Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are many published books, papers and articles on evolution. Perhaps it's time to check out the library?
Refer me to the best book on the subject.
I haven't read them all so I'm not qualified to state which is the best.
However, I would recomend the following two books to get you started.
First book to start off with - "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
Richard the scientist authors this book rather than Richard the anti-theist/anti-creationist, so you shouldn't find any stabs or snide remarks against creationists in this book.
The reason I recommend this book is because it focusses on intuition and going by your posts it appears to me that your own intuition is a significant guide to you.

Second book - "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.
This is a science based book, but Richard does take several stabs at Creationists within this book. Hopefully you won't find it too offputting.
The reason I recommend this book is because it focusses on the evidences from a multitude of areas and how they all come together in support of evolution. No doubt you have already heard the Creationist criticisms of the evidence for evolution, but often the Creationist criticisms misunderstand what evolution is. I think it is first important to understand evolution before criticising it. Once you have a decent understanding then there will be value in discussing your concerns
If you read these two books you will have a decent level of understanding of what evolution is. It's a simple two step idea.
1. Descent including random modification
2. non random natural selection
As you know children often inherit traits from their parents (hair colour, eye colour, chin shape, nose shape etc). We are the product of the merging of Mum and Dad's genes. As you know sometimes this merging/copying process goes wrong and genetic "defects" occur. A lot of the time these genetic defects result in miscarriage or sometimes in people with serious issues i.e. Down Syndrome.
The process of natural selection is where evolution isn't blind random luck. Obviously those genetic defects that result in miscarriage means that those offspring don't survive long enough to copy themselves into their own offspring. For those that do survive e.g. Down Syndrome they are generally seen as less desirable mates and hence their DNA doesn't propogate into the human gene pool.
When you look at a population you can see that there is diversity. Some people are taller than others, some are naturally stronger, some people have better vision etc. Within an environment where certain aspects cause those to be more likely to survive and reproduce then those aspects will become predominant. e.g. Cheetas are more likely to eat the slower antelopes and hence the faster antelopes are more likely to survive and reproduce. The slower Cheetas are less likely to eat and hence more likely to starve. Over generations it makes sense that both the Cheeta and antelope populations get faster. This isn't a blind random luck process, there is survival pressure giving the faster ones a higher chance of survival.
Anyway, if you are interested then read the books. Richard can explain it much better than I can. If you still have questions/concerns then feel free to post your questions on this forum, there are many people here who understand evolution well enough to answer your questions.
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There is also many books (Bibles) explaining the purpose of life, and explaining man's ultimate destiny. These books makes "intuitive sense when you understand it".
That's fine, but your objections have been with regards to the blind and random chance aspect of evolution's ability to construct the complex human body. Evolution focusses on how the human body can emerge from a natural process without the foresight of design or purpose. Purpose and ultimate destiny is a completely different topic.
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I know how you feel, buddy. Because in virtually every biology class in America, Christians are being misled too.
In the science class people are being taught scientific knowledge. Science is the quest for discovering natural causes to natural events. They focus on natural causes because those can be objectively observed, measured, recreated and potentially falsified.
In science class people are taught the best natural explaination to events within the observable universe.
If you believe that some events are caused by supernatural causes and in particular a specific god then you can go to church and learn about the religious explaination.
If the two explainations conflict then you could sit on the fence or you could choose the one you like best, but I would think there is value in trying to understand the competing explainations. Science at least provides the evidence behind their explainations and has many scientists working hard to disprove each explaination.
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You have so far been shown to mimic ideas coming from scientifically incorrect memes spouted by Creationist proponents.
I side with the common sense groups.
Personally I think there is value in trying to understand both sides of the story and make up your own mind rather than to mimic memes.
I have read and tried to understand the objections presented in many anti-evolution books.
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It would be great to have a real conversation with you regarding your concerns over the evolution process but to be able to have that conversation, you need to at least know of and understand the basics of evolution.
Basics...Intermediate...Expert..Genius...doesn't matter the level. Either it happened, or it didn't happen.
If you have some understanding then you will be able to intelligently discuss your concerns regarding evolution with other people. Your conception that evolution is blind random luck is off the mark with the important process of natural selection. A basic understanding of evolution will make this apparent to you.
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Certainly, if god was behind anything then our atheist arses would be kicked.
What is your position? God created everything fully formed? or God steered the ship of evolution?
He created everything fully formed. That is why things like the Cambrian Explosion supports Christian theism.
You could view it that way, but there aren't any human bones, dinosaur bones, horse bones, dog bones, whale bones within the Cambrian fossils. This all supports evolution.

(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's very dangerous to think that objective morality exists, especially if you are compelled to use force to get others to conform to your moral beliefs.

Good point, but then again...that kind of action itself would either be objectively right, or objectively wrong...so which is it?
I don't believe in right or wrong.
All I know is that people using force against me is a threat to me. I find their aggression to be dangerous to me. If it is important enough I will aggressively fight back, so I will become dangerous to them as a result of their aggression towards me.

(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That would mean that not even god can create or destroy energy.
He cant create or destroy his own energy.
Then how did the energy within our universe come to be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do rocks reproduce with modification? No? Then it's in no way an apt comparison. Evolution works on organisms, and rocks are not organisms.

Organisms don't reproduce with modification, either...at least not in the way that YOU believe. Their are limits to the modification, which is why no matter how much dog breeding you do, you will always get a dog, at least as far as we know.

The evolutionists wants us to ADDITIONALLY believe that there were other kinds of modifications, which took place a longggg time ago, when no one was around to see it...but it is right there when they leave science, and dive into religion.

They've left science after the whole "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats" thing...they go beyond this and postulate reptiles transforming into birds...that requires a whole new set of religious thinking lol.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Physiologically, some parts of us are good for standing upright, whereas the spinal nerves are suited for quadrupedal motion, a marker of our ancestry.

That is what you think...I happen to think that humans were specifically made to walk upright. I have no reason to believe otherwise, but then again, I don't have any ulterior motives, like some people do.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Look up "natural selection," and then tell me this is just some blind process. Which you undoubtedly will, since you hold your strawmen so close to your heart.

Either way you put it, it was a mindless and blind process. If all of my inside organs where outside of my body and I needed them to be placed back in...I wouldn't trust a mindless and blind guy to do the operation...yet, I have all of my organs inside of my body, by some mindless and blind process? Laugh out load

Hey, if you want to believe that, fine. What you should do is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...you can start by observing Easter Sunday, the day that changed the world, some 2,000 years ago.

Even if you believe in Christian evolution...that is fine...but Jesus is knocking at your door, let him in, man Yes

Christians are like the X-Men...and we'd like you to join us Thumbsup In fact, this invitation is for EVERYONE Thumbsup

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  No. No they are not: when you have an organ designed for sight, the bad design of having a portion of the organ that literally does not do that job is not just an opinion. It is an objective fact.

Again, a bad design is still a design. I could spend hours telling Dell Computers how this computer could have been designed better...but I still have to admit it was designed.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  A few million years, a mechanism for genetic replication and variation, an ever expanding pool of organisms to mutate, and natural selection, yes.

That is the theory. I have a theory, too:

"A few thousand years ago, a Resurrected Messiah, an ever expanding religion through the Middle East, and faith...yes."

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not necessarily; complexity is not a hallmark of design, simplicity is. If you can design something to be simpler, you would; less moving parts, less to go wrong. Additionally, you haven't demonstrated that complexity cannot come about without design, which is especially problematic when we know that it can: snowflakes are a multitude of complex geometric shapes, yet they arise without design.

Sure, snowflakes have design. But what is the difference between the design in snowflakes, and the design in the Mona Lisa painting?? Hmmmm. Could it be...specified complexity? Consider

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Besides, even taking your argument at face value, unless you have some threshold of complexity under which intelligence is not necessary, you're begging the question and assuming everything requires design, which is what you're attempting to prove.

Why in the hell would I need "some threshold of complexity under which intelligence is not necessary??" Makes no sense.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  How did you determine that the parts of a human were specified?

Do you have children, Esq? Well, if you did, and your young ones came to you and said "Dad, why do we have eyes"....will you answer the question with anything besides "To see, my children"?

If you will give an answer like that, then you obviously understand that eyes were made specifically to see. If you WON'T give an answer like that, then you need to see a doctor.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So basically, it's the same hypocritical double standard most creationists use, where you expect mountains of evidence for things you disagree with, and none from those you agree with. Pathetic. Rolleyes

It is kind of like how atheists say the same old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"....well, I am saying "scientific claims require scientific evidence."

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Besides, if you don't value science as a method of gaining the truth, then why the fuck do you even care if we provide some?

Who said I don't value science as a method of gaining truth??? I sure as hell didn't.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  You won't listen anyway; what's the point?

I listen, I just don't believe everything that I'm told.

(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why? Because you said so? Dodgy

Pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 04:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Organisms don't reproduce with modification, either...at least not in the way that YOU believe.

You've repeatedly shown that you have no interest in accurately portraying what I believe; you tend to favor ridiculous strawmen, since you can't adequately address the real views of the people here. But I'm not required to play pretend because it's easier for you.

Quote:Their are limits to the modification, which is why no matter how much dog breeding you do, you will always get a dog, at least as far as we know.

What is that limit, what is the mechanism behind it, and what evidence do you have that it's there? You're talking science now; put up, or shut up.

Or neither, which seems to be the route you take as standard.

Quote:The evolutionists wants us to ADDITIONALLY believe that there were other kinds of modifications, which took place a longggg time ago, when no one was around to see it...but it is right there when they leave science, and dive into religion.

Do tell: what are these other forms of modification, beyond the usual, that evolution requires you to believe?

Quote:They've left science after the whole "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats" thing...they go beyond this and postulate reptiles transforming into birds...that requires a whole new set of religious thinking lol.

If you won't look at the observations, you surrender all right to claim they aren't there.

Quote:That is what you think...

No, again, this is an objective fact: the human back is not properly configured for bipedal motion. This isn't just some opinion, it is an observation based on a series of consequences that our spines would not have if we were quadrupeds.

Quote:I happen to think that humans were specifically made to walk upright. I have no reason to believe otherwise, but then again, I don't have any ulterior motives, like some people do.

There are reasons, you just refuse to look at them. Again, not my problem.

Quote:Either way you put it, it was a mindless and blind process. If all of my inside organs where outside of my body and I needed them to be placed back in...I wouldn't trust a mindless and blind guy to do the operation...yet, I have all of my organs inside of my body, by some mindless and blind process? Laugh out load

Yes, because the organisms with internal organs on the outside died, and did not get to reproduce. On the flipside, those that had them in their proper place got to carry on their genes.

And don't think I didn't pick up on the argument from incredulity that is literally your only point here, either.

Quote:Hey, if you want to believe that, fine. What you should do is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...you can start by observing Easter Sunday, the day that changed the world, some 2,000 years ago.

Even if you believe in Christian evolution...that is fine...but Jesus is knocking at your door, let him in, man Yes

Christians are like the X-Men...and we'd like you to join us Thumbsup In fact, this invitation is for EVERYONE Thumbsup

A sales pitch without any evidence. Unsurprising, but also unconvincing.

Quote:Again, a bad design is still a design. I could spend hours telling Dell Computers how this computer could have been designed better...but I still have to admit it was designed.

But this is evidence against design; no designer working with unlimited parts and knowledge would possibly do something like that to the eye, after all. You need to answer for this, instead of just begging the question in a transparent dodge.

Quote:That is the theory. I have a theory, too:

"A few thousand years ago, a Resurrected Messiah, an ever expanding religion through the Middle East, and faith...yes."

Theories require evidence. All you've got there is a hypothesis at best, and it's a flawed one because you won't bother to test it.

Quote:Sure, snowflakes have design. But what is the difference between the design in snowflakes, and the design in the Mona Lisa painting?? Hmmmm. Could it be...specified complexity? Consider

Again, how do you know biological life is specified?

Quote:Why in the hell would I need "some threshold of complexity under which intelligence is not necessary??" Makes no sense.

Because if you don't have that then you're just making an assertion under which everything is designed, which is circular, given what you're actually arguing for.

Quote:Do you have children, Esq? Well, if you did, and your young ones came to you and said "Dad, why do we have eyes"....will you answer the question with anything besides "To see, my children"?

Seeing is what eyes do, but it's not why we have eyes. We have eyes because it is beneficial to have them.

Quote:If you will give an answer like that, then you obviously understand that eyes were made specifically to see. If you WON'T give an answer like that, then you need to see a doctor.

That eyes see is just their function, it isn't an indication of their purpose, or even if they have a purpose. I asked you how you determined that the human body was specified, and you reply by giving me a non-answer that just assumes they were specified.

Quote:It is kind of like how atheists say the same old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"....well, I am saying "scientific claims require scientific evidence."

... Which you refuse to look at. Don't forget to add that last part in, it's really important. Dodgy

Quote:Who said I don't value science as a method of gaining truth??? I sure as hell didn't.

If you valued science as a marker of truth, then you'd accept what science says, not pick and choose what fits with what you already believe. That's the very definition of not accepting that science can provide truth; you're literally cherry picking the science that conforms to what you already consider to be the truth.

Quote:I listen, I just don't believe everything that I'm told.

If you listened, you wouldn't be insisting on these outrageous strawmen of what evolution is.

Quote:
(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why? Because you said so? Dodgy

Pathetic.

Don't have an actual response, then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
01-04-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 04:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 01:47 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  How did you determine that the parts of a human were specified?
Do you have children, Esq? Well, if you did, and your young ones came to you and said "Dad, why do we have eyes"....will you answer the question with anything besides "To see, my children"?

If you will give an answer like that, then you obviously understand that eyes were made specifically to see.
Your intuition tells you that because eyes are complex structure that are used to see the environment via light waves then they must have been made (designed) specifically for that purpose.
I can understand how you intuitively come to that conclusion.
You then conclude that there must have been an intelligent designer. I understand how you can come to that logical conclusion.
Evolution theroy provides an alternative, natural, explaination. Since evolution is a scientific theory it must focus on a natural cause. Being a scientific theory it is detailed, testable, observable, fits the evidence , correctly predict furture evidence, provides falsifiable criteria and has not been falsified.
in the narritive of evolution theory, the reason why we have an eye is not merely "so that we can see". There are many organisms that don't have eyes even though eyes would enable them to see. So what is the reason why we have eyes and they don't?
According to evolution theory we have eyes because they have provided a significant advantage in our quest to reproduce. In order to reproduce we need to survive long enough to do so. Presumably in our history those of us that could visibly see our predators were advantaged by being able to escape being eaten. Those of us who could see were advantaged in being able to locate food. Those of us who could see were advantaged in being able to find mates.
Ahhhh, but I hear you thinking "the eye is complex, the probability of an eye evolving fully formed is astronomically small"
Evolution theory has the answer. Evolution is stepwise, the eye started off simple and gradually became more complex over millions of generations. Each step providing a reproductive advantage.
Where's the evidence you say?
Eye's are soft tissue, they don't preserve as bones do. But we can see in living animals today the various stages of simple eyes through to complex eyes. It's not perfect evidence but it is compelling to many and it is consistent with evolution theory and it does show that eyes don't need to be as complex and what human's have today and it does show how even simple eyes provide a reproductive benefit when compared to even simpler eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
02-04-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 11:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  And yet you refuse to actually look at the evidence. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

So, what do you think, people? Is that 2? Or 1 and a half?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  You've repeatedly shown that you have no interest in accurately portraying what I believe; you tend to favor ridiculous strawmen, since you can't adequately address the real views of the people here. But I'm not required to play pretend because it's easier for you.

Thumbsup

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  What is that limit

Well, by all observational accounts, the limits seems to be within the "kinds". Which is why we only observe dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish-fish, snakes-snakes, birds-birds, and on and on.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  what is the mechanism behind it

Don't know. Maybe that is a question you should be asking the evolution prophets, you know, the guys in the white lab coats that you admire.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  and what evidence do you have that it's there?

I have observational evidence that an animal will always produce what it is, and never what it is not....now, if you have evidence that is contrary to the only thing that you have ever observed (dogs-dogs), then lay it on me.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do tell: what are these other forms of modification, beyond the usual, that evolution requires you to believe?

All I know is, the only changes we have ever observed is changes from WITHIN the kind...which is why there are many different varieties of dogs, cats, fish, birds, snakes, etc.

That is about as far as you can go with the observation (that is all we see), that is about as far as you can go with the experiment (many different varieties of dogs) and that is about as far as you can go with the prediction (a guy wanted a dog to look like a lion, and with selective breeding...we now have the leonberger).

That, old friend, is microevolution. That, old friend, is science. Macroevolution is NOT science...no observation, no experiment, and no prediction.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you won't look at the observations, you surrender all right to claim they aren't there.

A fossil that you THINK looks like a reptile-bird is not an observation...that is an INTERPRETATION of the observation. Apparently, evolutionists don't know the difference.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  No, again, this is an objective fact: the human back is not properly configured for bipedal motion. This isn't just some opinion, it is an observation based on a series of consequences that our spines would not have if we were quadrupeds.

And this computer that I am using is not properly configured for "on the go" compatiblity, so I cant use it on the bus, or in the car...I can't put it in my suitcase and take it on the airport with me.

Therefore, this computer is not designed. Oh, the fallacies!!

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  And don't think I didn't pick up on the argument from incredulity that is literally your only point here, either.

Would you want a mindless/blind guy operating on you?? Or a mindless and blind process??

Notice that you will make yourself look silly regardless of which one you choose, yet, you believe that one did...the mindless and blind one!!!! Laugh out load

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  A sales pitch without any evidence. Unsurprising, but also unconvincing.

Well, apparently someone sold you on the "mindless and blind" process thingy, so I thought I'd try my luck with my product Laugh out load

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  But this is evidence against design; no designer working with unlimited parts and knowledge would possibly do something like that to the eye, after all.

Now who is picking up the argument from incredulity? Laugh out load

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Theories require evidence. All you've got there is a hypothesis at best, and it's a flawed one because you won't bother to test it.

I did...against objections.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Again, how do you know biological life is specified?

Educate yourself on specified complexity, and then holla at me.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Because if you don't have that then you're just making an assertion under which everything is designed, which is circular, given what you're actually arguing for.

I don't recall saying everything is designed...do you?

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Seeing is what eyes do, but it's not why we have eyes. We have eyes because it is beneficial to have them.

If we have eyes BECAUSE it is beneficial to have them...then it follows that seeing is why we have eyes. You are basically saying "We have eyes because it is better for us to see, but seeing is not why we have eyes".

Complete and utter bullsh...I mean..nonsense.

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  That eyes see is just their function, it isn't an indication of their purpose, or even if they have a purpose. I asked you how you determined that the human body was specified, and you reply by giving me a non-answer that just assumes they were specified.

Would you like me to make that call to the doctor, or will you do it?

Well, as you guy can see, Esqualix discontinued our conversations involving infinity..and he continues to give piss poor objections regarding the conversations we are having above.

Anyone else wants to spar with me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 01:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  What is that limit

Well, by all observational accounts, the limits seems to be within the "kinds". Which is why we only observe dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish-fish, snakes-snakes, birds-birds, and on and on.


(02-04-2015 01:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  and what evidence do you have that it's there?

I have observational evidence that an animal will always produce what it is, and never what it is not....now, if you have evidence that is contrary to the only thing that you have ever observed (dogs-dogs), then lay it on me.
This observational evidence is consistent with evolution.

Evolutionary theory predicts that offspring will always be of the same species as their parents.

Evolutionary theory predicts that we will have a continuum where you can have close-by relations being reproductively compatible where-by the most distant relations along that unbroken compatible chain find themselves incompatible. This is observable today it is called ring species and provides observational evidence which directly conflicts with the idea of discrete species predicted by creationism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
02-04-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 01:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Anyone else wants to spar with me?

... says the tortoise to Achilles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
02-04-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 04:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, a bad design is still a design. I could spend hours telling Dell Computers how this computer could have been designed better...but I still have to admit it was designed.
Dell doesn't claim to be omniscient, omnipotent, have unlimited time and resources, or be able to build any type of computer at any time just by 'willing' it into existence.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 05:13 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  Dell doesn't claim to be omniscient, omnipotent, have unlimited time and resources, or be able to build any type of computer at any time just by 'willing' it into existence.

Well, according to the narrative, after creation, God saw that the creation was "good", not perfect. Now, maybe your definition of "good" and God's definition of "good" is different, apparently. But that doesn't change the fact that it was obviously designed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: