God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2013, 06:07 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I don't think he is ignorant in questioning "assumed evolved intelligence" and its off shoots.

I see ignorance in being ultra dogmatic over all information that is in no way absolute and simply accruing in the time ahead of us.
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand your comment. Consider
People may spend a life time studyng as many aspects of science as possible.
Good for them; I am not anti science.
Nor am I pro religion!
I do not think it helpful to advise people of their ignorance for enquring, peacefully, wherever they are moved to do so!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I don't think he is ignorant in questioning "assumed evolved intelligence" and its off shoots.

I see ignorance in being ultra dogmatic over all information that is in no way absolute and simply accruing in the time ahead of us.
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand your comment. Consider
People may spend a life time studyng as many aspects of science as possible.
Good for them; I am not anti science.
Nor am I pro religion!
I do not think it helpful to advise people of their ignorance for enquring, peacefully, wherever they are moved to do so!

Sorry for double post, it was not intended. Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 03:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Even if tomorrow there was a huge discovery and a mountain of evidence to support a new theory that superseded evolution, creationism would STILL be BOLLOCKS.

Nice. News flash. 1. Creation. 2. Evolution. 3. Space seed - which is still ID.

What else is there? C'mon, WHAT ELSE IS THERE? If a new theory superseded Evolution... go ahead. Make one up now, anyone here on this forum.
CLOSED**MINDED, are you, Yoda say.

... I do understand Evolution. I'm tired from reading 16-page theories as to how plants put out oxygen for a billion years in the absence of animals to breathe it in and put out carbon dioxide. I'm tired of hearing from secular scientists how the absence or addition of a few species would upset the balance of all life on Earth and then hear how Kingdom Animalia wasn't here for a billion years with all its species.

Let me rephrase what y'all say about me and Evolution. "C'mon, PJ, if you really put your nose to the grindstone, if you study for a few years and get a real education, you'll get a clear understanding of all the Evolutionary theories--plural--to backfill all the issues, all the missing links, all the lack of evidence. Sad." EVERY person I've EVER heard debate Evolution and take the losing side of Evolution ALWAYS says there is much study involved to even begin to understand how the many complex elements work together--so that holes in the fossil record and sudden, dramatic changes to the fossil and geologic records can be backfilled.
We are closed minded because we don't make up ideas randomly to try instead of evolution? Do you know what close minded means? Making up ideas with no evidence to support them is the theists department, not ours.

We go where the evidence takes us. The evidence so far has lead to Evolution. If the evidence in future leads somewhere else, we'll follow it there instead. But there has to be evidence first. This is what being open minded is.

Being close minded is sticking to your beliefs regardless of evidence. The fact that the evidence leads to evolution and you choose to put your faith in Creation instead shows that it is you who is close minded, so stop with the straw men attacks.

Understanding evolution will not take you a few years. Luckily for you some people have put the essentials of it, and the evidence supporting it, into handy book form for you to peruse at your leisure. Here's two for you to choose from, I'm sure you can find others if they are not to your liking:

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

But if you are so sure of yourself PleaseJesus, so sure that you understand evolution - I challenge you to begin a new thread. You can call it something like "Evolution Explained by PJ". Tell us what you think evolution is, and what evidence you think there is to support it - and where the holes in evolution are. You can present the evidence for Creation to if you like - assuming there actually is any.

We will see if you really understand it or if you just think you do. We'll even let you set the rules for the thread - I suspect rule 1) will be no ad hominem - but we'll expect you to stick to your rules too Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
19-02-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:07 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand your comment. Consider
People may spend a life time studyng as many aspects of science as possible.
Good for them; I am not anti science.
Nor am I pro religion!
I do not think it helpful to advise people of their ignorance for enquring, peacefully, wherever they are moved to do so!


He wasn't inquiring peacefully. Dodgy

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
19-02-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:07 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand your comment. Consider
People may spend a life time studyng as many aspects of science as possible.
Good for them; I am not anti science.
Nor am I pro religion!
I do not think it helpful to advise people of their ignorance for enquring, peacefully, wherever they are moved to do so!
His "inquiries" have been answered many times, he chooses to ignore them and continue spouting ignorance.

His ignorance is willful ignorance, it's no ones fault but his.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 06:07 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  People may spend a life time studyng as many aspects of science as possible.
Good for them; I am not anti science.
Nor am I pro religion!
I do not think it helpful to advise people of their ignorance for enquring, peacefully, wherever they are moved to do so!


He wasn't inquiring peacefully. Dodgy
Were you perhaps over sensitive over an emotive young poster? Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:35 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:26 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  He wasn't inquiring peacefully. Dodgy
Were you perhaps over sensitive over an emotive young poster? Unsure


Are you perhaps deaf to willful ignorance?

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
19-02-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 06:26 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Were you perhaps over sensitive over an emotive young poster? Unsure


Are you perhaps deaf to willful ignorance?
Why willfull?............sometimes hard to know which will is what. Consider
It is gracious to give het up people the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Shy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 06:41 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 06:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you perhaps deaf to willful ignorance?
Why willfull?............sometimes hard to know which will is what. Consider
It is gracious to give het up people the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Shy


He used up his benefit in the first couple of dozen of his 256 posts. Drinking Beverage

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
20-02-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:But if you are so sure of yourself PleaseJesus, so sure that you understand evolution - I challenge you to begin a new thread. You can call it something like "Evolution Explained by PJ". Tell us what you think evolution is, and what evidence you think there is to support it - and where the holes in evolution are. You can present the evidence for Creation to if you like - assuming there actually is any.
What is the purpose for this move? I'll make it if you can help me understand, since it is a loaded thread.

Why not just say, "Evolution is the nail in the Bible's coffin. The Bible clearly teaches creation and then we're done with Christianity..."?

From my perspective, it's irrelevant whether a Christian believes Evo or Cre--this has no bearing on salvation, only Bible (mis)interpretation.

And there's nothing more to understand. For every "what" I post there will be scientists in different camps because all the holes in our knowledge are filled with further theories/conjecture.

"Many species came on to the land over a long time in sustainable ways."

Which species? When? Which part of Pangaea? What evidence is there in the fossil record that we can date and be exact as to which species came first? What did they eat and why was it accessible to them since roots must be dug from the ground, flowering plants grow in the air where they'd need fully developed land-limbs to reach, etc?

It's like Darwin's famous plant where he conjectured a bird with a lengthy tongue to pollinate it. Darwin was a genius and he was correct--except that the plant and bird would have evolved at different times or if at the same time, VERY rapidly to be pollinated--and there are no fossils of these plants with different length petals and no fossils of birds with different length tongues (of course) or tongue imprints.

This notion of giraffe neck and plant heights evolving together makes TOTAL logical sense to me--except for the woeful lack of evidence in the fossil record. And wait for it--here comes--"we just haven't found those fossils yet."

We have BILLIONS of fossils and specimens in museums now. Billions. A local butterfly museum has millions of them near my home--none of these teeming millions and billions are macro-evolving or show ANY evidence of macro-Evolution at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: