranes"! Man this is pseudo science at it's best!
When will you be wheeling out the "no more nails"? or the monkey wrenches!
"Earth to Michael...phone home!"
Giving evolution imaginary tools is not science buddy!
I laugh at Dawkin's "monism"... It's monism alright...Single brain cell!
Anglo,
I'm still waiting for a scientific response from you! All you seem capable of producing is defamatory comments about my ignorance.
That is not an argument!
Falafulu fisi,
Let me just add to my last post that the bible is a reliable history book and on top of this It has made statements of fact that science has only recently verified, such as the Genetic vindication of Adam and Eve.
This sort of amazing fact shows us that not only is the bible a record of history it is so much more! It is Divine revelation!
Prior to such recent discoveries as are founded upon Mendel’s Law, It was still possible via reason, to accept the story of Adam and Eve, as the logic that fish come from the original fish and Mankind come from Adam and Eve was enough for such great minds as John Locke to be convinced of it (read his first treaties on civil government).
At that time the truth of "Kind after it's kind" was observable, yet the 'Why' was still unknown until recent Times.
Vindication of the Bible continues!
That atheists here think that believing the Bible is like believing in ferries merely shows their utter inability to think or acknowledge any scientific fact that supports the bible.
Ultimately their taunts against me are less than water off a ducks back! They are so empty as to be sheer void!
The sad thing is that they think that I have some crazy self defending agenda that relies on black magic and putting my hands over my eyes and ears and attacking them!
The truth is I am concerned for their souls, and am battling the lies that hold them in the darkness of Anti-Christ, not them as human beings.
I fear for them! I am trying to help them!
It is these poor deluded souls who are blocking their minds to what I am saying!
They reveal an utter ignorance of their own propositions!
E.G Such comments as "spontaneous generation has nothing to do evolution"...is proof positive of their inability to string two thoughts together!
I will leave off my sayings here...for now!
I hope that someone out there benefits from these exchanges and turns to Christ!
And I do apologize for my rudeness. As I am a rude dude and I don’t have the eloquent skills of a good teacher, and so I struggle to argue in a non combative manor.
Good night all!
Tim
The shocking, blinding arrogance of christianity in all its glory. Sounds like you already have all the answers. "Nobody ever saw an ape man." Brilliant.
Ah evolution, pc, as this is real science, please give me something whereby evolution can be falsified. Or some actual predictions it made.
Berend de Boer
Entirely fair and valid questions.
What would rule out evolution: rabbits in the Precambrian (from Haldane), or indeed the discovery of any out-of-sequence fossil. DNA evidence showing humans are not genetically related to other species in the way suggested by fossils and morphology.
Predictions: Darwin predicted the existence of transitional fossils 2 years (IIRC) before the discovery of Archaeopteryx. A list of predictions is available here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
Matt b,
As I suspected!
You have failed to address my question re spontaneous generation and instead have retreated into Anglos camp!
My statement regarding ape-men is valid! Ie Why don’t we see "transitional men" developing from Apes now????
Has evolution given up on monkeys when it once thought them worthy of elevation to the very summit of life?
You see Matt It is YOU who believe in mythical creatures and magical powers!
You cloak your religion in 'secular terms' yet you only fool yourself.
I call you a hypocrite!
You are guilty of the very 'evil' you accuse Christians of!
You are a soulless ape!
That ought not be offensive to you because it is what you believe!
You are a Zombie!
That ought not be offensive to you as that is what your 'monism' dictates!
You are a robot!
Don’t pretend to be a thinker or a moralist as you don’t have free will!
I must be crazy writing to you as according to your own beliefs I am actually trying to reason with the indifferent mundane periodic table!
But still, I demand you start coming up with some answers if you want to play with me!
This is my fvourite series of cartoons.
The link goes to one directly on evolution.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/09/25/tiny/
Bt they are all great.
SG
Tim, not for the first time it seems you have compltely missed the point and enmired yourself in a debate about the trees of evolution, instead of the forest of philosophy.
First point:
The post commented on the absurdity of trying to explain something for which there's ample evidence -- that is, all that exists -- on the basis of something supernatural for which there's none.
You ignored that completely, in saying: "Well for starters at least Jesus Christ existed! He was crucified."
But the post is not about Jesus, it is about the spurious need for a a supernatural sky-god for which there is no proof to "explain" the very real existence of everything for which we have ample proof.
I'm quite prepared to accept the evidence of Josephus that a bloke called Jesus was nailed up by the Romans -- as were several hundred others, including perhaps a chap called Brian-- but that neither addresses the point made above, and nor does it have any relevance to me at all. Any reason it should?
Second point:
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that in disproving evolution (if you could), that woudl somehow prove the existence of your chosen supernatural sky god. But why should it? And why that particular sky god?
Oh and Matt, how convenient you have left out of your list of required falsification *disproving spontaneous generation*
Why is this?
Oh yes that has already been done!
Without spontaneous generation your theory cant even start!
Thus it is dead!
Next lets compare the Archaeopteryx to the duck billed platypus and see where your reasoning gets us?
So You suppose the Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from birds to reptiles...oh no you say it is from reptiles to birds!....how scientific!
Well I ask what the hell is the Platypus trying to 'morph' into?
(that term morph is another gem!)
The real answer is that Neither the platypus or the archaeopteryx are trying to become anything at all! They are simple being what they were made to be!
Archaeopteryx became extinct...it did not morph into a chicken!
It was simply one of the many species that has disappeared.
It was a sort of bird, nothing more nothing less.
And the entire fossil record stands in rebuttal of your delusions!
It is a testimony to the reality that Mendel’s Law locks the species into their kinds over the eons!
Eg We have trees and fish and snakes and sharks and nautilus etc etc living today exactly as the fossil record shows they have always been!
This is because DNA replicates itself exactly!
In sexual reproduction via meiosis the offspring become a combination of their two parents genes with no new genes forming so that the child only has per-existing genes and therefore remains of the same kind as the parents!...no evolution! Hence the fossil record displays Mendel’s law…not Darwin’s law…oh that’s right there is no Darwin’s law!)
When something goes wrong due to radiation/toxins etc this is a disaster not a call for celebration!
Do you have a ‘genetic disposition’ to atheism?
Dawkins tries to say the fact that religion is universal in mankind that we must be genetically pre-disposed to it!
I think your own answer (that I suppose you will say)… that you choose to be an atheist by free will totally refutes Dawkins and materialism!
There are millions holes in your bogus theory all of which falcify it!
Tim
I now understand your spontaneous generation reference, and it is entirely unrelated to evolution. Pasteur correctly argued complex life cannot spring from simple molecules, but that is not what evolution says happens, so whatever Pasteur was criticising, it was not the current theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution, except in the sense that is must precede it. Evolution and the first chemical replicators that eventually led to it are different things.
A range of plausible origins have been proposed, because there are many self-replicating chemicals which could have been sustained on the early earth. You will understand, exclamation marks and all, that 3.5-3.9 billion years is long enough to eliminate most of the direct evidence, though possibly not all, and it is left to scientists to identify the most plausible sequence of events out of many plusible scenarios that led to a RNA then a DNA replicator.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Tim,
Just read your latest post, and it occurred to me: what kind of god would give us reason knowing that his followers would so badly abuse it in his defence, as you just have?
As PC points out, this whole discussion is grounded in a false premise, that disproving evolution proves your particular god exists.
Ok P.c lets talk Philosophy.
For starters the "tree" of evolution"...Great meaningless metaphor!
I thought you were only interested in reality!
Don’t you think it is a bit rich to think "mankind knows about every thing that exists?"
Is not this 'Atheism' the end of scientific discovery?
The fact is reality is not explainable in fully understood concepts as they stand, despite the 'Monist' faith!
The fundamental difference between life and death, between physical laws and moral truth, point us towards a higher plane than mere physical elements.
Even from our limited grasp of how the universe works raises two questions for every answer!
This is because even the knowledge that we have points to a greater unknown.
If we really had the "holy grail of knowledge" we would find the reverse would be occurring...that mystery would shrink, not expand.
My own knowledge of myself as a spirit being is self evident!
I am not a collection of chemicals that via chemistry has coagulated the notion that I am alive and can think! Is this a delusion? Am I ‘dead’ and have no more special existence than rocks and stones?
Finally what you call knowledge I call semantics!
Ie we call something Gravity and give it a set of traits and then claim to "know it"!
The reality is we don’t have a clue what it really is!
We gasp mere external phenomena.
All we have done is make a user friendly concept that we may then apply to the problems of life.
And ultimately that is all science is!
A helpful aid in dealing with reality.
It does not constitute ultimate truth!
Nevertheless what does our limited knowledge suggest the ultimate truth is like (Speculation/ philosophy)
God!!!!!!
Our existence (Man) points to God! Not dead matter!
Bacon's advancement of learning has much to say on this...I will dig up my copy and find his exact words to the effect that... “Amateur philosophy tends to atheism by misunderstanding secondary causes, but the truly learned must fly to Deity!"
God is the first cause, yet Bacon warns against attempting to 'fly up to the secrets of the Deity ‘on waxen wings’… that is by way of secondary causes which the universe functions and is the domain of natural science.
God is the first cause!
I must leave off here and return later as I must prepare for work.
Like the Governor of California…”I’ll be back”!
It's always the same with fundamentalists. Never a serious response. I'm done here, Tim.
Umm Tim You obviously arent keeping up.
The argument that there is a first cause and that cause must be god is no longer, a credible argument. It will obviously will take a while to filter on to the likes of you. But to point you in the direction.
Victor Stenger has demolished it in his book
God: The Failed Hypothesis
or listen to him here.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=99
P.C,
Let me add a few small comments to my earlier post which was a rush job.
The basic consequences of that post is this.
We do know some things about some things. We don’t know every thing about every thing and so it follows that your statement about philosophy, evolution and “all there is” is found to be yet another overstatement of the atheist grip on reality!
Sorry you have no Monopoly on reason or reality.
And I am an engineer, not a rabbits foot salesman!
I have a better grasp of science and physics than the average computer geek!
I know all our science does not eliminate God whatsoever!
I know the validity of the design argument!
And I know how utterly unscientific the theory of evolution is!
This philosophically means that God is still in the game!
I waded into this evolution debate because you instigated a fight between Darwin and the Christian (It was you who set the terms of this argument)
I merely provided you with the opposing view of this fight!
Without me this comments arena would just be a group hug session!
As someone who believes in free speech and the benefit of dialogue, I am sure you appreciate my posts even if you disagree with them.
You may think that my ‘poor arguments’ strengthen your position…I don’t know what you think.
I would be surprised if you agreed with everything that has been said against me and I am sure you must cringe at some of the stupid things and in such cases you will not be surprised by my responses.
Anonymous,
Please expand.
Your link did not link!
The name Stenger rings a bell, but I can not remember why.
Was he a guy who invented a multiple universe theory?
I am busting to hear what genius can achieve such a feat as you claim!
Matt B, you are a wimp!
I smell State educated dullard!
Why is it that you don’t appreciate me? Do you surf the net looking for group hugs?
Surely my 'ignorance' is an opportunity for you to shine?
Enlighten me!
Or have you no light?
Just remember when you stand on the edge of the abyss that I tried my best to warn you. I tried to show you that you have a soul and are accountable to God!
Then you will say Tim was no fool!
You will cry out in utter remorse that you could be so silly as to think that you evolved from slime!
But it will be too late! You will have made your choice to reject Christ! He will reject you!
It does not have to be this way!
Today Christ is waiting and ready to save your soul! The moral choice is yours!
matt b: yes, Darwin predicted transitional fossils. Sadly they didn't show up, as I proved by quoting actual palaeontologists, instead of the usual suspect (the illusionary Dawkins).
The theory is still there.
That's how science works guys, contradicting evidence doesn't cause a theory to be abandoned.
matt b, if you look at the Talk Origins page, isn't the first thing you note that it is very, very brief?
According to some recent claims made on this site how science works (snort), scientists are busy falsifying theories. Ahem, how many scientists are busy trying to falsifying evolution?
On two accounts evolution has already been falsified: there are no transitional fossils (just look at the TalkOrigins on the very few and sad examples they try to mention) and secondly we have found actual biological mechanisms (many actually) fighting mutations. Cells do their utmost best to prevent mutations, continually reparations are being made. And the only examples we have of mutations that have given some advantage to a species are deleterious ones (i.e. a ice bear isn't white because it developed that ability, but because it lost its ability to make coloured hair).
We haven't find any species that gained flight, but it seems that losing the ability to fly is quite common among birds. (NZ being a prime example).
Tim's posts may not do anything to alter my conviction regarding the non-existence of god, but it shakes to the core my belief in the existence of rules of grammar.
Sean.
Tim said...
I have a better grasp of science and physics than the average computer geek!
No, it shows that you're contradicting yourself. You choose to accept laws of Physics as the ultimate boss of nature when it suits your deluded view, but chose to ignore it, to support your God's theory. For example, if I have to ask you confirm whether Jesus was walking on the surface of the water according to the bible, you would definitely say YES, Jesus did just that, thus ignoring Newton Laws of motion as , Every Action has a Reaction. For Jesus to walk on the surface of the water, there you see that Newton Laws is violated. In fact to believe in such a myth is to say, that there was the reaction (standing on the surface of the water without sinking), but there was no obvious action (causal phenomena that would have caused Jesus to stand on the surface of the water).
Now, if I would have to point you out to many claims over the past years, that many people with the so called psycho-kinesis power, where one can will an object to float in the air, with no obvious causation at all, you would be the first to jump and ridicule such claim as the work of the devil, or simply saying that it is a fraud.
Of course, Jesus's claim to have walked on the surface of water and psycho-kineticists to will object into flying do violate the Newton laws of motion and must be dismissed outright, no ifs no buts.
Now, Tim, if you're still deluded, can you tell me if the laws of physics be violated selectively by God and its followers? If that is the case, then why aren’t we seeing the sort of miracles described in the bible (those incidents that broke the laws of physics) happening today? The answer is, those biblical times; people were dumb, superstitious, not yet invented Newton laws, etc,etc. So you would expect that charlatans at the time including Jesus, could trick a few suckers, and the word about such miracles spread very fast.
You don't see these claims happening today, do you? WHY? Because we know Physics, and any claim that supposedly break the laws of physics would be immediately debunked, since we do use instrumentations to do measurement and see if it is repeatable.
Ok, Tim, I want you to go back to study your Physics and ask your God, when does he violates those laws and when does he obeyed them.
Berend de Boer
The question is not whether transitional fossils exist, but why legions of scientists, many of them christians, say you are simply wrong to about their non-existence. Either you are so deeply ignorant about what you're talking, or you are so deeply entrenched in your position that in your mind it makes sense to argue that virtually every professional scientist who has spent their careers studying this stuff is wrong and you, with reference only to your particular choice of faith, are right.
You asked for predictions, and I gave you a link to page that contained some. I don't see why brevity is an issue. It is not a complete list.
Maintaining there are no transitional fossils is actually ridiculous. I just think it is embarrassing that you'd choose to believe in a religion that forces you to defend such plainly unreasonable propositions. (I don't actually know if you are religious, but I have never seen an objection to evolution from someone who is not religious, which is telling).
OOooo Tim your such a rebel, bucking the system, breaking new ground, breaking up this cosy little corner, or is it just the old reinventing itself by suckering those who think it cool to believe in jesus
(look no capital j) you offended.
I've always considered this present wave of jesus freaks the bastard offspring of the new age, cause thats all you are, feel free to take offence at that.
As for Victor Stenger he has a few books out look on Amazon or Google his name, as an "engineer" they should be no problemo to your towering intellect. You can take offence at that as well if you like. Say are you one of those destiny drongo's?
As for this other dullard about no fossil record, huh?
Where you been living under a rock.
The funny thing is (as Talk Origins points out), for every creationist who claims evolution can't be falsified, you have a dozen more claiming to have falsified it!
As an example, you must all have heard of Michael Behe - all of his irreducable complexity business is a (failed) attempt to satisfy one of Darwin's own falsification conditions for evolution:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
As far as "transitional fossils" go, you can't win there, Matt - no matter how many fossils you throw at them, creationists will always demand ones that go "in between" the ones you point out. They don't realise that all fossils are "transitional", since evolution is a continuous process.
Josh, I agree. Evolution is actually very falsifiable in ways that even I, as a layman, can recognise. The best example I can think of is DNA. Evolution was thought up long before DNA evidence became available. There are many, many more ways that the DNA code in nature could have been arranged that contradicted evolution, yet - surprise surprise - its arrangement is precisely consistent with common descent. That is a true test in the sense that if evolution were not true, it is exceedingly unlikely DNA would provide evidence in support of it by chance.
"As far as "transitional fossils" go, you can't win there, Matt - no matter how many fossils you throw at them, creationists will always demand ones that go "in between" the ones you point out. They don't realise that all fossils are "transitional", since evolution is a continuous process."
And of course, every time a new "transitional fossil" is found to fill a "gap" in the record, it actually doubles the number of gaps (ie., there's now a gap either side of the new find, rather than just the one previous gap), bringing on increasing demands for even more transitional fossils to be found... meaning that the more you find, the more gaps in the record the evolutionarily illiterate demand to be filled.
Foolishness.
Tim, you're still either avoiding or misunderstanding two very simple points. I'll try and put them simply:
1. Disproving evolution (even if you could do it) does not prove the existence of a supernatural being, or even of your particular choice of supernatural being.
It's a red herring. Argue about evolution all you like (and you seem to like to) but it has no bearing on the chief point you're trying to prove: the existence of your own chosen sky god.
2. We don't need to provide evidence for existence, since it is existence itself that underpins our requirement for evidence. We don't need to 'prove' existence. Here it is. We're in it. We know it.
It is the height of foolishness to try and prove what we do know on the basis of what we don't. Evidential proof works the other way.
That said then, we do know that existence exists. That's a known. But existence requires no further explanation, and it certainly has no need of something unknown to explain it.
Which comes now to the point I made above: it is simply absurd to try and explain something for which there is ample evidence -- to give and explanation for all that we do know -- on the basis of something supernatural for which there's no evidence.
To explain the known by means of the unknown -- what could me more irrational?
3. Even if you were to avoid addressing that point, there would be another problem for you. If you insist that existence does require an explanation, and you insist that your particular sky god was responsible for all that exists, then who was responsible for your sky god?
If you insist despite the evidence of your eyes that all that exist "can't have just happened," then why do you insist that your sky god himself has "just happened"?
P.C. I will respond later.
Falafuli fisi,
I appreciate your posts as they present valid questions and challenges.
Let me now give you my reasoning which I hope will show you why an engineer who daily puts his very life “in the hands” of the integrity of physics, believes the bible, miracles and all.
Firstly let me say that Newton himself believed it!
So I am in good company! This fact ought to suffice yet I’ll expand on why Newton and little me believe in the bible.
Miracles are the property of God who transcends the universe.
The Bible is a record of God’s creative power, Holiness, and communication with mankind (whom he made…that is how we got here. It was a miracle!)
Miracles are events that would not occur by Natural law, or by Man. (who is capable of amazing things yet cannot transcend nature)
What do we see when a miracle occurs in the bible?
We see very upset people! Esp religious people!
Why this is is because despite the atheist delusion that theists live in a make believe realm of magic, the truth is Theists have an excellent understanding of the rules of physics/ procreation etc so that when some thing contradicts these laws, they hit the dirt in terror! (like you would!)
You see miracles are frightening because they break the rules, and put the fear of God into you!
This is why the apostles “freaked out”
When they saw Jesus walking on the water, or when he calmed the storm.
It is also why God had to send Gabriel to Joseph.
Joseph rightly understood the natural laws regarding conception and so logically was thinking Mary had been unfaithful. It was not until the angel turned up and convinced him of the miracle that he took Mary for his wife.
Also doubting Tomas was not the only skeptic regarding the resurrection of Christ.
The bible clearly shows none of the apostles expected it, they called the woman who reported it crazy, and Thomas would have no bar of it until he put his fingers in the nail holes!
Thus, like you, we religious folk are not morons, and we understand the implications of the claims of miracles, and are most likely to dismiss them unless some proof positive is given to the reality of the event.
This shows the utter B.S that atheist try and say we religious folk are unscientific meatheads.
Add to this the fact that Natural law is incapable of making living organisms and esp a Man.
As an engineer, I know my own existence is proof positive that a miracle happened in the past and that God is the author of that miracle!
Thus miracles are within the bounds of reason and are demanded by the limitations of Natural law (which are incapable of producing humans).
Finally why don’t miracles happen today?
Miracles, as signs and wonders were given to Moses to convince the Jews that he was sent by God to free them, and ever since then the Jews always demanded miracles as evidence of Divine messengers, which is why Christ did miracles.
St Paul did miracles for the same reason “The Greeks seek after wisdom, and the Jew requires a sign”. Yet if you understand the dispensation change from Jew to gentile in this age of grace, you understand why even during St Paul’s life time signs and wonders ceased.
(he was unable to heal the sick later in his ministry) The reason is God was no longer giving the Jews special signs that they might believe! They had murdered Christ, and they killed his servants when God gave them a second chance!
Thus it is that the church age is a sign-less age, and we are told to believe the bible and reject all ministers and angels that appear with such signs as Anti-Christ!
Signs and wonders in this age are an indication of evil! Not good!
The Anti Christ himself will deceive the nations with great signs and wonders!
He will rise from the dead! He pretends to be Christ!
So Ironically We Christians are today (or ought to be) skeptics at claims to Ministers who say God told them to do …blar blar!
So Falafulu fisi that is basically it in a nut shell.
I will not be surprised if my answer does not satisfy you, as you probable are immovable on this subject. But at least I have given you my view.
Brian S...The Pythagorean.
I will get back to you l8ter 2.
HAhaha this just gets better and better, You and Newton Huh. Newton also had a weakness for alchemy, and all that fiddling with mercury probably did something to his brain. Whats your excuse? He was also by all accounts a thoroughly unpleasant person, I imagine sorta like Brian Tamaki.
I see yours was an immaculate conception just like your hero jesus. Mummy and daddy didnt do it it was a miracle.. dededadadededada twilight zone.
Boy it must have hurt when Thomas put his FINGER thru the NAIL HOLE. Did he wiggle it around just to make sure? Check it was his finger that was actually through the hole.
The Jews killed jesus??????????? this hoary old chestnut... from the gospel of john yeah not matthew, mark or luke.... just john and so thats why they suffered for 2000yrs man oh man.
I wouldnt let you near any I was commissioning.
If your in construction let me know what you worked on so I can give it a wide berth.
Tim,
In your post:
Appeal to authority (Newton)
Unsupported assertion (there is a god)
Unsupported assertion (bible is accurate, infallible)
Unsupported assertion (my existence is a miracle from god)
I don't doubt you believe these things, but unless whoever you are talking to just happens to already accept those priors then your argument falls apart. There is literally no way to distinguish the quality of your assumptions someone else assuming that miracles are the product of a magic teapot orbiting Saturn. There's no evidence either way; one is no more sensible than the other.
This conversation is happening because evolution conflicts with your religious views. So answer this: if evolution is false, why did your god decide to arrange the world in one of the few ways that would not quickly and obviously rule out evolution ever happening at all? Why set the world up in a way that would lead otherwise good people (scientists and many others) in the wrong direction? And does that apparent deceit not say something about your god's character?
Brian,
I say yea!
So far you are the only honest person here who has acknowledged the true status of science!
Furthermore, you are quite correct in saying God did not ‘invent’ mathematics, nor can he defy mathematics eg He cannot make a square circle, He cannot make 1+1 = 42, and he cant make an object that is bigger on the inside than on the outside (as we define those terms)
It ought to be apparent that such things are absurdities.
This reality is the answer to the Epicurean semantic absurdities such as “If God cannot make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it…then he’s not omnipotent!”
This is a mathematical absurdity, equivalent to saying “If God can’t make a square circle he’s not omnipotent!
There is the notion of Monotheism, and the Trinity, (which I liken unto an atom made of 3 distinct particles yet are so constituted as to be one substance)
God is separate from his creation and thus distinction/division and multiplicity is necessarily the outcome.
Simply understood, He made physical “three dimensional” reality.
All the laws of Physics are mathematical.
I am no mathematician, so I cannot pretend to follow you into that realm, yet I have glimpses of it in certain ways.
You seem to be relating Math’s to Socrates “theory of forms”, to which I ascribe in the sense that I believe God can make perfect circles, and that God may be “perfectly beautiful”, and perfectly Holy and by contrast (Dualism) we may comprehend perfect ugliness, perfect evil etc.
In this sense I have no trouble with your statements that every physical thing has some mathematical value that is fundamental to it’s existence, and that this realm is part of the divine spirituality (non-physical).
Math has beauty! Music is math and it is spiritual!
Where Math may be impotent is in the realm of ethics.
I believe Aristotle correctly mocked Pythagoras for equating justice with some mathematical statement.(I cannot remember what it was, but I remember thinking Aristotle was right!)
Thus I say Math has indisputably essential qualities, yet I believe God and man as ethical being cannot be fully comprehended in mathematical terms.
I cannot fathom a conscious mathematical equation!
So I must list the essence of God, and Man with ethics as outside math in some essential way that I cannot begin to understand! I will have to give this Idea some thought.
I have also an understanding that “Infinity” has it’s mathematical problems in regard to physical reality.
You have hinted that you know a way around these, yet I cannot follow you.
Thank you for you interesting contribution!
matt b: Maintaining there are no transitional fossils is actually ridiculous.
I was quoting actual palaeontologist matt. The most famous in this world. They say they don't exist. Not me.
But that doesn't mean a thing, because according to your falsification list, evolution can only be disproved if you find a centaur.
But matt b, why don't you actually read my guest post on this very site? I quote actual palaeontologist, not Richard Dawkins, the only guy you people can quote.
And my sources are not creationists. They all believe in evolution, and if what they say would be taken seriously by you, it would mean that evolution was falsified.
My bet is that if pc did put as much work in trying to look at evolution as he does at climate science, he would feel just as uncomfortable about it.
Brian,
When you add 'machine' to the equation, then I can grasp the plausibility of an equation that may function like computer soft ware. Yet I still see a fundamental difference between such an equation (with engine) and(1)free will (2)consciousness.
Furthermore Re Math and Quantum physics, I see a clear distinction between these.
Math we have said has an existence outside physics, whereas Quantum physics is still 'inside'.
Thus I say even when the great equation that unites all physical reality is understood, this will not displace God from his throne.
It will show us how he has constructed the universe and that is all.
It is here where I confront P.C with his philosophical delusion that demands science be used to define everything! He is sneaking in his pet religion and it's consequent circular logic that "Everything must be defined in materialistic terms".
I say that is impossible, wishful thinking. It may be possible to describe innate mater in such terms, yet as I have said before that is only dealing with one part of what is 'inside'.
It does not answer Living reality!
Consciousness, free will, morality, Love etc etc.
Materialism must say these are but illusions! (because they know that they cannot be explained by their religion in any other way, and that if the reality of these be accepted as some essential/absolute truth then they are undone and in danger of hell fire!)
This is the bias that drives their fanatical materialism and is why they get nasty when you challenge their religion (just like a Bin Laden!)
I will add here P.C that you are right that the debate on the existence of God is bigger than the debate on evolution and that victory on this subject is but a battle won, while the war goes on.
Let me say it is a major battle, (That is already won by theism!) yet conflicts will continue as long as deluded and spiteful ‘resistance fighters’ keep pestering the victorious.
Evolution is an attempt to put God out of a job. And because this Idea is so appealing to atheists they will never give it up!...Those that do will be in church the next day!
This is because this battle is also connected to the wider issue of the truthfulness of the Bible!
By eliminating the theory of evolution with biblical principles, the Bible is elevated, and it’s truthfulness given greater credibility.
As evolutionist here seam hell bent on distinguishing spontaneous generation from evolution (which is an ostrich impersonation) The Absolute truth that spontaneous generation is impossible (never happens) again points to the Deity, and more so the accuracy of the Bible!
In these few word I hope I have show why I as a Christian will cut and thrust at evolution and why atheists will try and parry.
Matt b,
I am so glad you have decided to play by the rules! I commend you. You show me you are no wimp after all.
As for my “appeal to authority”…there are times when such an appeal is not a cop out. This is one!
I simply appealed to Newton as Falafulu fisi was attempting to discredit the bible via Newtonian concepts, and thus it was a legitimate short cut for me to make the point that “the Father himself”
Was against Falafulu fisi’s assumptions. (That Newton’s laws make miracles impossible)
I will get back to you on your other statements later.
Annon,
If I was a man worshiper I would curse you for letting the hallowed name of Newton pass though your unworthy lips! He was a Super Genius!
You are not.
But I am no man worshipper! I know Newton was a sinner like everyone else and so thank you for vindicating the bible!
I am amused at the psychology of an atheist who will attack Newton’s character and attribute his Christianity to mercury poisoning!
You’re naked unscientific religious fanaticism is exposed!
Haw haw.
Annon,
Let me add this short note before I go off engineering.
It is the fact that I am by far one of the best engineers I know! :D
I do not profess to have the most knowledge, but I do profess to have the best ethics.
My work is meticulous! I apply all my virtues to every job I do whether big or small and must be halted from being to fussy by my superiors if they think that a ruff job is good enough.
If I am halted too many times, I quit! And search for a job where I can apply my ethics unhindered.
I am both methodical and innovative! I understand the laws of physics and so I am an excellent trouble shooter!
I have superior ethics to your atheist buddies who think they can do shoddy work and tell lies about it! I work beneath the watchful eyes of God Almighty! He commands me to be and honest hard working man who takes ownership of his work and strives to be the best tradesman I can be!
Sloth of mind is as great a sin as sloth of body!
I have never been sacked for poor engineering!
So you’re idea that a theist is untrustworthy as an engineer just shows how untrustworthy your own logic is!
Put that in your pipe and suck on it!
Berend:
I was quoting actual palaeontologist matt. The most famous in this world. They say they don't exist.
No, they don't. You may have missed it at the time, but over at Brain Stab, our Eric gave that guest post a thorough working over. Short version: those quotes are either out-of-date, out-of-context or incomplete.
Still, if you can take in a partial list of possible falsification criteria and come out with:
because according to your falsification list, evolution can only be disproved if you find a centaur
there's probably no convincing you of anything.
Tim,
I like the way how you defend your belief. You're not going to move an inch in your belief till the day you die.
Anyway, how about if you come to Auckland at some stage, then make contact so that I can have meet up and have a drink or a BBQ with you, PC and sing some nice hymns. I have a Methodist hymn book that I keep at my place, not because I go to church, but to sing when my Tongan mates come for a drink at some weekends. Me and my mates do sing like a mini-choir, one sings in a baritone voice , one in a tenor, one sings in an alto , and so forth. I've only met you twice at a BBQ at the Castle in about 1999 or 2000, where you came with your wife there.
Here are some of my favorite hymns that you can start practice before we meet up in Auckland, if you decide to make contact and meet up for drink, etc. The click on these links and listen to the MIDI file and practice.
ALL HAIL THE POWER OF JESUS’ NAME and lyrics is here.
O FOR A THOUSAND TONGUES TO SING and lyrics is here.
Shall We Gather at the River and lyrics is here.
WONDERFUL WORDS OF LIFE and lyrics on the same page.
CHRIST THE LORD IS RISEN TODAY and lyrics on the same page.
GOD BE WITH YOU TILL WE MEET AGAIN and lyrics on the same page.
Tim
If you had cited Newton on a matter of science then I'd agree it would be appropriate. But you didn't. You cited him in support of a religious idea, and as far as I can tell Newton has no more information on that than the local butcher. So it was an appeal to authority.
I'll look forward to your response on my other question.
Berend de Boer
Let's review. You point me to a list of old sources, now discredited, now rebutted but don't mention that, a list that includes quotes mentioned in the Quote Mine Project, then completely twist my words in a transparent attempt to make me look like an idiot.
This is why I despise fundamentalist christians to the core.
Thank you Josh - "I have never met anyone who both understood evolution and managed to refute it" still stands. I'll give you a bit of a plug as well...
http://www.monkeyfluids.com/2007/03/thats-not-how-it-works.html
And Matt B, Good on you, go hard.
Josh, indeed didn't see your post. But if that's a rebuttal by someone who knows his definitions, I'm wasting my time to respond.
I carefully quoted my definitions of macro- and micro-evolution from evolutionists. If they are incorrect, you ought to target them. Or read the definitions again carefully.
Say what.. YOUR the best engineer YOU know???????
Your logic defeats me I give up
Newton being a sinner vindicates the bible again WHAT???????????
Wtf is a man worshipper????????
You really are a prime example of what is wrong with those who follow this bronze age god.
Ah well at least you made a friend even tho you say you came here to cause trouble, have fun singing those hymns (at the BBQ sounds ummm like fun).
Hymns of your socially adapted religion, yes a social adaptation, this religion you have been suckered into. Your ancestors would be ashamed of you so easily beguiled by this white mans disease. Remember it was taken to all corners of the earth by people who look like me European. I along with many people who have this in their heritage have fought for centuries against this evil. But those cunning missionaries go somewhere else and peddle it to gullible natives spreading disease, guilt and shame. There were a few good men but mostly they were dubious characters hiding, like you have learned, behind their religiosity.
So dont you speak to me as if you own this religion, this false god, this creeping evil.
I mock it because I have earned the right to do just that, from centuries of oppression by priests, read some f**king European history. Heard of the Cathars, the Inquistion, the crusades, the witch hunts. And you come here trying to impress with your paltry knowledge of physics. Your another Johnny Come Lately with your religious fervour dripping from every orifice.
I pity you.
I presume the reason Dawkins is not considered credible, at least by Berend de Boer, is a presumption that his distaste for religion interferes with his judgment on evolution.
Fine. There are more than enough christian scientists who openly support evolution. e.g. Dr. Richard Colling, a christian, says:
"It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues. "Evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny... What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Colling says.
Of course, I think the concept of a designer is utter tosh, but the point is that motivation for accepting evolution and rejecting alternatives has nothing to do with anything except an examination of the evidence that god or nature or spaghetti monster (take your pick) has put before us.
A long list of christian evolutionists is here.
It even includes a mention of transitional fossils. Yes, Berend, they do exist according to your christian friends. You'll have to do better than find a few scientists who appear to have once rejected transitional fossils. What about the other 99.9% who don't?
Anon said...
...have fun singing those hymns...
Anon, there is nothing wrong with singing hymns. They are songs that I know really well. Every Christmas I do sing Carols with others, even though I am atheist. It is the music (melody) that I enjoy not the religious message in those hymns. When you sit down with mates to have a drinking session, it is nice to have a few vocals in harmony and it is something that I do a lot. Sometimes, we (me & my mini-choir), do one or two songs when we're in a bar drinking. People usually do come up and talk to us requesting if we could repeat a specific song that we had just sung. They say, it was a beautiful tune. They never knew that it was a hymn, since we sang it in Tongan. I do attach to music primarily for its tune and not its words, which is secondary. That is why I also like classical music , just beautiful tune, no words at all and hymns are no different.
If you looked at Tim's messages and arguments, he is someone that can't be persuaded. So, there is no point in keep arguing with him as AngloAmerican have said earlier in this thread's debate. I am wondered, PC has been quiet in his reply to Tim's messages, since PC perhaps do realize this fact as well and not bothered to reply at all. I do have lots of Christian friends and family members, and I have also given up on trying to explain Physics to them which contradicts religious belief, but hey I still drink with them occasionally.
I'll break my own rule..
Ah evolution, pc, as this is real science, please give me something whereby evolution can be falsified. -de Boer
I see you noticed that evolution is unfalsifiable -a tacit admission from you of the quality and quantity of evidence for the theory. Of course the theory would be plunged into doubt if new creatures just popped up today that were completly different from any others -there is no reason that God couldn't continue creation. Or if the fossil records consistently showed a haphazzard mix of creatures like humans with trilobites, kangaroos with dinosaurs etc.
The feeling you get that you cannot disprove evolution is because evolution is the mechanics of creation - absolutely everything came about through some evolving process, there is no other way. Even human technology follows the replication, mutation, selection process.
Religious theories of creation don't even pass the logic test, let alone the evidence test.
matt b: You point me to a list of old sources, now discredited
I quoted Darwin, didn't know he was discredited. Nice to know.
matt b: then completely twist my words in a transparent attempt to make me look like an idiot.
I completely reject that allegation. Perhaps you refer to my "ccording to your falsification list, evolution can only be disproved if you find a centaur" quote.
From your page: There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example: ... finding true chimeras ... such as mermaids and centaurs
So finding a mermaid will falsify evolution. I think that sums up the level of argument at the TalkOrigins page well.
matt b: It even includes a mention of transitional fossils. Yes, Berend, they do exist according to your christian friends.
My guest post wasn't about if there were people claiming there are transitional fossils. But what the fossil record shows. It supposedly spoke for itself, But according to actual palaeontologists, there's a lot of confusing on what it actually says. And indeed, some claim transitional fossils, but among the most famous we have quit opposite quotes.
Again the debate wasn't about if evolution was true or not, that's a religious argument. It was what the fossil record shows according to the scientist working in the field. Just read a single book by Gould please. His claim is that the absence of such fossils indicate a quite different mechanism of evolution that the pet variant of Richard Dawkins.
But the solution is pretty simple: just turn a reptile into a bird into a laboratory, in a repeatable process, and the debate is over, wouldn't we agree?
Berend de Boer
I now understand the centaur reference. It would have been helpful if you made clear I didn't say that.
And indeed, some claim transitional fossils, but among the most famous we have quit opposite quotes.
Let's be clear. Most of your quotes are more than 20 years old. Darwin's quote is so old that it precedes discovery of the first recognised transitional. As has been pointed out to you already, the author of one of the quotes responded to creationists distortions of his words by saying
“I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.”
Eric O. shows that the three quotes you pulled out from the last 20 years misrepresent the author's position. You have been given a reference to this analysis. Yet you continue to maintain these authors doubt the existence of transitional fossils. They don't, and has been made perfectly clear to you now.
More generally, the practice of quote mining is entirely disingenuous, insofar it is an attempt to catch scientists out with a single quote pulled from a lifetime of work without regard to their actual positions on a matter. That is plainly misleading, particularly since it is easy to establish at least some of your quotes are from scientists who think transitional fossils do exist.
It is sad that you would so quickly abandon your integrity for your invisible friend.
"But the solution is pretty simple: just turn a reptile into a bird into a laboratory, in a repeatable process, and the debate is over, wouldn't we agree?"
Suggesting this as a solution shows a pretty serious misunderstanding of the process of natural selection and evolutionary adaptation.
matt b, Eric O.'s post completely missed the point. It wasn't about evolution, it was about "what does the fossil record say". Which pc claimed was clear. I said it was not. The whole debate isn't about evolution versus creation.
Eric O. mentions only to one quote that supposedly was incorrect. Patterson says:
The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
Exactly. That was the point. I'm not using Patterson to claim that creation is true or that evolution is false. The whole post was a response to "what does the fossil record show".
In that context I stand firmly behind my post that Patterson was accurately quoted as wondering what the fossil record actually says.
Note also that he wrote in this letter: ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.
What's unclear or unfairly quoted about that? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
You guys see the word evolution and immediately rage fills the body and the guns come out. Not much different than climate scientists I would say. Hopefully one day it becomes clear to the thick skulls here that neodarwinism isn't a very good explanation of the available data.
I might be being overly simplistic here but I was quite taken with the mathematics thing. It occurred to me that disproving evolution was like trying to disprove an equation such as 2+2=4. Disproving evolution as it is presented with the available evidence is impossible because you are trying to disprove a natural process - a bit like disproving fermentation or that balls roll down hills.
It's true that many atheists have difficulty recognising that morality objectively exists or that ideals exist - this mathematical insight could be the answer.
Berend you are being deliberately obtuse. So just twiddle away, if you must.
"there is nothing wrong with singing hymns"
Cant stand them personally, its like fingers on a blackboard I have to leave the room. And knowing how the church manipulated music in the middle ages makes them even more repulsive.
" he is someone that can't be persuaded"
Is this a quality I am supposed to find admirable?
Well sorry I dont.
Not sure what you mean by the conclusion, AngloAmerican "that many atheists have difficulty recognising that morality objectively exists or that ideals exist"
I dont necessarily see there is a connection between the two, unless you are drawing a conclusion based on people you have had contact with. Which is hardly a good way of deducing such things. Unless it is just to know what to expect from someone in particular.
Morals exist in the animal world as many biologist are now proving, And once they get beyond the necessary physical base they may evolve into more rarified algorithmns and take on an almost mathematical complexity, eloquence and objectivity. But they did arise after life existed.
Which probably was not the case for the beginning of the universe where the mathematics probably came into existence first from nothing and I mean NOTHING, which is the way I have come to understand it.
Berend de Boer
Your quote of Patterson was deployed in precisely the way that Patterson has objected to.
1. This article points out the Patterson quote is deployed by creationists "to justify the standard creationist argument that 'there are no transitional forms.'"
2. Patterson says this interpretation is false. He is objecting to the use of his statement to suggest there are no transitional forms.
3. You use the Patterson quote to support your thesis that there are no transitional forms.
Whether you are a creationist or not is irrelevant. The point is that you have used Patterson's statement for precisely the purpose he says is against his intent, which his full quote and subsequent comments make clear.
You seem to put weight on Patterson's "as far as it goes", but all that means is that his words have not been minced. It's the meaning that has been deliberately twisted, against Patterson's explicit wishes.
Why do you stand by your quote of Patterson to support your 'no transitionals' hypothesis when he explicitly disagrees?
matt b, let me quote Patterson again: Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.
Can't make it more clear to you matt, so unless you come up with something new, I'll have to leave the discussion.
As my post clearly states, it isn't about if evolution is false and creationism is true.
It simply addresses a phrase from pc that "the fossil record speaks for itself".
I said no it doesn't. Here a few paleontologists.
I really have no idea why you and others are so intend on harping on and on and on about creationism. It's if I attack your god. If it isn't neodarwinist evolution, you guys get as upset as a climate scientist who encounters a global warming sceptic.
matt b, let me quote Patterson again: Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.
And here is my response. Patterson does not believe there are no transitional fossils. Patterson must have been talking about an absence of transitional fossils of a particular species, because it is perfectly clear that believes transitional fossils do exist. That is clear both from that letter when he mentions Archaeopteryx, and from this example from the Talk Origins article which quotes Paterson's Evolution (1978):
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
This flatly contradicts your thesis, which is that there are no transitional fossils at all. Whatever Patterson meant when he said "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." he was not making a general statement about an absence of all transitional fossils.
Forget creationism vs evolution. That is not relevant to the fact that you are misrepresenting who you quote. And don't pretend you limited your point to "the fossil record speaks for itself" - you went another step and concluded there are no transitionals.
Falafulu fisi,
It would be my please to have drinkies and a sing song! Ill drink while you guys sing!
I have no singing ability whatsoever, yet would love to have a bbq at the castle like old times.
Matt b,
Having looked again at your other points (unsupported assertions) I must say that I have been supporting assertions in every post I have here.
You also have missed my point regarding Newton.
What I was trying to say was Newton’s laws merely show us how the universe functions normally.
This does not dethrone God or defy his power as God is the author of these laws and can transcend the at will. Newton understood this and thus did not abandon Christianity.
Like wise I understand this, and so though I embrace Newton’s laws and am an engineer by trade, I also worship the great God who made Me and the universe.
My explanation to Falafulu fisi re miracles was an attempt to show you that Jews and Christians were rational thinkers, who shun superstition, and are skeptical of miracles that are without good
Vindication. (re read that post) I continued to show this in my post to anon when I told him the truth that I am an excellent engineer…not a witch doctor.
That you all have been smoked by fanatical atheist lies that Theists are irrational, unscientific and deranged is a refection of those morons who hold that view!
Some weirdo’s may be like that, but they do not constitute the reality of God or the truth of Christianity.
And getting back to my old buddy Annon, I can see why you call yourself that!
As your 2nd to last post was nothing any sane person would put their name to!
You have not earned the right to hate religion!, It was yours without works!
As for you ridiculous summation of Western Christendom, The reverse is the truth!
Where Christ and his word is, there too is freedom and High civilization you egg!
Dont blame him or the bible for the crusades!
When will you stop reading woman’s weekly and actually do some thinking!
My final point tonight is a real doozie! And it is for Anglo.
Do you realize you have just undone your position with your last post re math and evolution?
The whole argument I have been pushing is there is no math for evolution!
No Law of Darwin! In fact the opposite is true and is why I am a Christian!
Mendel’s law is math and it refutes Darwin by showing us how genetics work!
That is by recombining the genes of the parents…with no new genes!
End of argument.
Likewise Spontaneous generation is impossible (whether complex or simple)!
There is no math for that.
Math says It never happens!
Dead things stay dead!(Without divine intervention)
Thus evolutionist are trying to convince you 1+1 =42!
Take a look at the bogus terms they use to ‘magic’ a germ into a man!
It is the bible that is being vindicated at every level by science not atheism!
I’m not convinced because I see all around me interesting things. That all was created by some superior being may appeal to a child who doesn’t understand intelligence or the process of creativity but to someone with a bit of knowledge it doesn’t make sense at all. Humans observe and replicate things. Equipped with a model of the world in their heads they are able to imagine things in different sizes, positions and what might happen. They experiment and simply observe the result – so much is simply the result of observing the results of an accident, noticing something advantageous and then replicating the process. In nature accidents occur in the form of mutations, which there is ample evidence for, that may or may not be advantageous for the organism. The fittest examples are selected to survive and so reproduce by the environment - this is close to being a simple mathematical equation. I think the key to understanding evolution is that a selector need not have human-like intelligence or any intelligence at all. A lot of people stumble on this concept. You see even humans aren’t intelligent in the way you think – how many people were thrown through car windscreens before it was thought a good idea to wear seat belts?
Simply eating a chicken drumstick reinforces my confidence in evolution. Ever noticed that little bone that runs down the side of the main one and dissolves at one end into soft tissue? Birds have been slowly getting rid of a complete bone that it’s ancestors had and that we still have because without it the leg is lighter and so better for flying. Organisms appear, to me anyway, to be morphing all the time. It takes a long time but clues have been left about the place and I have even found some myself.
Yet the evidence for the existence of God or even Jesus is about zero, nada, none. All I see is a number of neurotic individuals ranting on about their deeply neurotic god and bothering the rest of us.
matt b: Patterson writes in that letter: You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Unless we have to argue what "not one such fossil" and "watertight argument" means, I rest my case: the fossil record does not speak for itself.
Which, on its own Berend, is an empty statement (what does speak for itself?), which is presumably why you took that extra step in your essay and concluded there are no transitional fossils at all.
"You have not earned the right to hate religion!, It was yours without works!"
I said mock not hate Dipstick, and I along with anyone else in the world should be free to do just that. Mock people like you who are so horrendously wrong. You, who consider yourself one of the "victorious". You, quote selectively ideas that have had their day.
Comedy, satire wit, laughter, things that are sadly lacking from anything you have said. Your every word drips of the desparation with which you cling to your sky god, who you desparately wish to please. In the vain hope of a reward after death.
"Where Christ and his word is, there too is freedom and High Civilisation"
Tell that to the millions who were killed in his name
Whose cultures were destroyed.
But thats right we cant blame jesus or the bible for the misdeeds of its followers. This is how this Evil has managed to survive for so long by claiming some sort of supernatural invulnerability.
I just hope enough people wake up to this before zealots like you drag this planet into another war, a war that this time will have nuclear weapons in the mix, no one will win that war.
Me, like any sane person, will be able see it coming and be as far away from as possible, discretion is always the better part of valour. This really has been uninspiring And I shall remain anon.
By the way ferries is spelt fairies.
Annon,
Let me explain to you some history which may free you from a lot of misdirected hatred.
Christianity started with the persecution of it’s peaceful founder Jesus Christ and his disciples.
Saul, the chief Jewish persecutor miraculously changed!
He embraced the one he was suppressing, forsook persecution and nationalism, and eventually died spreading his testimony to the truthfulness of Christ in a new gospel of the grace of God to the gentiles. He became St Paul.
As the truth of these events spread peacefully out through the world (in spite of persecution from both Jew and Greek), eventually the Emperor of Rome himself thought it “politically expedient” to feign conversion to Christianity, and in the Pagan fashion, Imposed it upon his subjects as a test of fidelity to his dominion. This Statist usurpation was not part of Paul’s Gentile gospel of grace (which is distinct from the Jewish gospel of “God’s kingdom on earth” which Christ preached, and was rejected by the Jews) This was contrary to the liberty of St Paul’s gospel. Yet it suited this state religion to claim itself the establishment of “God’s Kingdom on earth” and did so by raising St Peter to be the chief apostle and The Pope became "St Peter"...the representative of God on earth as It could not maintain religious power over the world via the truth of the real apostle of this age St Paul!
This whole process resulted in the dark ages where the truth of St Paul was brutally suppressed and when false doctrines regarding The need for submission to Rome as being necessary for salvation. Rejection of this was punishable by death!
Christ said “Many will come in my name and deceive many”
All the persecuting evils that have been done in the name of Christ, have been done by those who either by ignorance or design, have confused bible doctrines into unchristian persecuting legalism (which is the exact opposite of grace!)
The popish church grew fat and filthy rich while the peasants starved, and such glaring contradiction to the scriptures was noticed by such saints as John Wycliffe, who began to see the truth, and started to condemn Rome and the false legalistic doctrines and enslaving ritualism.
Thus the process of the great reformation began, and through it was the bible translated into the language of the commoner (The King James Bible and others), who began to see with their own eyes Rome had deceived them!
By the time of 1776, the gospel of the grace of God and the principle of the separation of church and state had been finally restored after more that a millennia of doctrines of devils!
With freedom from Rome, came a flood of denominationalism which may look to the outside observer as a mess when if fact it is a blessing of freedom of religion!
Some of these denominations cannot discern the different dispensational truths of St Paul from St Peter and so continue to think in the same fashion as legalistic popish statists of old, yet some like myself understand the liberty that is fundamental to the doctrines of St Paul and so are Libertarian Christian who acknowledge every man’s God given right to receive Christ or reject him! It is this gospel that has liberated western civilization.
Thus with this little lesion I hope I have shown you why it is wrong to blame the bible or Christ for the atrocities of the "Wolf in sheep’s clothing"…Popish Rome!
I hope this lesion shines a light for you to see a new way of looking at history and Christianity!
Secondly. In spite of all the horrors of the political wing of the Romanish church, there were still many great and Nobel spirits who preached many great virtues to the savage nations including the superiority of the bible to the great mass of fetish worshipers steeped in superstition.
Most of the places this sort of teaching went was an enlightenment for these backward nations, in spite of the statist corruption and ritualism of Catholicism.
Thus even in it’s most dire forms, this corrupted Christianity was still a great blessing and a great light compared to the utter darkness most of the savage nations suffered under.
Thus my second point is that it is a gross misunderstanding to underestimate the High culture that the Holy Roman empire spread abroad.
I do not condone the evils of the papacy, such as the inquisition, or the crusades, yet nor do I hold the Catholics alive today as guilty of the sins of those that were committed under the Roman flag centuries ago! Many Catholics today are statists yet many are liberals, and fine human beings of high ethics. I do not ascribe to their beliefs, but neither will I via bigotry deny their many virtues any more than I would deny the many virtues of atheist’s that I know!
I will exercise my right to freedom of speech and challenge both parties into receiving St Paul’s gospel of grace, and I will defend my own beliefs. Yet I do this in Liberty and know that you have the right to reject my testimony and the bible.
Thus is the spirit behind this post. “Let he that hath an eye to see…let him see!”
Again I said MOCK and I will continue to to do so.
Just a couple spelling pointers.
lesion is spelt lesson
nobel is spelt noble
Your potted history is rubbish, self serving tosh.
Annon,
Thanks for the spelling tips.
I did notice those when I wrote that last night but as it was very late, I did not second guess my spell check...I ought to have.
I will not bother with any further questioning of your response as your last post is not an argument but another demonstration of your pig-headed hate. It shows me you have no interest in the truth.
You have no claim on reason.
You prefer pseudo science and propaganda.
You prefer your ignorance, superstition and bigotry to enlightenment.
You are a child.
The end.
You really are amazingly dense. Have a look at the cartoon that set you off it funny, it MOCKS such as you.
You call me superstitous, yet you believe a man was born of a virgin, impregnanted by a being that exists outside the physical realm. The progeny of this union performed miracles such as walking on water, bringing people back from the dead. Then was killed himself but he came back from the dead 3 days later. eventually disappearing up into the sky. And now looks down with his dad surveying events and interceding to help you get to work on time, yet ignores untold suffering all around the world.
Fuck Whatever, yeah Im the child.
Post a Comment