Everybody's wrong.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 04:55 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Yes they believed germs came from rocks for two hundred years and sorry luise Pasteur was the one who said germs don't come from rocks. I'm not a troll just trying to see if an small inclination in your foolish mind would see that there is a god. And she wouldn't just say that she said the world will know me that goes in line as being the waterbearer jesus prophesed would come. Follow him into every house he goes into.

I don't know who's teaching you your "history of science" lessons, but they didn't think germs came from rocks. I don't even know what that means.

They thought some sort of spirit in the air caused sickness and decay... the latter concept was called "spontaneous generation", and it's what Pasteur disproved.

Pasteur's famous experiment demonstrated that it was not the air itself that caused it-- he left a boiled (sterilized) bottle of a rottable broth open to the air but in a container that had a long and convoluted path to the air (which the germs couldn't get through easily), and it stayed sterile. So he showed it was something in the air, not the air itself, that caused the rotting.

Earlier, a man named von Leuwenhoek had demonstrated, via his newly-invented microscope, that micrscopic "animalcules" were in the water. Pasteur's discoveries combined with others led us to the modern "just a" Germ Theory of Disease.

At no point did Pasteur assert anything about "rocks". I don't even know where you got this idea.

Do you have any ideas about the history or other claims of science that are actually correct?

If you're going to come here and lie to us about science (deliberately lie or simply out of ignorance doesn't matter), then why should we (and our "foolish minds") take your claims about magical gods seriously?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-11-2016, 07:49 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 07:22 PM)socialistview Wrote:  And blaspheme ofvthe spirit is telling somebody there from the devil.

No, that's not My understanding of it. You have told some falsehoods in this thread, such as calling Einstein a believer when he clearly was not one. When you describe yourself as the Holy Spirit in that dream, what you're doing is indirectly portraying the Holy Spirit as a liar.

Good thing for you that heaven and hell are probably fictional and you're not in any real danger of going to the hot place.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
I go exactly by what the new testament says So I dont use violence. So you call people crazy but I've had people involved with my experiences that I can bring to you. You say tarot cards are lucky guess but it tells you exactly what's going to happen. Astrology is vague but youb act just like your sign.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
And its called spontanous generation for germs coming from rocks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
And tell me onvevolution how survival of the fittest work. How do spicific genes turn on and off for a species to survive if its caused to turn on by enviorment. Then its not really random chance when it wants.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scient...lion-years
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 08:10 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 07:51 PM)socialistview Wrote:  You say tarot cards are lucky guess but it tells you exactly what's going to happen. Astrology is vague but youb act just like your sign.

So I guess the loterry prize goes to the best tarot player?

By the way...

Idk... seems pretty straightforward to me

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
13-11-2016, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 08:20 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 08:08 PM)socialistview Wrote:  And its called spontanous generation for germs coming from rocks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
And tell me onvevolution how survival of the fittest work. How do spicific genes turn on and off for a species to survive if its caused to turn on by enviorment. Then its not really random chance when it wants.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scient...lion-years

1) Some versions of spontaneous generation claimed that dust particles were a source, not rocks. Most thought it was something in the air. Again, that's what Pasteur's work demonstrated was untrue.

2) Mutations are random. Natural Selection is not random, however.

Within a population (gene pool), there are always variations that appear, usually from mutations, which are random. If they produce a variant (due to a switched off gene, a better version of a gene, whatever), then the individual will be more successful at reproducing than the other members of its gene pool, and leave more descendants than its fellows in the next generation of the gene pool. Over time, that improved reproduction rate will cause that gene-set to be more represented in the gene pool of that population. Natural Selection ensures that those who are less fit don't reproduce as much, and that they tend to be replaced over the generations by those who are more fit. It's really not that complicated to understand.

If a creature works just fine (crocodilians are a good example), then there is no reason for Natural Selection pressure to act on it, and the changes will be very slow. Some populations are fitted perfectly to the environment that they're in, but a sub-group of that population may move into a different (neighboring) environment with different selection pressures that cause their gene frequencies to shift over the next several generations so that the new group looks different from the original, and that sub-group evolves into something different while the original group goes right on looking like the original because they're not under selection pressure. Not that complicated, man.

Edit to Add: From the article you cited, but clearly didn't read...

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-11-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
socialistview,
I am not generally noted for my gentleness or kindness, but I say this in all honesty and caring:
Please get help.
You are not just delusional, but you are even hallucinating. You need medical intervention. Your life is utterly out of control.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
13-11-2016, 10:04 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 10:11 PM by Astreja.)
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 08:08 PM)socialistview Wrote:  And tell me onvevolution how survival of the fittest work. How do spicific genes turn on and off for a species to survive if its caused to turn on by enviorment. Then its not really random chance when it wants.

First of all, you're mentioning two different aspects of evolution. One is natural selection; the other pertains to genetics, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Natural selection is simply about survival in different situations. Depending on the food available, the type of predators and the number and type of competitors for the food supply, any given physical trait (bright colours, long wings, large bodies) can either be an advantage or disadvantage. If food is scarce, large bodies are a disadvantage and large animals will tend to starve. If there's a predator, bright colours are a disadvantage and it will be the animals with duller camouflage that survive. Very small differences in a group will lead to the beneficial differences surviving via the offspring.

Your second question about genes turning on and off (technically, "stochastic switching") is interesting, because it pertains directly to the work My brother does in his lab. To put it as simply as possible, genes are long, complex chains of amino acids. If there is a lot of a specific amino acid available for a cell's use, it sometimes bonds to a section of the cell's gene. When the cell eventually reproduces, the "child" cell will be slightly different than the parent cell because part of the genetic sequence will be covered up by the amino acid molecules stuck to it.

What's particularly cool about this (and I've seen this Myself) is that if you take a cell culture and divide it into two groups, you can cause the groups to evolve into two different types of cell just by giving one group a different set of amino acids to work with.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
13-11-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(duplicate - please delete)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 10:15 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 03:09 AM)socialistview Wrote:  I have witnesses you can ask I had my theology teacher tell me something was telling him to tell me that god was pleased with me.

Could you please supply us with the email addresses a couple of consenting witnesses, so we can ask them about this ourselves?

Quote:I've seen it cancer gone aids gone white blood cell count down.

Please read this Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer and let's know what you think—do you agree with the results of this research, or do you regard it as erroneous and/or irrelevant?

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Quote:God has shown himself to all people at times [...]

Not necessarily so. Your god apparently only "shows" himself to theists. There are currently around 670,000,000 atheists across the globe; Gallup International in their 2015 poll of 65 countries reported that 11% of their populations were "convinced atheists". It would seem strange that, in order to confirm his existence—particularly as he's allegedly omnipotent—he hasn't shown himself to even one of these atheists. Surely he'd appreciate a further 11% of his own creations glorifying him? Or did some other entity create atheists?

Relatively few people actually saw the man called "Jesus" rise from the dead.

1st Corinthians 15 says: —For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

According to a 2015 report by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the global population at the time of "Jesus" was around 300 million. So you're saying that a mere 0.00018% of the population purportedly seeing "Jesus" is/was viable evidence that he even existed—as recorded in your holy book? Seriously?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: