Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(10-10-2017 04:59 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What is free will? What's it free from?

Free from the brain chemistry and activation which gives rise to it, since it deals in symbolic manipulations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
10-10-2017, 06:21 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
There is absolutely no possible way that the observed (known) mutation rates in humans, and the known human genomic diversity can possibly be reconciled with any Biblical timeline, and Christians who are scientifically literate get that.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rolan-ky...2H5D7BP0OI

In fact the Christian professor of Biochemistry (Dr. Kenneth Miller at Brown U) wrote "Finding Darwin's God" specifically to point out how stupid Evolution denial is, and what a disservice these people do to religion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
[Image: repent-the-end-is-nigh-ye-must-be-cleansed.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Oh wow. How happy do those guys look? Smile

Death cults=sadness.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 07:06 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:29 PM)Impulse Wrote:  You haven't learned much about other religions, have you... Consider
You aren't volunteering much information Smile
Like what? You claimed a lot of things are unique to your religion, but it's bullshit. Most major religions have beliefs/"explanations" about the very same things.

(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  But it's to be expected Smile
Why? You're not volunteering much information. Drinking Beverage

(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  I have discussed with atheists before, and found that they lack substance to their arguments and claims, but that's OK.
This is hilarious. Really. Laugh out load Do you call what you are doing in this thread "discussing with atheists"? Because I see a whole lot of avoiding points, a lot of proselytizing, and little discussion. Hint: It's difficult to get substance out of a discussion if you aren't listening, paying attention, or honestly and open-mindedly digesting the information presented to you.

(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  For what it's worth, i'm a university graduate in a science field,...
It doesn't seem to be worth much at all. How did you graduate from college in a science field and learn absolutely nothing about evolution (as evidenced by so many of your posts in this thread)?

(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  ...so i'm aware that the education system promotes an acceptance of beliefs (eg evolution, societal make up etc), an acceptance of these things, more than people realise, in order to pass exams/to advance. The reality is that people are therefore often lead to think that they think, rather than to actually think, so it's OK.
We're you trying to make sense there? It sounded like gibberish. Evolution and societal makeup are not beliefs... The education system doesn't need to pass exams...

ETA:
(09-10-2017 03:53 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Evolution is for instance, a frog becoming a giraffe...
Case in point about you knowing nothing about evolution. Facepalm

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
10-10-2017, 07:13 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 04:13 PM)Eagle Wrote:  I see you have lazily copied and pasted an entire section from an internet page.

I decided to look at the first one:
Comedy Channel material... Laugh out load

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
10-10-2017, 07:18 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)Eagle Wrote:  @jennybee, thank for your posts, I've enjoyed reading them. I'm off to bed. I'll try to remember to check into the forum. Jennybee, if you have questions, please PM me if you want, as I may lose your post amongst the clatter! Smile

@dr H,

There are many definitions of evolution now, but here's the bulwark, that is, Darwinism,

'the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.'

That is, changed into a different species.

Unless I'm mistaken, people are remaining strangely quiet on the fact that hard evidence (geology) disproves evolution

https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-the...ical.html,

If it perhaps helps to get your attention, here is the title of the article, 'Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes'

Have a nice evening! Smile

I highly recommend reading Bill Nye's book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. Also, on youtube (if you are not squeamish) Richard Dawkins has a great video in which they dissect the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe. It's a really great example of evolution in action.

Be very careful of Christian "scientists" who have a hidden agenda to their "research." I haven't read the article because when I clicked on it, it showed up "Error, not found." But oftentimes, many Christian organizations who wnat to promote their way of thinking will hire scientists who have little to no scientific background and/or who have a science background but not in the field they are writing about. Always go for mainstream, peer-reviewed articles. Otherwise, you could even find research proving the existence of Bigfoot on the web.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
10-10-2017, 07:43 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Found the page by googling the title

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

Note that it is a single scientist being referred to here, so for a start we can see that Eagle is cherry picking. He probably also did not read the article because the geologist referred to is not denying that evolution exists, just that another scientist around the time of Darwin had a more accurate theory about how evolution has led to complex lifeforms which is keeping with the fossil records and what we currently understand. The geologist is merely trying to give credit where credit is due.


Quote:Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic.

Which is hardly surprising for anyone who is scientifically literate and who understands that the scientific method involves refining theories over time, whereas your typical non-scientifically literate theist assumes that Darwin spaketh his teachings inscribed on stone tablets and that they have not been questioned or tested since 1859. We certainly have a more complete and accurate understanding of evolution than Darwin now. I'd hazard a guess that most evolutionary scientists haven't actually read The Origin of Species. I certainly haven't nor do I intend to.

It seems that both Darwin and Patrick Matthew were largely correct but Darwin has historically got all the credit.


Quote:Matthew saw catastrophic events as a prime factor, maintaining that mass extinctions were crucial to the process of evolution: "...all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life... these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating ... to the change in circumstances."

When Darwin published his Origin of Species nearly three decades later, he explicitly rejected the role of catastrophic change in natural selection: "The old notion of all the inhabitants of the Earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up," he wrote


So not only is Eagle cherry picking but he is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientist has said, or has not bothered to read or understand what he puts forward as evidence. These are typical disingenuous apologist tactics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Mathilda's post
10-10-2017, 08:07 AM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Evolution is for instance, a frog becoming a giraffe...

A lie. Eagle is a dishonest troll.
Telling lies for Jebus is still telling lies.
Frogs are amphibians.
Giraffes are placental mammals.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/a...s-revealed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian

So no. This is precisely what Evolution is not.
No frog has ever turned into a giraffe.
Ignorance this profound is hard to imagine, yet here we have it.
And this idiot thinks that despite this display if ignorance, we are to take the rest of what he says seriously ? LMAO.

The level of desperation to avoid the facts and the cognitive dissonances that arise between science and his holy books is staggering.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2017 08:15 AM by adey67.)
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(10-10-2017 07:43 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Found the page by googling the title

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

Note that it is a single scientist being referred to here, so for a start we can see that Eagle is cherry picking. He probably also did not read the article because the geologist referred to is not denying that evolution exists, just that another scientist around the time of Darwin had a more accurate theory about how evolution has led to complex lifeforms which is keeping with the fossil records and what we currently understand. The geologist is merely trying to give credit where credit is due.


Quote:Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic.

Which is hardly surprising for anyone who is scientifically literate and who understands that the scientific method involves refining theories over time, whereas your typical non-scientifically literate theist assumes that Darwin spaketh his teachings inscribed on stone tablets and that they have not been questioned or tested since 1859. We certainly have a more complete and accurate understanding of evolution than Darwin now. I'd hazard a guess that most evolutionary scientists haven't actually read The Origin of Species. I certainly haven't nor do I intend to.

It seems that both Darwin and Patrick Matthew were largely correct but Darwin has historically got all the credit.


Quote:Matthew saw catastrophic events as a prime factor, maintaining that mass extinctions were crucial to the process of evolution: "...all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life... these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating ... to the change in circumstances."

When Darwin published his Origin of Species nearly three decades later, he explicitly rejected the role of catastrophic change in natural selection: "The old notion of all the inhabitants of the Earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up," he wrote


So not only is Eagle cherry picking but he is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientist has said, or has not bothered to read or understand what he puts forward as evidence. These are typical disingenuous apologist tactics.

In his mind I suspect he's thinking the ends justify the means, aka "lying for Jesus" as Bucky says. I'd love to know his Alma Mater it sounds like they would award an advanced degree to my bull terrier. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: