God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2013, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 12:50 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:You dumbass, you would find it if you even cared to look. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, the other Great Apes, show many of our emotions. They experience anger, love, compassion, humor, jealousy, and even self sacrifice. Chimpanzees have been documented trying to save other chimps from drowning, and dying in the process. Not only that, but the chimps being saved were not even the children, they were distantly related fellow members of the group; extended family at best.
I'm aware of all that and more. I'm aware that God created higher mammals with all these capacities and more. But the Atheist fallacies include adopting "compassion" as an animal trait because... I don't want to make this a semantic argument but "compassion" smacks of animals having ethics. The word we're looking for is symbiosis. Darwin wrote famously that what we call symbiosis undermines his theory. Darwin never knew what a pilot fish was--but had no excuse--Darwin forgot that CLEARLY dogs and cats and horses and 50 other animals are companions to people, even life-saving and life-enhancing companions.
Evolutionary "compassion"? No, but the Bible says Adam had companion animals but none suitable for a mate.
What makes you think Darwin had all the answers? It would be like saying Newton had all the answers about gravity. I never get why religious people feel like its relevant to quote what Darwin said. Darwin wouldnt even recognize his theory today. All he did was explain the mechanism by which evolution works. Natural Selection.

Deny all you like that animals dont have a evolved moral system all you like, its not supported by the evidence. Yet asserting the bible as evidence, where if we used it as a scientific guide would contradict everything we know about nature, is absurd.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Why Darwin? Because a syllogism is false if it's first premises are false. Even symbiosis would have given him pause, and admittedly we have 100 times more questions about Evolution now, not answers. Some scientists back fill answers in Darwin's work the way programmers work around 8-bit or 16-bit computer architecture. The start was wrong.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook but makes references to some wonderful truths about science. It asserts that higher mammals have a nefesh (soul or spirit). My dog is capable of a range of higher emotions. But compassion is word that goes against that other word y'all love to use, instinct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 11:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Why Darwin? Because a syllogism is false if it's first premises are false. Even symbiosis would have given him pause, and admittedly we have 100 times more questions about Evolution now, not answers. Some scientists back fill answers in Darwin's work the way programmers work around 8-bit or 16-bit computer architecture. The start was wrong.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook but makes references to some wonderful truths about science. It asserts that higher mammals have a nefesh (soul or spirit). My dog is capable of a range of higher emotions. But compassion is word that goes against that other word y'all love to use, instinct.
Nothings been supposed in evolution theory, its all been tested, so how is it syllogism? We do have questions about evolution nothing that would assert the theory isnt true, though. Back filling is how science works...every theory has to be falsifiable, it has to change if better evidence comes along. Science isnt a program, its a method. Hypothesize, come up with predictions, test the hypothesis and if it works, peer review the hypothesis where its retested over and over again, then make predictions from the conclusions if the hypothesis stands up to peer review. The start wasnt wrong, it was actually vague and based on far less evidence then we have now. All of modern biology is based on it.

The Bible isnt a science textbook, yet you use it as one?

How is compassion against instincts? if your going to assert stuff how about supporting it with evidence?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
15-02-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
The Bible is not a scientific textbook but makes references to some wonderful truths about science; I didn't say I use it as a textbook.
I didn't say compassion goes against instincts. I said the curiously human and specific quality of compassion has been applied to animals where formerly instinctual behavior replaced "God made them do things."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 01:20 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible is not a scientific textbook but makes references to some wonderful truths about science; I didn't say I use it as a textbook.
I didn't say compassion goes against instincts. I said the curiously human and specific quality of compassion has been applied to animals where formerly instinctual behavior replaced "God made them do things."


Please enlighten us on these wonderful truths.

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
15-02-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-02-2013 01:20 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible is not a scientific textbook but makes references to some wonderful truths about science; I didn't say I use it as a textbook.
I didn't say compassion goes against instincts. I said the curiously human and specific quality of compassion has been applied to animals where formerly instinctual behavior replaced "God made them do things."


Please enlighten us on these wonderful truths.


C'more Chas, you know!

Flat, dome covered planet. Small mass objects attracting larger ones and causing them to orbit around. Donkeys can change their larynx and mouth structure so that they may speak in the local regional dialect of humans. Men can fight stars. Neurological activity can return after it has ceased, duh. Bathing in the blood of a dove has been proven to cure leprosy and mud in the eyes cures blindness. Incest doesn't cause any major mutations at all. Dirt has been shown to turn into complex, multicellular organisms, and ribs can be used for Mitosis of said organisms.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
15-02-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:Nothings been supposed in evolution theory, its all been tested, so how is it syllogism?

"Scientists who do not know how this evolved" yielded about 285 Million results on Google. You can just start with punctuated equilibrium and its kin, which is gobbledy-gook for "How did all those forms get into the fossil record so quickly and without any transitory forms appearing? We don't know!"

If you like, let's play a game. I'll start. I'll ask what, and you'll tell me the answer, since I don't know. Watch as the fun ensues.

What did the first animal to live on the land eat? What other animal did it mate with to produce progeny to continue to live on the land? For a special skeptic's double bonus, then tell me how your theory has been tested, since "all in evolution is tested and not theory."

ROFL.

PS. "You schmuck, you don't understand evolution!" is not an answer to my questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 03:14 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
1.What did the first animal to live on the land eat?
]

If were talking about a land based animalsl, more then likely hunted on the shore for food, obviously. Plus vegetation on the land.


2. What other animal did it mate with to produce progeny to continue to live on the land



Evolution doesnt work through individuals, it works through populations. So there would be more then one.

3. how your theory has been tested, since "all in evolution is tested and not theory.



You need to look up the definition "scientific theory".....flu vaccines...quick and easy

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
15-02-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
"Scientists who do not know how this evolved" yielded about 285 Million results on Google. You can just start with punctuated equilibrium and its kin, which is gobbledy-gook for "How did all those forms get into the fossil record so quickly and without any transitory forms appearing? We don't know!"[/font]


Scientists dont know how what evolved? be more specific.

How transition fossils appear is easy....all living organisms are transitional creatures. How is billions of years quickly?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
15-02-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What did the first animal to live on the land eat?
(15-02-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What other animal did it mate with to produce progeny to continue to live on the land?
This question is very vague, and a bit loaded but here we go.
The first land animals were insects, and because of this were the first to mate and reproduce on land. Reproduction is a co-evolutionary trait. Males, females and those with both sexes simply complimented each other during the transition from the sea to the land.

The first tetrapods were
[Image: 800px-Fishapods.png]

The thing is it wasn't just one animal changing over time it was many, and they collectively invaded the land.

(15-02-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  For a special skeptic's double bonus, then tell me how your theory has been tested, since "all in evolution is tested and not theory."

Genetic evidence for evolution.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...09014.html
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v2/n1/..._049a.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-ancestor/

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: