19 of 28
19
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 01 May 2013 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 271 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
George - 01 May 2013 10:42 AM

The orchid and bees need each other now, but “they” didn’t before. They evolved to depend on each other, just like we evolved to reproduce through sex.

Thats frankly just a baseless assertion. So lets recapitulate. We have for now no idea about how bats evolved. And so no answer about the menage a quad. When you are ready to admit that, we can go to the next issue.

I have a lot. And as a preview, i cann tell you : You will have no idea as well about the next issues as well….....

How about you admit already, Evolution Theory is nothing else than a belief system without hard and concrete evidence at all to back it up ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 272 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yeah, let’s recapitulate: You have no idea what you are talking about and you’re wasting everybody’s time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 273 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 01 May 2013 11:30 AM
George - 01 May 2013 10:42 AM

The orchid and bees need each other now, but “they” didn’t before. They evolved to depend on each other, just like we evolved to reproduce through sex.

Thats frankly just a baseless assertion. So lets recapitulate. We have for now no idea about how bats evolved. And so no answer about the menage a quad. When you are ready to admit that, we can go to the next issue.

I have a lot. And as a preview, i cann tell you : You will have no idea as well about the next issues as well….....

How about you admit already, Evolution Theory is nothing else than a belief system without hard and concrete evidence at all to back it up ?

What an odd way to provide evidence of a god. Just accuse the opposition of not knowing ALL there is to know about the universe and then asserting that the fact that not everything is known is proof of a god, without having to demonstrate ANYTHING that is known about the existence of a god.

Who do you think you are dealing with, naïve aborigines?  306.gif

You are the one making baseless assertions, you have no proof of any kind. Your invocation of science to prove theism proves the science, not the theism.

          ==================================================================

I am actually going to write a little stage play about this Topic. The dialogue will go something like this:

(theist) “See that burning bush? God did it”

(atheist) “Nah, I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for that bush catching fire”

(theist) “OK, prove to me exactly how the bush could have caught fire and what the environmental factors were all the way down to Planck scale, 3000 years ago, when that bush miraculously caught fire and burned according to scripture.

(atheist) “Well, gee,  I don’t have the answers to all the conditions down to Planck scale that were present at that time and the chemical or molecular actions which caused that particular bush to burn up 3000 years ago. But I can cite a few possibilities”

(theist) “See, baseless assertions!........You don’t know!!..........God exists!!!”

[ Edited: 01 May 2013 12:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 274 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14

Your invocation of science to prove theism proves the science, not the theism.
Write4U

That says it all. Right there.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 275 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 01 May 2013 12:17 PM

What an odd way to provide evidence of a god.

I have plenty of evidence for Gods existence. Here it is :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god

but that really does not matter for now.

Just accuse the opposition of not knowing ALL there is to know about the universe

I don’t acuse the opposition of that. But i am showing that your world view is not consistent. I have given plenty of oportunity to provide evidence for philosophical naturalism, which could back up the claim that strong atheism is the best explanation for our existence, rather than theism.
The only direct explanation was , that chimps have 98% similarity of dna with humans. That is NOT evidence for strong atheism. It could be evidence for a common ancestor. These numbers are false :

http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated

Results from this extensive and very objective study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed. The human-chimp common ancestor paradigm, which claims a nearly identical DNA content, is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than real factual data.

But lets aknowledge there are similarities. So what ? That can simply mean, that the origin was the same designer, which created men and chimps by similar means.

Who do you think you are dealing with, naïve aborigines?

No, but if you suppose to provide evidence for strong atheism, or a world view, where nature is all there is, you need to try harder. So far, you are not convincing at all. 

You are the one making baseless assertions

I have not simply asserted, God exists. But members here have made repetedly the assertion, that God does not exist. Who is making baseless assertions here ? how about you stop acusing me without reason, and provide scientific facts that lead logically and rationally to good reasons to accept that philosophical naturalism provides the best explanation for our existence ?

you have no proof of any kind.

No , i don’t. But lets say, i would have proofs for Gods existence. What would you do in that case ?

I am actually going to write a little stage play about this Topic. The dialogue will go something like this:

(theist) “See that burning bush? God did it”


I would rather say this : see the complex, specified, codified information storen in the genome ? we do not know of any cause of such information, than a intelligent mind. Therefore, its granted, God is the creator of life.

(atheist) “Nah, I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for that bush catching fire”

why should a explanation, that invokes natural causes, be scientific, but one, that invokes God, is not scientific ?
You see, your error starts right here. We start from the same initial situation. Science has discovered that DNA contains codified information.

My answer : God did it, since all known codified information was produced by a intelligent mind.
Your answer : Nah, i have a scientific explanation, natural forces throug potentials ore whatever put the information there.

Please explain : in what sense is your explanation ” scientific ” ?
And secondly : what evidence do you have, that alternative natural forces produced the codified information stored in the genome ?

I answer you : You have NONE !!

Your standpoint is baseless, actually, no. Its based on faith. Faith, that chance, or physical necessity can produce , guess what ?!! - a miracle !!

Because only a miracle could produce Shakespeares Hamlet without Intelligence involved. And so, the information stored in DNA…...

(theist) “See, baseless assertions!........You don’t know!!..........God exists!!!”

Translated to my case : indeed : when there is no evidence whatsoever, that chance, or physical necessity can produce codified information, but we have plenty of examples , like books, or computer codes, that are produced by humans, than we can
conclude on solid ground, that the information stored in DNA was created by a intelligent mind : God.


And getting back to bats :

Humans , intelligent beings, have the hability to produce radar and echolon systems. Chance, or physical necessity, don’t.

Evolution is not able to produce irreducible complex systems. God can make them all at the same time.

What came first: the egg, or the chicken ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 276 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2008-04-11
Adonai888 - 01 May 2013 06:22 PM

And getting back to bats :

Humans , intelligent beings, have the hability to produce radar and echolon systems. Chance, or physical necessity, don’t.

This is a nonsense statement. Please clarify.

Evolution is not able to produce irreducible complex systems. God can make them all at the same time.

There is no such thing as a ‘irreducible complex system’. Please give an example. Don’t bother using flagellum or the eye, they have been debunked over and over and over.

What came first: the egg, or the chicken ?

Yet another nonsense question. The egg developed first, of course. Their theropod ancestors were laying them millions of years ago.
Please go take an elementary biology class.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 277 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26

Adonai,
What came first: the egg, or the chicken ?

If you had started with that question, I would not have wasted my time on the others.
In fact, if you think that question is a stumper, I would not have wasted my time on you at all.

Try defining an egg, before you think of Colonel Sanders.

[ Edited: 01 May 2013 09:16 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 09:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 278 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  776
Joined  2009-07-17
Adonai888 - 01 May 2013 06:22 PM

What came first: the egg, or the chicken ?

Neither. They were both concerned for their partners pleasure and came together.

Wait… What were you talking about?

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 279 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26

OK, I’ll give you a good link which explains why that question is meaningless.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/egg

Rejoice in the wonder of science that has discovered when and how the egg developed

In zoology, an egg is an organic vessel in which an embryo first begins to develop. In most birds, reptiles, insects, molluscs, fish, and monotremes, an egg (Latin, ovum) is the zygote, resulting from fertilization of the ovum, which is expelled from the body and permitted to develop outside the body until the developing embryo can survive on its own. The term “egg” is used differently outside the animal kingdom, for an egg cell (sometimes called an ovum). Reproductive structures similar to the egg in other kingdoms are termed spores, or (in spermatophytes) seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(biology)

One might argue that the first egg was an amoeba.

[ Edited: 01 May 2013 10:32 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 280 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26

Hmmm, archegonia is an interesting word.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32701/archegonium

Archegonia (still unripe archegonium)

In all mosses the archegonia (singular: archegonium) are more or less bottle-shaped organs, which are wrapped by a cover one cell thick. In the interior of this bottle there is a single big central cell, which finally divides into the ovum and a belly-channel-cell, which lies in the bottom of the bottleneck. The neck is closed by a row of neck-channel-cells. Their number varies: Mosses have 10 or more, liverworts 4-8, and hornworts 6.

When the ovum ripes, the archegonium opens, because the uppermost cover cells swell and become slimy. So on top of the archegonium an opening develops. The neck-channel-cells change to slime too, and so there is a channel, through which the spermatozoids can pass through to the ovum.

                                                        p-s01.gif

http://www.ijon.de/moose/zyklus_en.html

[ Edited: 01 May 2013 10:52 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 03:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 281 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
asanta - 01 May 2013 09:04 PM

Humans , intelligent beings, have the hability to produce radar and echolon systems. Chance, or physical necessity, don’t.  This is a nonsense statement. Please clarify.

Its not a nonsense statement. I see it as a fact. Prove me wrong, if you can.

There is no such thing as a ‘irreducible complex system’. Please give an example.

the eye
blood
the cell
the flagellum

Don’t bother using flagellum or the eye, they have been debunked over and over and over.

I don’t think so.

The egg developed first, of course. Their theropod ancestors were laying them millions of years ago.
Please go take an elementary biology class.

So how did theropods be born ? through eggs ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 03:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 282 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 01 May 2013 09:13 PM

Try defining an egg,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(food)

Bird and reptile eggs consist of a protective eggshell, albumen (egg white), and vitellus (egg yolk), contained within various thin membranes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 03:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 283 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 01 May 2013 10:03 PM

OK, I’ll give you a good link which explains why that question is meaningless.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/egg

Rejoice in the wonder of science that has discovered when and how the egg developed

In zoology, an egg is an organic vessel in which an embryo first begins to develop. In most birds, reptiles, insects, molluscs, fish, and monotremes, an egg (Latin, ovum) is the zygote, resulting from fertilization of the ovum, which is expelled from the body and permitted to develop outside the body until the developing embryo can survive on its own. The term “egg” is used differently outside the animal kingdom, for an egg cell (sometimes called an ovum). Reproductive structures similar to the egg in other kingdoms are termed spores, or (in spermatophytes) seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(biology)

One might argue that the first egg was an amoeba.

you link explains, what a egg is. Not , what came first. My question is not meaningless, but a serious question, unsolved by evolutionary biology. The answers are all just guesswork.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 03:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 284 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 01 May 2013 10:44 PM

Hmmm, archegonia is an interesting word.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32701/archegonium

Archegonia (still unripe archegonium)

In all mosses the archegonia (singular: archegonium) are more or less bottle-shaped organs, which are wrapped by a cover one cell thick. In the interior of this bottle there is a single big central cell, which finally divides into the ovum and a belly-channel-cell, which lies in the bottom of the bottleneck. The neck is closed by a row of neck-channel-cells. Their number varies: Mosses have 10 or more, liverworts 4-8, and hornworts 6.

When the ovum ripes, the archegonium opens, because the uppermost cover cells swell and become slimy. So on top of the archegonium an opening develops. The neck-channel-cells change to slime too, and so there is a channel, through which the spermatozoids can pass through to the ovum.

                                                        p-s01.gif

http://www.ijon.de/moose/zyklus_en.html

So ?

here a few other animals that defy evolution :

http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev5.pdf

[ Edited: 02 May 2013 03:41 AM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 05:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 285 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 03:29 AM

here a few other animals that defy evolution :
http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev5.pdf

What a stupid article. Better read science, instead of this rubbish.

From your article:

These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn’t have evolved!

This is so ridiculous. Just lookup “Evolution of cetaceans” in Wikipedia. Your source is lying, and that is not allowed per commandment.

Stephen Gould - 01 May 1994 04:25 AM

“If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory.”

From ww.darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm (add the missing first w).

It would really be a waste of time to find sources that disprove everything in your link.

Your ‘evolutionary arguments’ boil down to:

- ‘one cannot imagine how…’. Well, nature often is more complicated than we can imagine.

- there is a gap between A and B. Well, yes, not all animals fossilized. But as you see (if you looked into the Wikipedia article), fossils are still found in modern times. Many of the cetaceans fossils were found after 1994. So sure still much to find. And then: a gap in an explanation does not mean ‘God’. It means: no explanation (yet). Not being able to imagine how the gap can be filled is not an argument for the impossibility of filling the gap.

And then: how do you conclude from a gap in a scientific explanation to a carpenter’s son born around 4 BC?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
19 of 28
19