Discussion:
If you can answer this then you'll have a case for evolution...
(too old to reply)
old man joe
2011-02-16 11:42:06 UTC
Permalink
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.

the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.

none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.

before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.

and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !

well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.

that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.

the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
martin
2011-02-16 12:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.

Rest of fuckwitted post cut
Kadaitcha Man
2011-02-16 12:14:39 UTC
Permalink
martin, I'll pray a thousand prayers for thy death. Ye open-arsed
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so? Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?

Don't tell me... let me guess... you're a creationist, right?
Post by martin
Rest of fuckwitted post cut
--
sprogdrop : n. Pregnancy. As in: 'Your wife's put on a bit of weight.
Is she suffering from sprogdrop?'
Richard Cornford
2011-02-16 13:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life. Once life
exists then it evolves, but how life comes into existence in the first
place is not anything to do with evolution; they are different
subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty
understanding of what evolution is.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don't tell me... let me guess... you're a creationist, right?
Post by martin
Rest of fuckwitted post cut
Jonathan
2011-02-16 13:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.

Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Calresco Themes (*in essay forn)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html







Once life
Post by Richard Cornford
exists then it evolves, but how life comes into existence in the first
place is not anything to do with evolution; they are different
subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty
understanding of what evolution is.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don't tell me... let me guess... you're a creationist, right?
Post by martin
Rest of fuckwitted post cut
All Seeing I
2011-02-16 17:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
ha! "The NEWER science"

Is that anything like this year and last years buick?

hahahaha
Post by Jonathan
Self-Organizing Faqhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Calresco Themes (*in essay forn)http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physicshttp://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html
 Once life
Post by Richard Cornford
exists then it evolves, but how life comes into existence in the first
place is not anything to do with evolution; they are different
subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty
understanding of what evolution is.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don't tell me... let me guess... you're a creationist, right?
Post by martin
Rest of fuckwitted post cut- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Conan the bacterium
2011-02-16 19:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh? Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?

At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science". At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science". At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".

The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.

None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.

For which we are quite grateful.


conan
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Self-Organizing Faqhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Calresco Themes (*in essay forn)http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physicshttp://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html
 Once life
Post by Richard Cornford
exists then it evolves, but how life comes into existence in the first
place is not anything to do with evolution; they are different
subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty
understanding of what evolution is.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don't tell me... let me guess... you're a creationist, right?
Post by martin
Rest of fuckwitted post cut- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 19:11:55 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh?  Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?
At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science".  At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science".  At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".
The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.
None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.
For which we are quite grateful.
conan
In this case it is not science. It is junk-science
haiku jones
2011-02-16 19:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, thestatement being criticisedis fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
Thestatement being criticiseddoes not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh?  Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?
At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science".  At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science".  At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".
The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.
None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.
For which we are quite grateful.
conan
<>
Post by AllSeeing-I
In this case it is not science. It is junk-science
Really The study of self-organizing complexity
is junk science?

Why don't you explain to me what you know
about this new branch of science, and why
you come to that conclusion?

I'll start us off: most of what I know of
this topic comes from five books:

-- Ilya Prigogine's "Order out of Chaos".
Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for this
work.

-- Stuart Kauffmann's "At Home in the Universe:
The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and
Complexity". Everywhere you look in this field
you run into Stuart Kauffmann.

-- Kauffmann's "The Origins of Order: Self-Organization
and Selection in Evolution"

-- Melanie Mitchell's "Complexity: a
Guided Tour"> Excellent introduction.

-- Steven Levy's "Artificial Life".


So, as I have invited: tell us what you
know about this emerging branch of
science, where you learned it, and why
you term it "junk science":
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

conan
Ralph
2011-02-16 22:25:48 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by Conan the bacterium
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh? Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?
At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science". At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science". At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".
The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.
None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.
For which we are quite grateful.
conan
In this case it is not science. It is junk-science
How can a scientific illiterate, such as yourself, make that distinction??
Mitchell Holman
2011-02-16 22:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
com
...
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the
elements of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth
(an
d
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how
life changes, and so does not come into play until there is
life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh?  Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?
At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science".  At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science".  At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".
The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.
None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.
For which we are quite grateful.
conan
In this case it is not science. It is junk-science
Unlike the REAL science of dragons and
unicorns and zombies and talking snakes?

LOL!
Virgil
2011-02-17 06:10:44 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Jonathan
Post by Richard Cornford
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Yes, the statement being criticised is fundamentally erroneous.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Then if life didn't come from basic elements, which are not
alive, where did it come from, you chopfucked flapwit?
The statement being criticised does not say that. It says that
evolution depends on life coming from the elements of the earth (and
depends on nothing else). In reality evolution is about how life
changes, and so does not come into play until there is life.
But the newer science of self organizing systems do have
something to say about how order can spontaneously form
and continue to evolve via the same process.
<>
Post by All Seeing I
ha! "The NEWER science"
<>
Post by All Seeing I
Is that anything like this year and last years buick?
hahahaha
Oh?  Perhaps you will explain
your hilarity?
At one time quantum physics was a
"newer science".  At one time nuclear
physics was a "newer science".  At one
time solid state physics, the basis of all
our electronics, was a "newer science".
At one time organic chemistry was
a "newer science".
The only way you could find that
incongruous is if you feel that
science already explains everything.
None of us who actually understand
science think it already has all the answers.
For which we are quite grateful.
conan
In this case it is not science. It is junk-science
If anything in these posts is junky, it is your junky cretinist IDiocy
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
Kadaitcha Man
2011-02-16 20:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Richard Cornford, thou hag-seed. Ye unsightly fat rogue, thou bawd,
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Is that so?
Y<GOBSMACK>
I love it when you pseudosuperheroes jump in to save one of your fellow
fuckwits from an embarrassment. It gives me two cretins to slap around
at the same time.
The statement being criticised does not say that.
"The statement being criticised" is ambiguous.
In reality
That word, 'reality' says an awful lot about you. Please don't use words
you don't know the meaning of. It says you're a materialist/objectivist
whose world view is grounded in 300 year old, highly discredited
Newtonian mechanics, and that you have a propensity to make arguments
without any idea of what the fuck it is you're gibbering on about.
evolution is about how life changes, and so does not come
into play until there is life.
See? You're a fuckwit pseudosuperhero. You have just witlessly confirmed
that his statement is correct. Without "life coming from the elements of
the earth which are not alive", there is no life for evolution to
function, therefore evolution depends on life.
but how life comes into existence in the first
place is not anything to do with evolution;
Evolution has three underpinning assumptions, one of those assumptions
is the presence of life, that is, self-replicating organisms that
metabolise. So, you've just destroyed the theory of evolution by killing
off its most basic assumption. You must feel really proud of that clever
twist of illogic of yours, hey.

You also proved my assertion that you don't know what the fuck you're
talking about. Nobody in their right mind invalidates the founding
assumption of the very thing they're trying to defend. What's worse, you
did it with complete witlessness and continued on as if nothing had
happened.
they are different
subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty
understanding of what evolution is.
No. The empirical evidence plainly shows that you're a fuckwit
pseudosuperhero who opened his fat trap without even a single considered
thought.

Next time try analysing statements for ambiguity before you prove
yourself to be the fuckwit everyone now knows you are.

HTH
--
loon pipe : n. Anus.
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 15:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
wrong.
Rest of fuckwitted post cut
ha! If seems that he who has typed 'fuckwitted' is actually the
fuckwitt here.

Exactly what is everything made of, Mister shinning example of the
modern day school system?

Also, if you do not mind... If evolution is NOT depended on life then
WTF is it going to evolve? The rocks?

--
I cannot buy this kind of entertainment --anywhere.

Not even on NETFLIX!
Jimbo
2011-02-16 12:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.
Says who? Your problem here, as I see it, is that you are asking for
evidence that you are not willing to give concerning your magical sky-
pixie. Proto cells and primative bacteria have been reproduced using
natural substances in labs. Has your magical sky daddy been shown to
exist in any shape, manner, or form using the same scientific
criteria?

Also, you are still confused. Evolution does not depend on
abiogenesis. Life adapts and evolves, it''s a long proven fact that
even many religious leaders has come to accept.

Over 150 years of solid research and evidence says you need to get
over it.
Erwin Moller
2011-02-16 12:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Evolution depends on a lot more.
Like variation, mutation, etc.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.
Wrong again.
There is no difference between the carbon that is used in your body and
the carbon found in coal.
Lots of biological substances can be created without using living organisms.

If you happen to have some evidence that is not true, please present it.
Thanks.
Post by old man joe
call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
Biologists don't curse God.
Are you running out of arguments that quickly this time?
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
True.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
Why not all the way back to the Big Bang?

Why not demand biologists must proof EVERYTHING before they can conclude
evolution is happening everywhere?

How unreasonable can you get?
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
No they don't.
Biologists (are 'evolutionists' as you prefer to call them in a weak
attempt to make them sound like the cult you are in) don't make claims
about God at all.
Nor does the theory of evolution.

You are misinformed again.
Post by old man joe
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
That is not even wrong.
It is a semantic mess.
Post by old man joe
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
"dust of earth" being atoms?
In that case: Yes, you and I are both a collection of atoms.
What is your problem with atoms anyway?
Post by old man joe
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
Excuse me?
Who are you talking to?
Why the hatred and aggression and incoherence?
Post by old man joe
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse."
Well, "mister", your holy book carries no value because you think it is
a holy book.
If you have something remotely convincing to tell us all, please come back.

Thanks.

Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
Steve O
2011-02-16 12:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
Of course it does.
I am made of elements.
I am alive.

There you go...life from the elements...that wasn't so hard now, was it?
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
TLC
2011-02-16 13:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Molecule of life emerges from laboratory slime.

CREATING life in the primordial soup may have been easier than we
thought. Two essential elements of RNA have finally been made from
scratch, under conditions similar to those that likely prevailed
during the dawn of life.

The question of how a molecule capable of storing genetic information
- even DNA's simpler cousin RNA - could ever have arisen spontaneously
in the primordial cooking pot has perplexed scientists for decades.
RNA consists of a long chain composed of four different types of
ribonucleotides, which each consist of a nitrogenous base, a sugar and
a phosphate.

Most people assumed that these three components first formed
separately, and then combined to make the ribonucleotides. The only
trouble was that it seemed impossible that two of the four bases with
particularly unwieldy chemistry ever reacted spontaneously with the
sugar.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html
Les Hellawell
2011-02-16 13:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
Of course it does.
I am made of elements.
We are mostly Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon.

There is a full breakdown here:
http://www.random-science-tools.com/chemistry/chemical_comp_of_body.htm
Post by Steve O
I am alive.
There you go...life from the elements...that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Elementary my dear Steve.



Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
raven1
2011-02-16 13:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't, you ignorant fool. Evolution says nothing about how
life began, it describes how it diversified afterward.
Jonathan
2011-02-16 13:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive.
That's a perfectly good question, and the answer is still
a bit unclear. It's thought that stromatolites were among
the first life forms. They're a biofilm made up originally
from single celled prokaryotes. Which are thought to form
from things called protobionts, which can form directly
from minerals ...without any life needed.

Protobionts would essentially be a missing link or
transitional form between minerals and life.

Protobionts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protobiont

But you shouldn't believe that evolution and religion are
at odds with each other. Every form of higher order
is the result of cyclic processes, and it's thought the
universe itself is cyclic. And evolution naturally leads
to ever higher forms of created being.

So in a cyclic universe, a God can evolve naturally, only
difference being such a God would come at the ..end
of the evolutionary ladder, not the beginning.
And in our image.

But in a cyclic universe, that's not a problem. Our God
could evolve from a previous universe. While this universe
evolves a God for some future universe.

But there's one thing I can say with complete confidence.
Science and religion have yet to answer these questions
very well.


The best discoveries are yet to come.


Jonathan


s
Automutt
2011-02-16 13:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
Jesus said to him,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV).

The Word of Life, Jesus, also the personification of DNA and RNA can
evolve by;

implementing,

selection, crossover, and mutation
The basic genetic algorithm

Way, truth, life etc ;)
Devils Advocaat
2011-02-16 13:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
[snipped for brevity]

Care to cite any scientific paper that insists on this assertion of
yours?
Don Kresch
2011-02-16 13:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing
No, it doesn't.
Post by old man joe
... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god? Recall: your claim
is that life cannot come from non-life. Ergo, god must be created. If
you say that god was not created, then you're a hypocrite.

IOW: you're fucked.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Loirbaj
2011-02-16 15:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question? I thought not.

To return to OMJoe statement. He is correct.
Without Spontaneous Generation of Life from
the non-living, there IS no evolutionism. And
Dr.Pasteur SHATTERED all pretenses of
Abiogenesis over 100 years ago.
Erwin Moller
2011-02-16 15:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
Post by Don Kresch
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
What a load of incoherent claptrap.
Post by Loirbaj
Next question? I thought not.
Questions?
To you?

I thought not.
Post by Loirbaj
To return to OMJoe statement. He is correct.
Without Spontaneous Generation of Life from
the non-living, there IS no evolutionism. And
Dr.Pasteur SHATTERED all pretenses of
Abiogenesis over 100 years ago.
Blablabla.

1) OMJ didn't make any argument. He just shouted God made life without
*any* supporting evidence (much like you now)
2) The *is* evolution. It can be observed. There is an enormous amount
of proof. Where the proof for your sky-pixie?
3) Pasteur never did such a thing.

Next point?
I thought not.

Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
raven1
2011-02-16 15:45:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:01:32 -0800 (PST), Loirbaj
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
QM says otherwise.
Post by Loirbaj
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question?
Yes: do you know what a special pleading fallacy is?
Post by Loirbaj
I thought not.
You've never thought about anything in the time you've been posting.
Post by Loirbaj
To return to OMJoe statement. He is correct.
No, he isn't. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and for that
matter, neither do you.
Post by Loirbaj
Without Spontaneous Generation of Life from
the non-living, there IS no evolutionism.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about
how life diversified afterward. Why is this simple fact so hard for
Creationists to comprehend?
Post by Loirbaj
And
Dr.Pasteur SHATTERED all pretenses of
Abiogenesis over 100 years ago.
Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is not
spontaneous generation.
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 15:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Post by Loirbaj
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question? I thought not.
To return to OMJoe statement. He is correct.
Without Spontaneous Generation of Life from
the non-living, there IS no evolutionism. And
Dr.Pasteur SHATTERED all pretenses of
Abiogenesis over 100 years ago.
Erwin Moller
2011-02-16 15:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
Post by Don Kresch
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.

Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...

Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?

Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?

Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?

Just a thought.

Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
         Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.

OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.

Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Erwin Moller
2011-02-16 16:23:06 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
Post by Don Kresch
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.


My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.

Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.


But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.

The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
tirebiter
2011-02-16 16:55:55 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 11:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
          Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
More likely, as pecking orders were being established, the "leaders"
were tasked with explaining HOW and WHY the sun came and went every
day. They deferred to the lazy answer that all theists use.
"goddidit". This worked so well that the concept was expanded to
define how each person should think and act. We have a drought? Our
gods are angry. Sacrifice our most precious resources. Pollute our
best drinking water with dead virgins, burn our most valuable crops,
etc. Of course not to any extent that the leaders themselves ever
went thirsty or missed any meals, and the followers fell in line.

---
a.a. #2273
All Seeing I
2011-02-16 17:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tirebiter
On Feb 16, 11:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
          Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
More likely, as pecking orders were being established, the "leaders"
were tasked with explaining HOW and WHY the sun came and went every
day.  They deferred to the lazy answer that all theists use.
"goddidit".  This worked so well that the concept was expanded to
define how each person should think and act.  We have a drought?  Our
gods are angry.  Sacrifice our most precious resources.  Pollute our
best drinking water with dead virgins, burn our most valuable crops,
etc.  Of course not to any extent that the leaders themselves ever
went thirsty or missed any meals, and the followers fell in line.
---
a.a. #2273- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
May I suggest a straight jacket and a nice padded room?
tirebiter
2011-02-16 17:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Seeing I
Post by tirebiter
On Feb 16, 11:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
          Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
More likely, as pecking orders were being established, the "leaders"
were tasked with explaining HOW and WHY the sun came and went every
day.  They deferred to the lazy answer that all theists use.
"goddidit".  This worked so well that the concept was expanded to
define how each person should think and act.  We have a drought?  Our
gods are angry.  Sacrifice our most precious resources.  Pollute our
best drinking water with dead virgins, burn our most valuable crops,
etc.  Of course not to any extent that the leaders themselves ever
went thirsty or missed any meals, and the followers fell in line.
---
a.a. #2273- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
May I suggest a straight jacket and a nice padded room?
This seems to be your new "zinger". You should fire your writing
staff and get better tag lines.

---
a.a. #2273
raven1
2011-02-16 17:49:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), All Seeing I
Post by All Seeing I
May I suggest a straight jacket and a nice padded room?
Why? Did the doctors let your roommate out?
All Seeing I
2011-02-16 17:02:27 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 10:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
          Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
My heart palpitates at the thought.
Post by Erwin Moller
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
A rational person understands there is more going on regarding our
existence then what we can see and understand using our senses. A
creator.god is the best explaination for it.
Post by Erwin Moller
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
The history says Ra was based on an actual character and not the sun.
The sun represented Ra in human terms. It was symbolic.

The Great Ra = Atum Ra = Prakash Brahma = Higher Aspect Of Yahveh =
Father Of The Gods or YHVH, ALLAH, An, Anu, Brahmn, Yahveh
Post by Erwin Moller
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
This is why Abraham left Sumeria. There was a huge fight between the
ruling classes about poly vs mono. Before there was poly in the sumer
area there was mono. The beliefs came full circle in part thanks to
Abraham's efforts. He is the originator of all three major mono
religions today
Post by Erwin Moller
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
Did you watch the movie "Quest for Fire" by chance? It was almost
believable. Almost.
Post by Erwin Moller
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
An old saying goes, "the truth is stranger then fiction." It is my
understanding that most beliefs had an origin and therefore are based
in truth. Over time, that truth may have become distorted.
Nevertheless, the core of the stories are usually based on some type
of real observation or experience. With the exception of real fiction,
of course. IE. Mobi Dick, or something like that.

Given the fact that beliefs have an origin and that some things are
stranger then fiction, why would a reasonable thinking person believe
that a hairy ape-like girl stared at the sun one morning and called it
a god because it was warm? And then, because she did that, billions of
people would still believe there is a god today? Surely something
would have caused humanity to discover this was not true during all
that time. Unless..

Unless there were on going experiences with this god that kept the
"story" alive within the population. And they wrote those experiences
down.

The only question that remains now is, why would any reasonable person
assume the people that wrote the stories down made them up?
Erwin Moller
2011-02-16 17:27:34 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 10:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
Post by Don Kresch
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
My heart palpitates at the thought.
Which make me glow with a warm and fuzzy feeling in turn.
Post by Erwin Moller
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
A rational person understands there is more going on regarding our
existence then what we can see and understand using our senses. A
creator.god is the best explaination for it.
Yes, no, depends.
First: We must use MORE than our senses: especially our brain.
Second: Postulating a God isn't explaining anything. I am trying to make
that point for years, but I am embarrassing unsuccessful in doing so.
God is simply (mis)used to fill up gaps in our knowledge.

If you try to push intellectual problems away by giving them to God, you
are simply avoiding the problems. Because now God has the problem.
For example:
Question: Where do we/the universe come from?
Religious answer: From God.
Question: Well, where does God come from?
Religious answer? ....(Absent)

Or:

Question: How comes I am self conscious if I am only atoms?
Religious answer: From God. He gave you a soul and feelings.
Question: Well, How does he do it?
Religious answer? ....(Absent)

etc. etc.

God isn't helping you answering REAL questions.
It isn't helping you gaining more understanding of the universe, life
and everything.
But science can (sometimes).
Post by Erwin Moller
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
The history says Ra was based on an actual character and not the sun.
The sun represented Ra in human terms. It was symbolic.
The Great Ra = Atum Ra = Prakash Brahma = Higher Aspect Of Yahveh =
Father Of The Gods or YHVH, ALLAH, An, Anu, Brahmn, Yahveh
I'll take your word for it. ;-)
Post by Erwin Moller
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
This is why Abraham left Sumeria. There was a huge fight between the
ruling classes about poly vs mono. Before there was poly in the sumer
area there was mono. The beliefs came full circle in part thanks to
Abraham's efforts. He is the originator of all three major mono
religions today
Well, I heard that before.
But I am not sure how easily such things can be checked these days.
Post by Erwin Moller
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
Did you watch the movie "Quest for Fire" by chance? It was almost
believable. Almost.
Yes. :-)
I liked it.
Post by Erwin Moller
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
An old saying goes, "the truth is stranger then fiction." It is my
understanding that most beliefs had an origin and therefore are based
in truth. Over time, that truth may have become distorted.
Nevertheless, the core of the stories are usually based on some type
of real observation or experience. With the exception of real fiction,
of course. IE. Mobi Dick, or something like that.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
What about Quantum Mechanics?
If some SF writer would think that up I would be inclined to think:
"Well, a bit far-fetched".
Given the fact that beliefs have an origin and that some things are
stranger then fiction, why would a reasonable thinking person believe
that a hairy ape-like girl stared at the sun one morning and called it
a god because it was warm? And then, because she did that, billions of
people would still believe there is a god today? Surely something
would have caused humanity to discover this was not true during all
that time. Unless..
Oh man, that was just a nonsense story by me.
Please don't take it seriously.

I was merely illustrating that neither you, nor I, have a clue who first
came up with the idea of God.

I won't deny that this 'God idea' (God-meme) has been highly successful
(In spreading that is).
The God-meme also had it uses, I think, for our species.
It is easy to be brave for your tribe, if you believe you will be
rewarded immediately.
Compare that to the truth: "Please Arguhuhu, attack that mammoth, you
will probably die trying, but we can eat the mammoth without you."
That is not a real motivator, is it?

Surely, religion has it uses, but that doesn't make it true somehow.
Unless there were on going experiences with this god that kept the
"story" alive within the population. And they wrote those experiences
down.
Nonono, God is kept alive by sheer indoctrination, starting at startling
young ages.
And by repression, treats.
It is awful.
Religion can barely be kept alive without such practices.
Not in an enlightened world where people receive education.
The only question that remains now is, why would any reasonable person
assume the people that wrote the stories down made them up?
Here a few wild ideas:
1) Personal gain. (I tell you how it is, and you follow me)
2) They were not written down at all, they were fancied up.
3) The writer was delusional.

Personally I would go mainly with option 1: personal gain.
Many people involved gained something by keeping the nonsense going.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 18:27:19 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 11:27 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 10:23 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
Post by Don Kresch
Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
Thank you.
I am only here to please you. :-)
My heart palpitates at the thought.
Which make me glow with a warm and fuzzy feeling in turn.
Are your cheeks and nice and Rosie? *pinch*
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
Good.
Is it just my hopeless optimism, or are you slowly (very very slowly)
changing into a rational being (=an atheist)?
Ah well, one can hope.
A rational person understands there is more going on regarding our
existence then what we can see and understand using our senses. A
creator.god is the best explaination for it.
Yes, no, depends.
First: We must use MORE than our senses: especially our brain.
Second: Postulating a God isn't explaining anything. I am trying to make
that point for years, but I am embarrassing unsuccessful in doing so.
God is simply (mis)used to fill up gaps in our knowledge.
If you try to push intellectual problems away by giving them to God, you
are simply avoiding the problems. Because now God has the problem.
Question: Where do we/the universe come from?
Religious answer: From God.
Question: Well, where does God come from?
Religious answer? ....(Absent)
Question: How comes I am self conscious if I am only atoms?
Religious answer: From God. He gave you a soul and feelings.
Question: Well, How does he do it?
Religious answer? ....(Absent)
etc. etc.
God isn't helping you answering REAL questions.
It isn't helping you gaining more understanding of the universe, life
and everything.
But science can (sometimes).
That is because science is trying to explain what God has done.
Mankind was told to subdue the earth. Using science is one way to do
that. However, it is mankind's judgment that is a question. How
mankind uses science is in error. Damage in the environment,
scientific testing on animals, is not exactly subduing but rather
destroying.

The Bible says that man will look and look but never find --or
understand. Therefore science is on a wild goose chase.

The truth is, everything that man needs to know to live a successful
and happy life is in the Bible. There is no need to venture any
further. The answers to these real questions you mentioned above are
not supposed to be answered right now. In due time God promised to dry
every eye and wipe every tear. He also promised we would come to a
full understanding about why things are the way they are and how they
happened.

How does it further man to believe he originated from an ape?.
Furthermore, the resources are better spent pursuing life as the Bible
explains. Taking care of each other and spending money and resources
on how to do that is far better than spending money and resources to
find out what is in our space. Mankind has had his priorities wrong
since the Garden of Eden.
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Tell me Moller. Who made up the first God. And how did the whole
concept begin?
Who made up the first God?
Good question, but I haven't got a clue to be honest.
My best guess would be a humanoid girl, named Argu'hu, long long ago,
was watching the sun rise on a particular cold morning, and was so very
very very happy with the warmth she felt, she came up with the idea this
sun-thing was actually a good, great, neat, etc.
She named it Raaaaaaah! (Later on it became Ra in more well-known cultures)
Voila! Your first God.
The history says Ra was based on an actual character and not the sun.
The sun represented Ra in human terms. It was symbolic.
The Great Ra = Atum Ra = Prakash Brahma = Higher Aspect Of Yahveh =
Father Of The Gods or YHVH, ALLAH, An, Anu, Brahmn, Yahveh
I'll take your word for it. ;-)
It's good. sometimes [s]
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Many followed. Polytheism was the way to go in ancient days.
This is why Abraham left Sumeria. There was a huge fight between the
ruling classes about poly vs mono. Before there was poly in the sumer
area there was mono. The beliefs came full circle in part thanks to
Abraham's efforts. He is the originator of all three major mono
religions today
Well, I heard that before.
But I am not sure how easily such things can be checked these days.
It is nearly impossible to verify. So it becomes a choice on what do
we want to believe. I for one, see no real reason to believe these
stories are wrong. They connect together on enough common points
across the cultures around the world to understand they had a valid
origin.
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
But that was pure speculation of course.
I mean her name: Argu'hu.
She might as well been called Ugnu'aha.
I wouldn't know.
Did you watch the movie "Quest for Fire" by chance? It was almost
believable. Almost.
Yes. :-)
I liked it.
I know. I loved it. It was one of the best movies I've seen on the
subject. Everything from the acting and directing to the special fx,
were perfect. I wish they would do a updated modern version.

However, in reality, how do we know and how can we verify that it
actually is what took place? There is no real evidence for it. Sure,
there are some old bones we can look at and make speculation's over.
But that is not real evidence, is it?
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
The rest of the story is pure truth.
(As can be found in the Bible, if you read it the right way)
An old saying goes, "the truth is stranger then fiction." It is my
understanding that most beliefs had an origin and therefore are based
in truth. Over time, that truth may have become distorted.
Nevertheless, the core of the stories are usually based on some type
of real observation or experience. With the exception of real fiction,
of course. IE. Mobi Dick, or something like that.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
What about Quantum Mechanics?
"Well, a bit far-fetched".
What was your point
Post by Erwin Moller
Given the fact that beliefs have an origin and that some things are
stranger then fiction, why would a reasonable thinking person believe
that a hairy ape-like girl stared at the sun one morning and called it
a god because it was warm? And then, because she did that, billions of
people would still believe there is a god today? Surely something
would have caused humanity to discover this was not true during all
that time. Unless..
Oh man, that was just a nonsense story by me.
Please don't take it seriously.
I realize that. I just rolled with it
Post by Erwin Moller
I was merely illustrating that neither you, nor I, have a clue who first
came up with the idea of God.
Sure we do. We have the history. There are stories in the art and
archaeology. The Sumerians left hundreds of thousands of tablets and
they are just now been translated. Every year we are discovering more
about the subject
Post by Erwin Moller
I won't deny that this 'God idea' (God-meme) has been highly successful
(In spreading that is).
The God-meme also had it uses, I think, for our species.
It is easy to be brave for your tribe, if you believe you will be
rewarded immediately.
Compare that to the truth: "Please Arguhuhu, attack that mammoth, you
will probably die trying, but we can eat the mammoth without you."
That is not a real motivator, is it?
Surely, religion has it uses, but that doesn't make it true somehow.
It doesn't make it false either. Point was the belief in God has an
origin. The origin stems from an experience that is ongoing in the
population. Otherwise the belief would have dissipated like any other
fad belief.
Post by Erwin Moller
Unless there were on going experiences with this god that kept the
"story" alive within the population. And they wrote those experiences
down.
Nonono, God is kept alive by sheer indoctrination, starting at startling
young ages.
And by repression, treats.
It is awful.
Religion can barely be kept alive without such practices.
Not in an enlightened world where people receive education.
This is the epitome of the atheist world view.

However, IMHO there are other forces keeping the belief in God
relevant. In addition, I assume you're basing your judgment on the
religions you have been exposed upon. What about the others? They do
not use the tactics you listed above yet their belief in God is just
the real. If what you say is true then it should be happening across
the board. But it's not.
Post by Erwin Moller
The only question that remains now is, why would any reasonable person
assume the people that wrote the stories down made them up?
1) Personal gain. (I tell you how it is, and you follow me)
2) They were not written down at all, they were fancied up.
3) The writer was delusional.
Personally I would go mainly with option 1: personal gain.
Many people involved gained something by keeping the nonsense going.
Not many people will argue against this. In my humble opinion religion
has been misused and abused for profit since its inception.
Nevertheless, there are those seeking real spirituality. They do not
rely on religion to find it.

Getting back to the original question. It is unlikely that the belief
in God began as a figment of someone's imagination and then continued
from there. It is more likely that God walked among the people at one
time just like the stories tell us.
Post by Erwin Moller
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
bpuharic
2011-02-16 22:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:27:19 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
That is because science is trying to explain what God has done.
but you say science is useless and wrong and nasty and leads to bad
breath.

you say we know god is true, but we dont have to know god is true
because we dont.

or some creationist nonsense like that
Post by AllSeeing-I
Mankind was told to subdue the earth. Using science is one way to do
that. However, it is mankind's judgment that is a question. How
mankind uses science is in error. Damage in the environment,
scientific testing on animals, is not exactly subduing but rather
destroying.
hey it's you religious folks who are wrecking the earth.
muslims...christians...hindus...all god believers
Post by AllSeeing-I
The Bible says that man will look and look but never find --or
understand. Therefore science is on a wild goose chase.
The truth is, everything that man needs to know to live a successful
and happy life is in the Bible.
uh huh. like slavery


There is no need to venture any
Post by AllSeeing-I
further. The answers to these real questions you mentioned above are
not supposed to be answered right now. In due time God promised to dry
every eye and wipe every tear. He also promised we would come to a
full understanding about why things are the way they are and how they
happened.
uh huh. some promise

WE had to go find the answers in science. god didnt help a bit. some
god you got. YOU seem to think he's the god of the stupid and the
ignorant
Post by AllSeeing-I
How does it further man to believe he originated from an ape?.
becaise ot futhers man to know the FACTS. what purpose does it serve
to be ignorant?
Post by AllSeeing-I
Furthermore, the resources are better spent pursuing life as the Bible
explains.
really? you guys had a 2000 year headstart when ONLY religion ruled
the western world

it led to death, ignorance, incessant war, genocide, slavery. there
has NEVER...repeat NEVER been a religious country that was free. not
one. the ONLY free states are

SECULAR states.


Taking care of each other and spending money and resources
Post by AllSeeing-I
on how to do that is far better than spending money and resources to
find out what is in our space. Mankind has had his priorities wrong
since the Garden of Eden.
hey creationist. you dont get to set the priorities. take the money we
give to churches and give it to the poor

just because YOU hate knowledge means one thing:

chrsitians like you will remain ignorant.

you do NOT get to tellthe REST of us we should be as stupid as you
are
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Erwin Moller
Well, I heard that before.
But I am not sure how easily such things can be checked these days.
It is nearly impossible to verify. So it becomes a choice on what do
we want to believe. I for one, see no real reason to believe these
stories are wrong. They connect together on enough common points
across the cultures around the world to understand they had a valid
origin.
wrong. this is selective blindness. you take gullibility as the first
commandment of your religion and ignorance as the second

yours is the religion of ignorance and stupidity. yours is the reason
why humanity had NO progress in the 1700 years that religion ruled the
western world.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Erwin Moller
I was merely illustrating that neither you, nor I, have a clue who first
came up with the idea of God.
Sure we do. We have the history. There are stories in the art and
archaeology. The Sumerians left hundreds of thousands of tablets and
they are just now been translated. Every year we are discovering more
about the subject
since graves from 30,000 years ago have been found with artifacts,
it's possible that, even then, someone had an idea of 'god'.

you simply dont know. and what's worse is that you simply want to
REMAIN ignorant. you GLORIFY ignorance as a key concept in your
religion.


and every single time a supernatural explanation of an event in nature
was proposed

it was WRONG. how do you explain that??

oh. you dont. you ignore it.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Erwin Moller
Surely, religion has it uses, but that doesn't make it true somehow.
It doesn't make it false either. Point was the belief in God has an
origin. The origin stems from an experience that is ongoing in the
population. Otherwise the belief would have dissipated like any other
fad belief.
and not all experiences are 'true'. for thousands of years we had the
'experience' that some people were to be slaves

today no one, except creationists, defend that idea
Post by AllSeeing-I
Getting back to the original question. It is unlikely that the belief
in God began as a figment of someone's imagination and then continued
from there. It is more likely that God walked among the people at one
time just like the stories tell us.
there are thousands of gods. mountains. trees. oceans. rivers

humans have made gods of almost every feature in the world including
cats and dogs

so tell me how you pull god out of that, especially when it explains
NOTHING

god is a useless idea
Richard Cornford
2011-02-16 17:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 5:02 pm, All Seeing I wrote:
<snip>
Post by All Seeing I
A rational person understands there is more going on regarding
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>

Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 18:33:54 UTC
Permalink
<snip>> A rational person understands there is more going on regarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.

The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.

As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.

Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.

Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.

War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
Ralph
2011-02-16 22:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands there is more going on regarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.
Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.
War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
Yes, god participated in the murder, death and destruction. Read the Old
Testament, Assman, and learn something!
bpuharic
2011-02-16 22:38:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:33:54 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands there is more going on regarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
and your religion requres we remain ignorant. it's an article of your
faith
Post by AllSeeing-I
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
you keep indicating the reason YOUR idea is losing is that logic and
reason are winning. your solution is to kill reason

you're the perfect creationist
JohnN
2011-02-16 23:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands there is more going on regarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.
Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.
War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
Someday you simply must provide us with tangible evidence for your
god. That would be so Christian of you to share the over three
thousand years of evidence you theists must have collected.

JohnN
Conan the bacterium
2011-02-17 01:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands thereis more going onregarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.
<>
Post by AllSeeing-I
Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.
War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
I've read the books of Moses.

To claim that the savage tribal god found
there is against war, murder, death,
and destruction is like trying to tell
us that Tiger Woods was against sex.


conan
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-17 02:42:36 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 7:11 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by Conan the bacterium
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands thereis more going onregarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.
<>
Post by AllSeeing-I
Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.
War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
I've read the books of Moses.
To claim that the savage tribal god found
there is against war, murder, death,
and destruction is like trying to tell
us that Tiger Woods was against sex.
conan
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.



- Hide quoted text -
Post by Conan the bacterium
- Show quoted text -
bpuharic
2011-02-17 02:45:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer

we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children

god slaughters 'em all
Dr. GW
2011-02-17 02:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
Your a prooven lier cause athiests like Hitler was the biggest killer
in history, unlike America witch was found on the Christain principals
of Christain men like Thomas Jefferson & Thomas Paine.


Dr. GW, DC, ND, MRT
Chiropractic Physician
Master of Reiki Therapy
Doctor of Homeopathy & Naturopathy

Sometimes believing is seeing. Think about it.

Somebody love's you:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0006/0006_01.asp
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-17 03:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
yep. Too bad he did not get the rest of them. That is why Jesus said
there are weeds and wheat on the earth.

However, he did get most of them.

The remainder of the weeds will be burnt on that last day.

I say, good riddens.
bpuharic
2011-02-17 03:02:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:00:56 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
yep. Too bad he did not get the rest of them. That is why Jesus said
there are weeds and wheat on the earth.
hey i got no problem with your religion having a god so bloodthirsty
he has an unlimited appetite for human veal. that's your god. he's a
killer
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-17 03:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:00:56 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
yep. Too bad he did not get the rest of them. That is why Jesus said
there are weeds and wheat on the earth.
hey i got no problem with your religion having a god so bloodthirsty
he has an unlimited appetite for human veal. that's your god. he's a
killer
He deals out punishment
Father Haskell
2011-02-17 03:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:00:56 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
yep. Too bad he did not get the rest of them. That is why Jesus said
there are weeds and wheat on the earth.
hey i got no problem with your religion having a god so bloodthirsty
he has an unlimited appetite for human veal. that's your god. he's a
killer
He deals out punishment- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So he's a bully.
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-17 05:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Father Haskell
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:00:56 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
yep. Too bad he did not get the rest of them. That is why Jesus said
there are weeds and wheat on the earth.
hey i got no problem with your religion having a god so bloodthirsty
he has an unlimited appetite for human veal. that's your god. he's a
killer
He deals out punishment- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So he's a bully.
He can be whatever he wants.

He owns everything, including you


- Hide quoted text -
Post by Father Haskell
- Show quoted text -
Caranx latus
2011-02-17 04:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
yeah. he's a MUCH more ruthless killer
we have mercy on the innocent, the weak, women and children
god slaughters 'em all
Except those who have iron chariots of course. God is powerless
against iron chariots, sometimes at least.
Dr. GW
2011-02-17 02:54:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:42:36 -0800 (PST), AllSeeing-I
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Feb 16, 7:11 pm, Conan the bacterium
Post by Conan the bacterium
Post by AllSeeing-I
<snip>> A rational person understands thereis more going onregarding
Post by All Seeing I
our existence then what we can see and understand using our
senses. A creator.god is the best explaination for it.
<snip>
Evolution would be a better explanation for the limitations on the
effectiveness of our senses (as then they only have to be good enough
for survival). Certainly those limitations testify against the result
being the outcome of intelligent design by an omnipotent being, as
even we can design sensors for, for example, infrared, ultraviolet,
etc. Such a designer could ensure that we could 'see' whatever we
needed to see.
He does not want us to "see" right now.
The bible says in the fullness of time we will understand.
As "beings" we have lost our brightness and ability to percieve beyond
the confinds of this reality.
Therefore mankind can develop a thousand more sensors. They will do
him no good. However, by doing so, mankind occupies his time until the
fullness of time is reached.
<>
Post by AllSeeing-I
Our time and resourses are better spent, however, focusing on how to
live by God's instructions and not our own. Look at what is the price
when we don't.
War
Guns
Murder
death
destruction
etc etc etc
I've read the books of Moses.
To claim that the savage tribal god found
there is against war, murder, death,
and destruction is like trying to tell
us that Tiger Woods was against sex.
conan
There is a difference in God's decision to make war and ours.
You are so right, Brother All-Seeng-I! God only makes war to kill
unbeleivers like Midianites including there kids except for the
virgins witch he let too live cause he's a kind & just God.

Dr. GW, DC, ND, MRT
Chiropractic Physician
Master of Reiki Therapy
Doctor of Homeopathy & Naturopathy

Sometimes believing is seeing. Think about it.

Somebody love's you:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0006/0006_01.asp
Jimbo
2011-02-17 05:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
         Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
None of their arguments hold water.
Of course, my dear Madman.
The wise simply postulate an unknown being, call it God, give it powers
unheard of, and to top it off they tell you that God existed always, or
is outside time, or whatever suits their fancy. No further proof needed.
That is what the wise do.
Very very wise.
And deep.
Very deep.
Pffft! WHohahaha!
Excuse me.
Ahum...
Of course I have the most deep respect for you and your religious
beliefs, but it would be nice if you guy came up with something more
concrete than some old books.
I mean, you had time enough, didn't you?
Why is it you 'proof' your deity by *trying* to bash science?
Why not proof this deity with, erm... proof?
Just a thought.
Erwin Moller
Your sarcasm is unprecedented this morning.
OK. I can see why a reasonable person would wonder about God's
existence.
So why don't you present the science based evidence for his existence
instead of futilly flapping your fingers?
Davej
2011-02-16 16:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loirbaj
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question? I thought not.
God is dead. Jesus is dead. Time to grow up.
Christopher A. Lee
2011-02-16 17:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Piggybacking...
Post by Davej
Post by Loirbaj
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
Get a layman's introduction to Quantum Mechanics and you'll learn
about causeless events.
Post by Davej
Post by Loirbaj
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Demonstrate this alleged God AND that it has no beginning .
Post by Davej
Post by Loirbaj
Next question? I thought not.
What's that?

You can't?

THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Post by Davej
God is dead. Jesus is dead. Time to grow up.
Can fictional characters be dead outside their fiction?
duke
2011-02-16 22:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by Loirbaj
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question? I thought not.
God is dead. Jesus is dead. Time to grow up.
Satan sees fresh meat coming his way in you.

The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
MarkA
2011-02-16 18:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Next question? I thought not.
To return to OMJoe statement. He is correct.
Without Spontaneous Generation of Life from
the non-living, there IS no evolutionism. And
Dr.Pasteur SHATTERED all pretenses of
Abiogenesis over 100 years ago.
Pasteur disproved abiogenesis??? Seriously??? That is just plain lazy!
--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
chibiabos
2011-02-17 01:34:18 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning and therefore NO First Cause.
Special pleading.

You lose.

And you are definitely "special."

-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Jimbo
2011-02-17 04:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loirbaj
Don tries a 1st grader evasion
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god?
Everything that has a beginning has a First Cause.
God has no beginning \
Handwaving, unsubtantiated assertion with no basis in fact or logic.
Mark Evans
2011-02-16 15:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing
        No, it doesn't.
Post by old man joe
... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
        Ok...so if god is alive, what created god? Recall: your claim
is that life cannot come from non-life. Ergo, god must be created. If
you say that god was not created, then you're a hypocrite.
        IOW: you're fucked.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Unless his diety is not alive, which brings him back to the problem of
life from non-life.

Mark Evans
tirebiter
2011-02-16 15:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Not even in the same branch of science.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
Strawman.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
You're mixing different areas of science. Evolution isn't concerned
with how life originally began.
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
Very wrong. I know many people who fully accept evolution who are
devout theists. The acceptance of the theory of evolution doesn't
make anyone an atheist.
Post by old man joe
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
The word "evolutionist" is a pejorative. It is not a religious belief
system.
Post by old man joe
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
Again, I know many very educated people who will criticize you for
dismissing the overwhelming evidence that supports the ToE, while
still remaining true to their religious beliefs.
Post by old man joe
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
Now, you're getting into the discussion of theism vs. atheism. This
has no bearing at all on the science behind the ToE.

----
a.a. #2273
AllSeeing-I
2011-02-16 15:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
hell man. That think everything is an example of evolution!

That means if the sun is shinning we have evolution to thank for it.
Virgil
2011-02-17 06:33:14 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
That means if the sun is shinning we have evolution to thank for it.
"Shinning"? Do you mean "shining" or "sinning"?

If anyone is here to see that the sun is shining, rather than either
shinning or sinning, it is definitely because of Evolution.
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
Davej
2011-02-16 15:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
of the earth which are not alive. [...] the Periodic Table lists all
of the elements naturally occurring in our world [...]
Religion allows idiots like you to pretend that they understand the
universe.

Go ahead and grind up a living organism and see if you can find an
unknown element.

Silicon is just an element, but you can make computers out of it that
can win chess tournaments or compete on Jeopardy.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/219673/ibms_watson_ties_for_jeopardy_lead_victory_not_certain.html
MarkA
2011-02-16 18:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Amazing! Wrong on the very first sentence! And, not for lack of anyone
pointing out the error.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our
world and none of them by any combination brings them to life. call
names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they want... they simply
will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements
that are not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is
easily found on the Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically
need to prove where the monkey came from. and what made itself into a
monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way back to the
first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not
alive.
How quaint. You subscribe to the theory that living things are alive
because they are infused with a "living essence" that inanimate things
don't have. As soon as you can demonstrate the existence of this
"essence", the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, AND Medicine
are waiting for you.
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
No, I reserve "stupid" for people who have their errors pointed out, but
continue to make them. Like you.
--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
bpuharic
2011-02-16 22:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
who says evolutionsits curse god? many evolutionists believe in god.
you're paranoid.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.
well no. no one says humans came 'from monkeys'

your comic book view of science is funny...ignorant...but funny

and we have fossil evidence that humans DID come from an ape like
ancestor.

creatoinism cant explain this.
Post by old man joe
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
fine. tell us HOW he did it.

if you CANT then go away. for 2000 years you guys bleated this message
and it explained NOTHING.

science explained more in 20 years than creationism did in 2000


you're welcome to believe anything you want to read in comic books.

it has nothing to do wiht science
u***@att.net
2011-02-16 23:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.

US4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-16 23:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
sure it has. i have tourette's syndrome. none of my other relatives
do. i'm different than the previous generation

evolution explains this. creationism does not
Post by u***@att.net
US4Zion
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 01:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
sure it has. i have tourette's syndrome. none of my other relatives
do. i'm different than the previous generation
evolution explains this. creationism does not
Think about Judaism and Christianity and western civilization. Study that.

You're obsession with creationism and slavery only shows your myopic and
demonic tendencies.

Men were created with certain rights, as the D.O.I. explains.

UJS4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-17 01:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
sure it has. i have tourette's syndrome. none of my other relatives
do. i'm different than the previous generation
evolution explains this. creationism does not
Think about Judaism and Christianity and western civilization. Study that.
they were the religions under which science...including
evolution...developed
Post by u***@att.net
You're obsession with creationism and slavery only shows your myopic and
demonic tendencies.
gee. imagine being obsessed with slavery. you're obsessed with where
men put their penises

and i'm obsessed with human slavery

and you call yourself moral....
Post by u***@att.net
Men were created with certain rights, as the D.O.I. explains.
the DOI is not law. it has no effect whatsoever on US law

and jefferson changed his mind between 1776 and 1787. that's why god
isnt in the text of the constitution
Post by u***@att.net
UJS4Zion
Virgil
2011-02-17 05:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
You're obsession with creationism and slavery only shows your myopic and
demonic tendencies.
It is your obsession with supporting that Cretinist IDiocy, despite the
weight of evidence against it, that is myopic and demonic

Demonic in the metaphorical sense only, as there is no objective
physical evidence of any actual demons exist, and more that any gods do.
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
Jeanne Douglas
2011-02-16 23:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
Of course it has. You can whine about it all you want, but all that
will do is confirm that you're a willfully ignorant fool.

JD
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 01:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
Of course it has. You can whine about it all you want, but all that
will do is confirm that you're a willfully ignorant fool.
JD
No, humans were created by God. Only a fool believes that there is no God.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 53:1)

Seriously, I do not believe that you were born a fool. I want to know what it was
that happened to you that made you scurry into the shadows of "atheism".

True blooded atheist do not spend their time arguing with Christians and Jews
about the God of Israel.

US4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-17 01:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
Of course it has. You can whine about it all you want, but all that
will do is confirm that you're a willfully ignorant fool.
JD
No, humans were created by God. Only a fool believes that there is no God.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 53:1)
Seriously, I do not believe that you were born a fool. I want to know what it was
that happened to you that made you scurry into the shadows of "atheism".
True blooded atheist do not spend their time arguing with Christians and Jews
about the God of Israel.
au contraire. it is you who is afraid that atheism is winning. that's
why you want to kill us like you do the arabs and blacks

you are in favor of slavery

you call arabs 'camel jockeys'

you're a creaetionist
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 03:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
Of course it has. You can whine about it all you want, but all that
will do is confirm that you're a willfully ignorant fool.
JD
No, humans were created by God. Only a fool believes that there is no God.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 53:1)
Seriously, I do not believe that you were born a fool. I want to know what it was
that happened to you that made you scurry into the shadows of "atheism".
True blooded atheist do not spend their time arguing with Christians and Jews
about the God of Israel.
au contraire. it is you who is afraid that atheism is winning. that's
why you want to kill us like you do the arabs and blacks
Us? No. You are no true blooded atheist.

You have the spirit if not the very genes of dune coons and camel jockeys.

You fear "slavery" since your ancestors enslaved the Jews, and you must pay.
Post by bpuharic
you are in favor of slavery
you call arabs 'camel jockeys'
you're a creaetionist
And you fear me. I tell the truth.

US4Zion
Free Lunch
2011-02-17 01:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
well, no it doesnt. evolution depends on reproductoin.
Nope. Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
Of course it has. You can whine about it all you want, but all that
will do is confirm that you're a willfully ignorant fool.
JD
No, humans were created by God. Only a fool believes that there is no God.
No humans were created by God. Only a fool believes that there is a God.
Post by u***@att.net
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 53:1)
Seriously, I do not believe that you were born a fool. I want to know what it was
that happened to you that made you scurry into the shadows of "atheism".
True blooded atheist do not spend their time arguing with Christians and Jews
about the God of Israel.
US4Zion
Virgil
2011-02-17 05:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Only a fool believes that there is no God.
Only a fool believe there is one, so we non-fools do not believe either
way.
Post by u***@att.net
Seriously, I do not believe that you were born a fool. I want to know what it was
that happened to you that made you scurry into the shadows of "atheism".
When I realized that there was absolutely no objective physical evidence
supporting the existence of any gods, I stopped believing that there are
any.
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
Virgil
2011-02-17 06:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Human evolution has never been proven as fact.
The existence of a god (any god) has never been proven as a fact.

But there is a humongously greater amount of objective physical evidence
for the truth of Evolution than there is for the existence of any god.
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
JohnN
2011-02-16 23:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.

JohnN
u***@att.net
2011-02-16 23:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.

US4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-16 23:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible

it's why we're atheists
Ralph
2011-02-17 00:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
:-))))))))).
Apostate
2011-02-17 00:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
:-))))))))).
I'd have that mole looked at.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 01:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
Irrelevant. I am a biologist and have read Origin of the Species yet I'm not an evolutionist.

Why you keep putting up stupid arguments is beyond me.

You insult the intelligence of all humans everywhere. Not only that, but everyone should call 911
and report you to BigSis whenever they see you in public.

You are no better than the dune coons from Egypt which once became free, immediately proceeded
to repeatedly rape Lara Logan, simply because she was not dressed in a burka.

You are not an original atheist. You are hiding behind atheism because you hate God and are
only concerned with matters of the flesh.

US4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-17 01:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
Irrelevant. I am a biologist and have read Origin of the Species yet I'm not an evolutionist.
if you're not an evolutionist, you're not a biologist. it's like
saying you have a degree in astronomy and are an astrologer.
creationism is magic and random chance.

and the bible is supposed to be 'truth'. if you can read it and not
laugh, you have no sense of humor
Post by u***@att.net
You insult the intelligence of all humans everywhere. Not only that, but everyone should call 911
and report you to BigSis whenever they see you in public.
this isnt saudi arabia. you religiuos fanatics dont run the country
Post by u***@att.net
You are no better than the dune coons from Egypt which once became free, immediately proceeded
to repeatedly rape Lara Logan, simply because she was not dressed in a burka.
gee. they were religious. just like you. they attacked women because
they weren't religious.
Post by u***@att.net
You are not an original atheist. You are hiding behind atheism because you hate God and are
only concerned with matters of the flesh.
you got me. how could i have been so foolish

HAHAHAHAH
Post by u***@att.net
US4Zion
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 03:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
Irrelevant. I am a biologist and have read Origin of the Species yet I'm not an evolutionist.
if you're not an evolutionist, you're not a biologist. it's like
saying you have a degree in astronomy and are an astrologer.
creationism is magic and random chance.
You are the son of a camel jockey.

US4Zion
Free Lunch
2011-02-17 01:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
Irrelevant. I am a biologist and have read Origin of the Species yet I'm not an evolutionist.
I don't believe you.
Post by u***@att.net
Why you keep putting up stupid arguments is beyond me.
You insult the intelligence of all humans everywhere. Not only that, but everyone should call 911
and report you to BigSis whenever they see you in public.
You are no better than the dune coons from Egypt which once became free, immediately proceeded
to repeatedly rape Lara Logan, simply because she was not dressed in a burka.
You are not an original atheist. You are hiding behind atheism because you hate God and are
only concerned with matters of the flesh.
US4Zion
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 03:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
US4Zion
uh we atheists have read the bible
it's why we're atheists
Irrelevant. I am a biologist and have read Origin of the Species yet I'm not an evolutionist.
I don't believe you.
Dear LunchLady,

I hope that indeed you do not believe me. I repeat.... I HOPE THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME.

It makes perfect sense. You do not believe God and you do not believe me.

thanks,

US4Zion
Jeanne Douglas
2011-02-16 23:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
And what evidence would that be?

JD
Free Lunch
2011-02-17 00:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 01:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
I know something that you do not know. However, I do not hold it against you. To the contrary.
I enjoy this.

US4Zion
Free Lunch
2011-02-17 01:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
I know something that you do not know. However, I do not hold it against you. To the contrary.
I enjoy this.
Your answer did not address my point.

You do not have evidence.

None.

Anywhere.
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 05:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
I know something that you do not know. However, I do not hold it against you. To the contrary.
I enjoy this.
Your answer did not address my point.
Dear LunchLady,

I have been very busy. What was your point?

US4Zion
bpuharic
2011-02-17 02:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
I know something that you do not know. However, I do not hold it against you. To the contrary.
I enjoy this.
yeah. he knows blacks deserve to be enslaved and arabs are 'camel
jockeys'

his words. he's a creationist
u***@att.net
2011-02-17 05:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by bpuharic
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Free Lunch
Post by u***@att.net
Post by JohnN
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Creationism depends on one thing...life being created by a deity that
has never displayed any tangible evidence for its own existence.
JohnN
Wrong. Read the Bible. You will see that Jews and Christians have plenty of evidence.
You must know that the Bible is not evidence.
I know something that you do not know. However, I do not hold it against you. To the contrary.
I enjoy this.
yeah. he knows blacks deserve to be enslaved and arabs are 'camel
jockeys'
his words. he's a creationist
You greatly understate my position. I say "nuke the camel jockeys".

Targets: Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Tehran and all of eastern Pakistan to begin with.

booPrick - you are a pussy.

US4Zion
Father Haskell
2011-02-16 23:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Thank plants, not gods, for that.
Richo
2011-02-17 05:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, evolution depends upon at least 3 things:
(1) Inheretence - traits passed from parent to offspring.
(2) Variation - offspring are not *perfect* copies of their parents.
(3) Competition and variable survival- some variations do better than
other in various environments.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.
Well some combinations are obviously alive.
I am made only of the elements found in the periodic table and I am
alive.

 call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
Post by old man joe
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
I dont mind admitting to it one bit!
I am composeed of elements that are not alive - so what?
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
True.
You are making the "fallacy of composition"

None of the elements that make up an aeroplane (sheets of aluminium,
rivets, screws, wire) can fly - and yet an aeroplane flies.
The individual components (resistors, capacitors, quartz crystals,
wire, solder ) of your TV set cannot recieve and display a TV program
- and yet the TV can.

"The whole is more than the some of its part."
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
Done that - now what?
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
Well they often are!
It's good to tell the truth.

Mark.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...