One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Bible is under attack by Atheists trying to remove it from this one important place
Page <<first <prev 34 of 41 next> last>>
Mar 14, 2019 11:58:18   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
Amen, Bahmer.


Those are just the extreme atheists. They are like the far left or the far right. They want to force their views on everyone! And they have become too much like the far left; if you disagree, you are a r****t and a bigot!

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 12:00:03   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Iliamna1 wrote:
We are not going to agree. I'm reminded of the four blind men who were taken to 'see' an elephant.
One, on grabbing the tail, claimed it was just like a rope. The next one found a leg and proclaimed it to be a tree. Another found the side and said it was like a wall and the last found an ear and proclaimed it was like a piece of paper. The same data you cite can also be interpreted to support Intelligent Design.
I'm shutting my notepad down now as I have to get up early. It's strawberry season and a group of us are going to Plant City to go to a quilt show and buy some flats of strawberries.
Hmmmmm . . If there's a quilt, do you think there might be a quilter?
We are not going to agree. I'm reminded of the fo... (show quote)


There might be, but then where did the quilter come from?? Even if the quilter were eternal, how could the quilter ever create something with free will, having been so eternal as to know everything that has and will happen??

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 12:02:53   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Nickolai wrote:
Since billions of species of life has existed and 99,9 % are extinct The designer had keep designing and creating new species. There is no goal or finished product we are still evolving 100 years from now people will have bent necks and elongated thumbs from texting


Humans need to remember, if they are able, there is nothing about evolutionary change that implies movement to greater intelligence or a more complicated mind.

Also, to me, to design something so well that life would actually burst forth from it and be able to adapt to the changing world without outside influence, is more more elegant than simply thinking something into being.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 15:19:25   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Humans need to remember, if they are able, there is nothing about evolutionary change that implies movement to greater intelligence or a more complicated mind.

Also, to me, to design something so well that life would actually burst forth from it and be able to adapt to the changing world without outside influence, is more more elegant than simply thinking something into being.


Yep!!!!
No matter how much time you give poly-wogs; they will not be designing computers and microchips.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 15:34:10   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
eagleye13 wrote:
Yep!!!!
No matter how much time you give poly-wogs; they will not be designing computers and microchips.


LOL! That's right! But come back in a few million years and what they will have evolved into, might, but not likely. Billions of species have come and gone and as far as we know, humans are the only ones who have gotten to that place. And as it looks right new, we are not getting smarter!

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 16:46:42   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Those are just the extreme atheists. They are like the far left or the far right. They want to force their views on everyone! And they have become too much like the far left; if you disagree, you are a r****t and a bigot!


I've noticed that Nicky has stopped posting on the post that has to do with the Scriptures so he runs and hides in the evolution area !

It's just as well I could see it was leading nowhere !

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 16:54:05   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
4430 wrote:
I've noticed that Nicky has stopped posting on the post that has to do with the Scriptures so he runs and hides in the evolution area !

It's just as well I could see it was leading nowhere !


He's just about googled out on the topic!

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 17:10:14   #
Iliamna1
 
We just got home and I have a lot of work to do so this will be brief. Believe me, I've had evolution thrust down my throat by many teachers, especially when we took genetics, and I do understand the the THEORY of evolution. It is not reproducible in any species, and when genetic anomalies occur, they're nearly always fatal and rarely can be reproduced in the main population. Natural se******n is reproducible and can be controlled to an extent. Occasionally, single-celled mutations can be engineered, primarily with gene splicing, and are often used for making drugs, study, implantation, and other things. But they are not naturally occurring anomalies.
And for the sake of argument, lets say two creatures are born with exactly, or nearly the same exact, genetic deviation, they'd have to be male and female and in close proximity to each other to allow those specific two to mate. And that offspring would have to find a like mutation to reproduce.
It just can't happen. And nowhere is that documented in the fossil record.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 17:31:32   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Iliamna1 wrote:
We just got home and I have a lot of work to do so this will be brief. Believe me, I've had evolution thrust down my throat by many teachers, especially when we took genetics, and I do understand the the THEORY of evolution. It is not reproducible in any species, and when genetic anomalies occur, they're nearly always fatal and rarely can be reproduced in the main population. Natural se******n is reproducible and can be controlled to an extent. Occasionally, single-celled mutations can be engineered, primarily with gene splicing, and are often used for making drugs, study, implantation, and other things. But they are not naturally occurring anomalies.
And for the sake of argument, lets say two creatures are born with exactly, or nearly the same exact, genetic deviation, they'd have to be male and female and in close proximity to each other to allow those specific two to mate. And that offspring would have to find a like mutation to reproduce.
It just can't happen. And nowhere is that documented in the fossil record.
We just got home and I have a lot of work to do so... (show quote)


""And that offspring would have to find a like mutation to reproduce. ""

Totally incorrect. Evolution works at the level of populations, not individuals. And the populations must be separated physically for hundreds and thousands of generations for new species to emerge.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 17:43:37   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
Iliamna1 wrote:
We just got home and I have a lot of work to do so this will be brief. Believe me, I've had evolution thrust down my throat by many teachers, especially when we took genetics, and I do understand the the THEORY of evolution. It is not reproducible in any species, and when genetic anomalies occur, they're nearly always fatal and rarely can be reproduced in the main population. Natural se******n is reproducible and can be controlled to an extent. Occasionally, single-celled mutations can be engineered, primarily with gene splicing, and are often used for making drugs, study, implantation, and other things. But they are not naturally occurring anomalies.
And for the sake of argument, lets say two creatures are born with exactly, or nearly the same exact, genetic deviation, they'd have to be male and female and in close proximity to each other to allow those specific two to mate. And that offspring would have to find a like mutation to reproduce.
It just can't happen. And nowhere is that documented in the fossil record.
We just got home and I have a lot of work to do so... (show quote)


I guess I was lucky as none of my teachers said anything about evolution maybe it was because we were in a rural area where common sense was pretty common !

Ahhhh those were the days life was simple we had fun times growing up !

Now a days we have so many wimpy little twits that get offended at every little thing and they call ya everything under the sun just brainless little cupcakes ain't got a lick of sense !

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:31:30   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Nickolai wrote:
Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been the grand unifying theory of biology. Yet one of our most important biological traits, consciousness, is rarely studied in the context of evolution.
Since when is consciousness a "biological trait"? Biology is the field of science that studies living organisms, all of which physically exist in one form or another. Can you put a thought under a microscope and study its cell structure? Can you culture a dream in a Petri dish and run a DNA analysis of it? What molecules are present in an idea and how are they combined and arranged to produce a specific idea? Can you capture a whim in order to evaluate whether you should follow through with it or just flush it down the crapper?

Nickolai wrote:
Theories of consciousness come from religion, from philosophy, from cognitive science, but not so much from evolutionary biology.
Why do you suppose evolutionary biology avoids the subject of consciousness?

How did the concepts of religion, philosophy, and cognitive science (and everything else we think about) come to be if not through consciousness? IOW, Nik, consciousness must first be present BEFORE a thought can arise. Where did consciousness come from? What is its source?

Nickolai wrote:
Maybe that’s why so few theories have been able to tackle basic questions such as: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it? The Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, may be able to answer those questions. The theory suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

Universities, respectively) outline a number of ideas about why Cambrian animals changed so much during a geologically short period of time. Scientist reasonably conclude that we should consider multiple causes acting simultaneously, rather than an point to early Cambrian sea level rise as a major factor. Geologists have long known that worldwide sea level surged during the Cambrian, drowning low-lying continental areas to create shallow seas of the kind that, in today’s environment, teem with life.

What would a rise in sea level during the Cambrian accomplish? Smith and Harper note that “sea-level rise would have generated a very large habitable area lying between the base of wave turbulence.” Additionally, Cambrian flooding would release nutrients such as phosph**e and calcium, which would aid the formation of hard shells.
Maybe that’s why so few theories have been able t... (show quote)


Nickolai wrote:
The Cambrian explosion is certainly no Argument for a God who watches everything we do and would throw us in a hell hire and brimstone if we do not have believe in his son, but loves us, has a plan for us, listens to our prayers, and guides our destiny
You should have stopped typing after the word "God", what you wrote after that is mockery, it is secular humanistic ignorance.

The Cambrian Explosion is no argument against God either. The Cambrian period lasted approximately 50 million years. In terms of geological time as we understand it, 50 million years is a flash in the pan, yet during that period most of the major animal groups suddenly appeared with no evolutionary or t***sitional fossil record to account for them. Every attempt by evolutionary scientists to trace the Cambrian fossils back through a t***sitional period has failed. No vertebrate, tetrapod, or skeletal creature can be found in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian period.

Basically, Darwin's theory states that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural se******n of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

What exactly is meant by "natural se******n"? Nothing occurs or appears naturally without specific natural laws in play to produce it. What Natural Law or Laws determined these "natural se******ns"? Mankind discovered the laws of science and nature, we didn't make them up. It is impossible for the natural laws that govern the universe to do so without an intelligence behind them.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 18:32:39   #
Iliamna1
 
4430 wrote:
I guess I was lucky as none of my teachers said anything about evolution maybe it was because we were in a rural area where common sense was pretty common !

Ahhhh those were the days life was simple we had fun times growing up !

Now a days we have so many wimpy little twits that get offended at every little thing and they call ya everything under the sun just brainless little cupcakes ain't got a lick of sense !


Amen to that!

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:57:45   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You should have stopped typing after the word "God", what you wrote after that is mockery, it is secular humanistic ignorance.

The Cambrian Explosion is no argument against God either. The Cambrian period lasted approximately 50 million years. In terms of geological time as we understand it, 50 million years is a flash in the pan, yet during that period most of the major animal groups suddenly appeared with no evolutionary or t***sitional fossil record to account for them. Every attempt by evolutionary scientists to trace the Cambrian fossils back through a t***sitional period has failed. No vertebrate, tetrapod, or skeletal creature can be found in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian period.

Basically, Darwin's theory states that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural se******n of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

What exactly is meant by "natural se******n"? Nothing occurs or appears naturally without specific natural laws in play to produce it. What Natural Law or Laws determined these "natural se******ns"? Mankind discovered the laws of science and nature, we didn't make them up. It is impossible for the natural laws that govern the universe to do so without an intelligence behind them.
You should have stopped typing after the word &quo... (show quote)


Blade, I thought you were gone. Someone was asking about you a while back.

Not to argue but here is some good links to t***sitional fossils, just to let you know there are many but right, none hardly from the Cambrian explosion which was around 550million yrs ago and lasted about 30 million years. I am pretty sure these were mostly soft tissue organisms so not fossilized too well. What it represents is the emergence of O2 in the atmosphere, I believe, to levels which could be utilized and new oxidative methods of energy production showed up. But it took a long long time for that to happen even after O2 arose, which was a couple of billion years before that, I think.

You also stated, "It is impossible for the natural laws that govern the universe to do so without an intelligence behind them." What makes you think so. These aren't laws which were written like do not speed, don't tell a lie, etc, but are physical laws which are part of the fabric of space, built upon the four interactions: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. These are measurable things for us and so it is in our limits as to what we can observe about them.

But what laws govern a "creator" of a universe? It simply IS? Maybe so, but it is immeasurable without some "faith" which is from a conscious standpoint only.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 21:46:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Blade, I thought you were gone. Someone was asking about you a while back.

Not to argue but here is some good links to t***sitional fossils, just to let you know there are many but right, none hardly from the Cambrian explosion which was around 550million yrs ago and lasted about 30 million years. I am pretty sure these were mostly soft tissue organisms so not fossilized too well. What it represents is the emergence of O2 in the atmosphere, I believe, to levels which could be utilized and new oxidative methods of energy production showed up. But it took a long long time for that to happen even after O2 arose, which was a couple of billion years before that, I think.

You also stated, "It is impossible for the natural laws that govern the universe to do so without an intelligence behind them." What makes you think so. These aren't laws which were written like do not speed, don't tell a lie, etc, but are physical laws which are part of the fabric of space, built upon the four interactions: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. These are measurable things for us and so it is in our limits as to what we can observe about them.

But what laws govern a "creator" of a universe? It simply IS? Maybe so, but it is immeasurable without some "faith" which is from a conscious standpoint only.
Blade, I thought you were gone. Someone was askin... (show quote)
Nothing begins to exist in this universe without a purpose, a reason for its existence. Who or what established the purpose of the four fundamental forces and determined their precise magnitudes, dimensions, and finely tuned interactions?

The four fundamental forces combined with the rest of the Universal Constants have always presented a dilemma for secular scientists, they have attempted many times and in many ways to scientifically refute the idea that the universe is finely tuned so that life can exist. Out of all possible combinations of matter, energy, and forces, and all possible magnitudes and dimensions for each of them with which to build a universe, who or what chose the only combination in which life could exist?

As an example, Let's consider just the four fundamental forces.

If the strong nuclear force was a unit of magnitude larger than it is, no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. I this force was smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

If the weak nuclear force was a unit of magnitude larger, too much hydrogen would have converted to helium in the big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If this force was smaller: too little helium would have emerged from the big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.

If the gravitational force was a unit of magnitude larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.

If the electromagnetic force was a unit of magnitude greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.

The odds are beyond astronomical that this came to be by some random chance, there is an intelligence behind this, and that intelligence had a purpose. Life is a far too beautiful a thing, far too complex and mysterious, to think that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance. If we are nothing more than chemistry and physics in motion, then we have no intrinsic worth--our worth then is determined by the state or by an extrinsic entity.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 22:24:41   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing begins to exist in this universe without a purpose, a reason for its existence. Who or what established the purpose of the four fundamental forces and determined their precise magnitudes, dimensions, and finely tuned interactions?

The four fundamental forces combined with the rest of the Universal Constants have always presented a dilemma for secular scientists, they have attempted many times and in many ways to scientifically refute the idea that the universe is finely tuned so that life can exist. Out of all possible combinations of matter, energy, and forces, and all possible magnitudes and dimensions for each of them with which to build a universe, who or what chose the only combination in which life could exist?

As an example, Let's consider just the four fundamental forces.

If the strong nuclear force was a unit of magnitude larger than it is, no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. I this force was smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

If the weak nuclear force was a unit of magnitude larger, too much hydrogen would have converted to helium in the big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If this force was smaller: too little helium would have emerged from the big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.

If the gravitational force was a unit of magnitude larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.

If the electromagnetic force was a unit of magnitude greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.

The odds are beyond astronomical that this came to be by some random chance, there is an intelligence behind this, and that intelligence had a purpose. Life is a far too beautiful a thing, far too complex and mysterious, to think that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance. If we are nothing more than chemistry and physics in motion, then we have no intrinsic worth--our worth then is determined by the state or by an extrinsic entity.
Nothing begins to exist in this universe without a... (show quote)


There are possibly an infinite number of universes so if one exists where things are just right, then why does it seem there must be outside intervention?

Science doesn't deny the mystery, but it also doesn't simply say, it must be god.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 34 of 41 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.