# The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific



## Weatherman2020

This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.





Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.




No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated. 





Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care. 

How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.



Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?


----------



## Votto

*You didn't build that.......




*


----------



## Votto

Darwin done it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
Click to expand...

You think atoms are sentient?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> You think atoms are sentient?



I know sentient beings are made of atoms.


----------



## BlindBoo

Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?


----------



## fncceo




----------



## G.T.

it musta been a sky daddy


----------



## Votto




----------



## Weatherman2020

BlindBoo said:


> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?


Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.


----------



## Votto

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
Click to expand...


What does religion have to do with this?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
Click to expand...

no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.

which they can


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> it musta been a sky daddy



Apparently men who say that the sky daddy did not do it also say that it happened by accident....only.....they never observe it happening nor can they replicate it.

That's not science


----------



## K9Buck

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
Click to expand...


Is that what he said?


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
Click to expand...

We know what ratio of elements we are.
Mix away and make yourself a new friend.


----------



## K9Buck

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
Click to expand...


Did he say otherwise?


----------



## G.T.

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> it musta been a sky daddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently men who say that the sky daddy did not do it also say that it happened by accident....only.....they never observe it happening nor can they replicate it.
> 
> That's not science
Click to expand...

actually, honest people say "i dont know"

they dont say "therefore god"


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> it musta been a sky daddy



Yea, we all know life created itself.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
Click to expand...

No, genetic cloning is already being done I dont think ill need to pick up the slack.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
Click to expand...


I'd have to mix for a few billion years.


----------



## Votto

So there was this group of scientists that finally created the first man made human cell and then later created human life.

Proud of themselves, they challenged God to a duel to see who could make the first human being.

They gathered all of their equipment, their amino acids, their beakers etc.  However, they forgot one basic ingredient, dirt.  The scientist turned beat red after forgetting to bring any and asked God for some.  God responded, "No.  Make your own dirt".


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
Click to expand...

Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
Click to expand...


You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, genetic cloning is already being done I dont think ill need to pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

No, don't start with life and say you created it.  Get a bag of those elements and mix them together.


----------



## Votto

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
Click to expand...


Beginning of time?  That's just crazy talk.  Who created time, the time daddy?

I answered the question, long ago, Darwin done it.


----------



## G.T.

Votto said:


> So there was this group of scientists that finally created the first man made human cell and then later created human life.
> 
> Proud of themselves, they challenged God to a duel to see who could make the first human being.
> 
> They gathered all of their equipment, their amino acids, their beakers etc.  However, they forgot one basic ingredient, dirt.  The scientist turned beat red after forgetting to bring any and asked God for some.  God responded, "No.  Make your own dirt".


That scientist sounds delusional. Imaginary friends and all....kooky


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, genetic cloning is already being done I dont think ill need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, don't start with life and say you created it.  Get a bag of those elements and mix them together.
Click to expand...

a bag?

i dont think you understand


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there was this group of scientists that finally created the first man made human cell and then later created human life.
> 
> Proud of themselves, they challenged God to a duel to see who could make the first human being.
> 
> They gathered all of their equipment, their amino acids, their beakers etc.  However, they forgot one basic ingredient, dirt.  The scientist turned beat red after forgetting to bring any and asked God for some.  God responded, "No.  Make your own dirt".
> 
> 
> 
> That scientist sounds delusional. Imaginary friends and all....kooky
Click to expand...


Um.........er................yea.

(Note to self:   Think concrete....think third grade level....think Trump)


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
Click to expand...

And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me?? 
And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, genetic cloning is already being done I dont think ill need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, don't start with life and say you created it.  Get a bag of those elements and mix them together.
Click to expand...


That wouldn't be from scratch.   I'd have to create the atoms first.


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"



Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, genetic cloning is already being done I dont think ill need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, don't start with life and say you created it.  Get a bag of those elements and mix them together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a bag?
> 
> i dont think you understand
Click to expand...

OK, plastic bag.
You need to hold the water.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
Click to expand...


That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
Click to expand...

believers are dishonest.


nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.


----------



## K9Buck

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
Click to expand...


You could mix for eternity and you still wouldn't be able to create life, intentionally or accidentally.


----------



## Votto

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
Click to expand...


The spaghetti loving Darwin done it I tell ya!


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
Click to expand...

Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> believers are dishonest. nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.



And you BELIEVE that there is no creator.  Does that make you dishonest too, k*nt?


----------



## K9Buck

Weatherman2020 said:


> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?



Atheists don't answer questions.


----------



## Votto

K9Buck said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could mix for eternity and you still wouldn't be able to create life, intentionally or accidentally.
Click to expand...


We always hear how you need so many billion years to create life so we will never be able to replicate it.

The problem is, life appeared almost at the same time the planet came to be.


----------



## Votto

K9Buck said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't answer questions.
Click to expand...


What do you expect since they are nothing but a problem?


----------



## Weatherman2020

K9Buck said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't answer questions.
Click to expand...

The anti-God folks hate science, it always proves them wrong.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
Click to expand...


The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.  

A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> believers are dishonest. nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you BELIEVE that there is no creator.  Does that make you dishonest too, k*nt?
Click to expand...

dont tell me what i believe, kay kay

or tell me

whatever gets your rocks off


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...


Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?

Put up or shut up.

I'm guessing you can do neither.


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> believers are dishonest. nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you BELIEVE that there is no creator.  Does that make you dishonest too, k*nt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont tell me what i believe, kay kay
> 
> or tell me
> 
> whatever gets your rocks off
Click to expand...


Typical atheist k*nt act.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.
> 
> A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Tell us how these atoms have combined. 

You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?


----------



## K9Buck

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


Careful, you'll hurt his vagina.


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> believers are dishonest. nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you BELIEVE that there is no creator.  Does that make you dishonest too, k*nt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont tell me what i believe, kay kay
> 
> or tell me
> 
> whatever gets your rocks off
Click to expand...


Well I prefer blonds.  Petite would also be nice, but I digress.

Could you make one for me?


----------



## fncceo

I'm not an atheist.  I believe very much in an infinite G-d.  However, my version of G-d is fully capable of letting molecular biology do most of his heavy lifting.


----------



## G.T.

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

put up what?

science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity

religion makes something up

which ones honest?

yeeerp


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those elements have been around since the beginning of time.  How many people popping up out of thin air?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.
> 
> A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Why would a carbon atoms bother itself and become sentient? 
It gains nothing, it loses nothing.  It will be the same carbon atom a thousand years from now.


----------



## BlindBoo

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
Click to expand...


How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?  Aren't they products of long dead stars that exploded?  Or do you not believe any of that scientific stuff?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realise you're skipping a few trillion steps, right?
> 
> 
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.
> 
> A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
Click to expand...


You understand there is no periodic table of molecules, right ?

If you tried to create one, it wouldn't fit on Earth.


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put up what?
> 
> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity
> 
> religion makes something up
> 
> which ones honest?
> 
> yeeerp
Click to expand...


Create life if you claim to know the origin was random

Otherwise, stick to your own belief and shove it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BlindBoo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?  Aren't they products of long dead stars that exploded?  Or do you not believe any of that scientific stuff?
Click to expand...

OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what steps did I skip that makes a carbon atom different in me than a carbon atom sitting on the desk in front of me??
> And how exactly are those carbon atoms different????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.
> 
> A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand there is no periodic table of molecules, right ?
> 
> If you tried to create one, it wouldn't fit on Earth.
Click to expand...

Bonding is what you are talking about.

Tell us what atoms have bonded that are sentient.


----------



## K9Buck

BlindBoo said:


> How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?



The reader should not that atheists love posing questions, but never actually answer them.


----------



## Votto

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That with which they've combined and recombined ... rinse repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  How is a carbon atom in me different than a carbon atom on my desk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atom itself is identical... the way they have combined with other elements in a billion different combinations is very different.
> 
> A brick is a brick ... but the Taj Mahal and a fireplace are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand there is no periodic table of molecules, right ?
> 
> If you tried to create one, it wouldn't fit on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> 
> Tell us what atoms have bonded that are sentient.
Click to expand...


Atheists are not sentient so how could their atoms be?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?  Aren't they products of long dead stars that exploded?  Or do you not believe any of that scientific stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
Click to expand...


But, from where did those elements come?


----------



## G.T.

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, honest people say "i dont know"
> they dont say "therefore god"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put up what?
> 
> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity
> 
> religion makes something up
> 
> which ones honest?
> 
> yeeerp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Create life if you claim to know the origin was random
> 
> Otherwise, stick to your own belief and shove it.
Click to expand...

you dont get to invent what i claim and go "aha," votto.

besides, ive already proven you were a dumbdumb like 10 times, wtf would be the use of a discussion with you? youre not honest, you just do the axe to grind crap.


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity



Finally, an honest statement from an atheist.  It's a fucking miracle!


----------



## K9Buck

fncceo said:


> But, from where did those elements come?



I believe, a creator.  How about you?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?  Aren't they products of long dead stars that exploded?  Or do you not believe any of that scientific stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
Click to expand...

Good question.  Start a thread and everyone can offer theories.

Now back to the OP.  What elements are sentient?


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, an honest statement from an atheist.  It's a fucking miracle!
Click to expand...

im not an atheist

so.... you posting without lying, and strawmanning - didnt happen yet...

are miracles even real, then?


----------



## Votto

G.T. said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you make mocking statements about a "sky God" and then, when presented with science, you pull the k*nt act by claiming you don't know and accusing believers of being dishonest.  Typical k*nt.
> 
> 
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put up what?
> 
> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity
> 
> religion makes something up
> 
> which ones honest?
> 
> yeeerp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Create life if you claim to know the origin was random
> 
> Otherwise, stick to your own belief and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont get to invent what i claim and go "aha" votto.
> 
> besides, ive already proven you were a dumbdumb like 10 times, wtf would be the use of a discussion with you? youre not honest, you just do the axe to grind crap.
Click to expand...


"besides, ive already proven you were a dumbdumb like 10 times"

Impossible.  You can't even count that high.

On the brighter side, that is perhaps the best retort I've heard from you yet.  It beates, "You and Trump suck!!"


----------



## fncceo

K9Buck said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe, a creator.  How about you?
Click to expand...


Absolutely... we only differ in what tools we believe that creator used to make us.


----------



## Weatherman2020

It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.


----------



## G.T.

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> believers are dishonest.
> 
> 
> nobody knows, thats just the reality of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest?  What does science have to do with honesty?
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put up what?
> 
> science doesnt claim to know the origin of the singularity
> 
> religion makes something up
> 
> which ones honest?
> 
> yeeerp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Create life if you claim to know the origin was random
> 
> Otherwise, stick to your own belief and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont get to invent what i claim and go "aha" votto.
> 
> besides, ive already proven you were a dumbdumb like 10 times, wtf would be the use of a discussion with you? youre not honest, you just do the axe to grind crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "besides, ive already proven you were a dumbdumb like 10 times"
> 
> Impossible.  You can't even count that high.
> 
> On the brighter side, that is perhaps the best retort I've heard from you yet.  It beates, "You and Trump suck!!"
Click to expand...

"beates?"

youre a weirdo, votto


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.


Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


>


sounds like he's L-ION.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> it musta been a sky daddy


No one is talking about 'sky daddy' except you, moron


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like he's L-ION.
Click to expand...


For that you must die.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
Click to expand...

See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> *The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*



Yes, it is unscientific to think that life is the result of an accident, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking it is.

Science only looks at the repeatable material events and cannot address the questions of who or why the events happen.

Science cannot say if an event is entirely random or guided by a Creator.

That is a question for theologians not scientists.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
Click to expand...

right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?

odd.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
Click to expand...


an egg


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an egg
Click to expand...


Precisely


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
Click to expand...

For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> im not an atheist



If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an egg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely
Click to expand...

An egg that came from existing life.......


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?
> View attachment 152355
Click to expand...


For the hundredth time, atoms are not sentient.  However sentient beings are made up of combinations of atoms arranged in such a way to become self aware.


----------



## Weatherman2020

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not an atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?
Click to expand...

They hide from who they are.
Same for leftists. 90% of leftists will deny they are on the left.


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not an atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?
Click to expand...

i mock manmade religion

also mock folks who pretend to know.

im agnostic in terms of origins
im anti man made religion
im anti atheist, unless theyre one of the onces that defines themselves fancily as an agnostic

and as far as anyone has been able to show or reproduce to date, "we dont know" is the answer. anything else is dishonesty or hope/faith


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?
> View attachment 152355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the hundredth time, atoms are not sentient.  However sentient beings are made up of combinations of atoms arranged in such a way to become self aware.
Click to expand...

OK, name them.  Short list of elements in our bodies.  List out which of these are sentient.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?
> View attachment 152355
Click to expand...

g.t.s lack.of.an explanation to your (odd) questiin = evolution is bullshit!!!


??


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess youre not made of them? the fakk do you think youre proving
> 
> 
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?
> View attachment 152355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the hundredth time, atoms are not sentient.  However sentient beings are made up of combinations of atoms arranged in such a way to become self aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, name them.  Short list of elements in our bodies.  List out which of these are sentient.
> View attachment 152356
Click to expand...


Step back, take a deep breath and reread the thread and rephrase the question.


----------



## BlindBoo

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the atoms in the Periodic table come to exist?  Aren't they products of long dead stars that exploded?  Or do you not believe any of that scientific stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
Click to expand...


I believe it was a big explosion that create the elements.  But I don't believe those element have life.  What kind of dumb theory you pushing?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you need to create stupid strawmen arguments because you know I'm right.
> 
> 
> 
> right about what? you think you just disproved evolution on a messageboard cuz a few guys arent explaining to you adequately how to combine atoms and create life?
> 
> odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the fifth time, which of these elements are sentient?
> View attachment 152355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the hundredth time, atoms are not sentient.  However sentient beings are made up of combinations of atoms arranged in such a way to become self aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, name them.  Short list of elements in our bodies.  List out which of these are sentient.
> View attachment 152356
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Step back, take a deep breath and reread the thread and rephrase the question.
Click to expand...

Of course you refuse to answer.  That list of elements is all who we are.  There is no magical bonding of super elements you claim.

Atoms do not bond with other atoms because they want to create you.  Nor did they accidently bond together to create you.  It does nothing for them.  That same Oxygen will be the same a thousand years from now.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Of course you refuse to answer. That list of elements is all who we are. There is no magical bonding of super elements you claim.
> 
> Atoms do not bond with other atoms because they want to create you. Nor did they accidently bond together to create you. It does nothing for them. That same Oxygen will be the same a thousand years from now.



Look, I understand completely what you're trying to say.  You want to prove the existence of G-d by attempting to disprove molecular biology.  But, you're on the wrong track.  There are many arguments that could be made to prove the existence of G-d or at least confirm that our current understanding of the universe does not fully explain the infinity of the Cosmos and suggest an infinite G-d is the only explanation.

But, your argument against the existence of molecular biology only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of why atoms behave they way they do to create molecules.  And why those combinations are prompted by physics and not sentience to create more complex molecules.  Atoms bond not because they want to but because of their physical properties.  Carbon is the best atom for combination because it is missing four electrons in its valence layer ... making it very attractive to other molecules such as oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen.  It doesn't WANT to bond with those other elements ... it must because of its physical properties.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP is about the Periodic table becoming sentient, stay focused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, from where did those elements come?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an egg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An egg that came from existing life.......
Click to expand...

I was referring to the 'Cosmic Egg'


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> i mock manmade religion
> 
> also mock folks who pretend to know.
> 
> im agnostic in terms of origins
> im anti man made religion
> im anti atheist, unless theyre one of the onces that defines themselves fancily as an agnostic
> 
> and as far as anyone has been able to show or reproduce to date, "we dont know" is the answer. anything else is dishonesty or hope/faith


You are a fool, full of hubris, who mocks the accumulated generations of experience and wisdom because you have no more sense than to sit where you shit.


----------



## G.T.

cool opinion jimmy


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not an atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i mock manmade religion
> 
> also mock folks who pretend to know.
> 
> im agnostic in terms of origins
> im anti man made religion
> im anti atheist, unless theyre one of the onces that defines themselves fancily as an agnostic
> 
> and as far as anyone has been able to show or reproduce to date, "we dont know" is the answer. anything else is dishonesty or hope/faith
Click to expand...


When you mock those who believe in a creator, you are acting as if you know.  In my view and in the views of others, there is significant evidence, scientific and otherwise, to suggest that there is a creator and that life exists after death.  If you've got something to counter such a belief, by all means, share it, but stop with the k*nt act.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> cool opinion jimmy


You are an idiot, what can I say?

Ever hear of Boskop Man?  He was a human ancestor for a while then it was decided that he was just a modern human after all.






What you dont grasp is that all scientific theories change from generation to generation.

Science is not the Holy Grail of Truth and someone who understands science in concept knows it is only an approximation at best of what Reality actually is around us.

The framework of Reality itself, to include the foundations of science and mathematics is found in theology.


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not an atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i mock manmade religion
> 
> also mock folks who pretend to know.
> 
> im agnostic in terms of origins
> im anti man made religion
> im anti atheist, unless theyre one of the onces that defines themselves fancily as an agnostic
> 
> and as far as anyone has been able to show or reproduce to date, "we dont know" is the answer. anything else is dishonesty or hope/faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you mock those who believe in a creator, you are acting as if you know.  In my view and in the views of others, there is significant evidence, scientific and otherwise, to suggest that there is a creator and that life exists after death.  If you've got something to counter such a belief, by all means, share it, but stop with the k*nt act.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion



The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
Click to expand...

The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
Click to expand...

The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.

And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
Click to expand...

The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently



This dishonest twat is in full k*nt mode now.


----------



## G.T.

Among other things, there's other things wrong with the infinite regression fallacy


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dishonest twat is in full k*nt mode now.
Click to expand...

thats not a point

you obviously get your rocks off by hooting and hollaring

kook


----------



## K9Buck

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
Click to expand...


That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory.  He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself
Click to expand...

roflmao, no, the Creator exists outside the flow of time since the Creator created time itself.

So there is no 'before' the Creator, doofus.


But thank you for demonstrating that you do not grasp the Infinite regression fallacy.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> roflmao, no, the Creator exists outside the flow of time since the Creator created time itself.
> 
> So there is no 'before' the Creator, doofus.
> 
> 
> But thank you for demonstrating that you do not grasp the Infinite regression fallacy.
Click to expand...

thats an assertion ^

Thats not a proof of anything.

you can make "special exceptions" without proof of them all youd like...but so can anyone. its meaningless


----------



## BlindBoo

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't prove anything.  It's a punt.

God and the Infinite Regress | Answers In Reason


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory.  He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.
Click to expand...

ypu can call me whatever you want as long as youre happy being wrong about it

and still unable to prove god exists.


----------



## JimBowie1958

K9Buck said:


> That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory.  He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.


What amazes me is how most atheists today, who claim that they have investigated the idea of God and found it wanting, continuously demonstrate that they have not the slightest inclination of what God is or why anyone believes in God.

They reject a concept that they do not understand and think that they are displaying critical thinking skills.

lololol


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory.  He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.
> 
> 
> 
> What amazes me is how most atheists today, who claim that they have investigated the idea of God and found it wanting, continuously demonstrate that they have not the slightest inclination of what God is or why anyone believes in God.
> 
> They reject a concept that they do not understand and think that they are displaying critical thinking skills.
> 
> lololol
Click to expand...

yeah


god's not proven.. therefore believe in him ...sounds way more rational


said no one, ever


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> and still unable to prove god exists.



Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> and still unable to prove god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
Click to expand...

If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...

useless 


you dont reason correctly


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> god's not proven.. therefore believe in him ...sounds way more rational
> said no one, ever



Some people feel that way, and that is heretical.

I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.

Outside of mathematics and science that is the best one can do.

But I am 100% comfortable with the accumulated evidence because I have investigated the question, while you obviously have not.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
Click to expand...

Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.

You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> god's not proven.. therefore believe in him ...sounds way more rational
> said no one, ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people feel that way, and that is heretical.
> 
> I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.
> 
> Outside of mathematics and science that is the best one can do.
> 
> But I am 100% comfortable with the accumulated evidence because I have investigated the question, while you obviously have not.
Click to expand...

in your opinion, which.. pardon me but you invoked the infinite regression fallacy already which is a canaard

you dont understand how to think

critical thinking should have been a class, thats too bad.


----------



## K9Buck

G.T. said:


> god's not proven.. therefore believe in him ...sounds way more rational said no one, ever



Well, I can't prove that life exists elsewhere in the universe but, I'm inclined to BELIEVE that it does.  Do you have a problem with that too?


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
Click to expand...

i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently 

me: you have no proof
you: yes i do yes i do. 
me: give it a shot
you: infinite regression fallacy
me: omg. ermm kay


----------



## G.T.

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> god's not proven.. therefore believe in him ...sounds way more rational said no one, ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can't prove that life exists elsewhere in the universe but, I'm inclined to BELIEVE that it does.  Do you have a problem with that too?
Click to expand...

problem with it? no, not until you pretend its proven.

believe away


----------



## K9Buck

JimBowie1958 said:


> I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.



In a court of law it wouldn't qualify as "proof" but, rather, a "preponderance" of the evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> in your opinion, which.. pardon me but you invoked the infinite regression fallacy already which is a canaard
> 
> you dont understand how to think
> 
> critical thinking should have been a class, thats too bad.


I have had several Critical Thinking classes and got As in all of them, so what?

I demonstrate my critical thinking skills and you cannot recognize them because you are a moron who simply throws shit back and forth and yo consider that thinking. It is not.

That you think a well known fallacy to be a canard speaks more than I need to.


----------



## fncceo

K9Buck said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory.  He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.
Click to expand...


However, in the face of mounting scientific knowledge, you must be willing to redefine your concept of G-d.  For example, it was once perfectly acceptable to believe that gods shared human characteristics and all lived together on the top of a mountain.  When someone finally climbed that mountain, that belief became scientifically untenable.

Today, many people believe in a G-d as a benevolent (or not so benevolent) Caucasian man in a long white beard that sits on a throne in the clouds and is directly responsible for the fall of each sparrow.

However, it doesn't take a lot to poke theological holes in that particular concept of G-d.  So, in order to stay relevant, the definition of G-d must expand.  G-d can be, and most probably is, infinitely more complex than our scriptures describe him (not for a moment suggesting G-d has a gender).  

Of course, some will say that if you must redefine your concept of G-d then why believe in G-d in the first place.  But, a child has a very limited understanding of his cosmos.  His definition of that cosmos expands as he assimilates more information of his surrounds.  Humans, similarly expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the cosmos and must as similarly redefine not only our place in it but our relationship with the G-d that exists in that cosmos.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion, which.. pardon me but you invoked the infinite regression fallacy already which is a canaard
> 
> you dont understand how to think
> 
> critical thinking should have been a class, thats too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> I have had several Critical Thinking classes and got As in all of them, so what?
> 
> I demonstrate my critical thinking skills and you cannot recognize them because you are a moron who simply throws shit back and forth and yo consider that thinking. It is not.
> 
> That you think a well known fallacy to be a canard speaks more than I need to.
Click to expand...

When you understand how to prove something, alert me.

All yall are doing is baselessly proclaiming things and then ad homming, like theres an actual point to that.


----------



## JimBowie1958

K9Buck said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a court of law it wouldn't qualify as "proof" but, rather, a "preponderance" of the evidence.
Click to expand...

And yet we call it proven much as courts do when they convict someone of a crime.

But there are facts that demonstrate that something must have started the flow of time.

And since this resulted from an initiated event we know that there is an intellect or will behind it.

Something triggered the Big Bang. Whatever it was was either the Prime Mover or another greater event in a much lager multiverse that is merely the latest event of a chain that goes back once again to a Prime mover.

One can try to kick the can down the road as much as possible but one cannot escape from the mathematical necessity for a beginning of the whole chain at some point.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> When you understand how to prove something, alert me.


No, I am going to have a couple more chuckles at your expense and then forget you completely.

You are not worth the time, idiot.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a court of law it wouldn't qualify as "proof" but, rather, a "preponderance" of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet we call it proven much as courts do when they convict someone of a crime.
> 
> But there are facts that demonstrate that something must have started the flow of time.
> 
> And since this resulted from an initiated event we know that there is an intellect or will behind it.
> 
> Something triggered the Big Bang. Whatever it was was either the Prime Mover or another greater event in a much lager multiverse that is merely the latest event of a chain that goes back once again to a Prime mover.
> 
> One can try to kick the can down the road as much as possible but one cannot escape from the mathematical necessity for a beginning of the whole chain at some point.
Click to expand...

that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity

look through your entire speech here...lemme see if you can point to the difference between fact and assertion


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you understand how to prove something, alert me.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am going to have a couple more chuckles at your expense and then forget you completely.
> 
> You are not worth the time, idiot.
Click to expand...

Thats true. One of us is giggling.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> However, in the face of mounting scientific knowledge, you must be willing to redefine your concept of G-d.  For example, it was once perfectly acceptable to believe that gods shared human characteristics and all lived together on the top of a mountain.  When someone finally climbed that mountain, that belief became scientifically untenable.
> 
> Today, many people believe in a G-d as a benevolent (or not so benevolent) Caucasian man in a long white beard that sits on a throne in the clouds and is directly responsible for the fall of each sparrow.
> 
> However, it doesn't take a lot to poke theological holes in that particular concept of G-d.  So, in order to stay relevant, the definition of G-d must expand.  G-d can be, and most probably is, infinitely more complex than our scriptures describe him (not for a moment suggesting G-d has a gender).
> 
> Of course, some will say that if you must redefine your concept of G-d then why believe in G-d in the first place.  But, a child has a very limited understanding of his cosmos.  His definition of that cosmos expands as he assimilates more information of his surrounds.  Humans, similarly expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the cosmos and must as similarly redefine not only our place in it but our relationship with the G-d that exists in that cosmos.



What you have described is merely the popular concepts of God.

The Jews had it right millennia ago with the empty Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant; the Invisible God Who Cannot Be Depicted by Human Hands. Aristotle proved that a Creator must exist, unlike the panoply of anthropomorphic godlings most worshiped in his time. But this is the concept of God that drove his pupil Alexander to conquer the known world in search of more knowledge and Truth.

God is truly beyond our ability to completely grasp what He is, much less be some naked dude in the clouds.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity


Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.

1) One cannot count to infinity.  I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc.  But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because *THERE IS NO LAST* PEANUT.  Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.

2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE *THERE IS NO FIRST* PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.

This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.

Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity
> 
> 
> 
> Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.
> 
> 1) One cannot count to infinity.  I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc.  But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because *THERE IS NO LAST* PEANUT.  Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.
> 
> 2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE *THERE IS NO FIRST* PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.
> 
> This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.
> 
> Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.
Click to expand...

I will quite easily expose the flaw in this line of reasoning But first you have to commit to two things..

 number one ...enough of the ad hominem   if you really expect me to bother. number two..... study the difference between assertion and fact.  quite plainly a lot of your assertions are based upon the fact that your imagination can do no better. "We have not observed any different ....therefore it's impossible" is not a fact, it's an assertion.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity
> 
> 
> 
> Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.
> 
> 1) One cannot count to infinity.  I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc.  But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because *THERE IS NO LAST* PEANUT.  Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.
> 
> 2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE *THERE IS NO FIRST* PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.
> 
> This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.
> 
> Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will quite easily expose the flaw in this line of reasoning But first you have to commit to two things..
> 
> number one ...enough of the ad hominem   if you really expect me to bother. number two..... study the difference between assertion and fact.  quite plainly a lot of your assertions are based upon the fact that your imagination can do no better. "We have not observed any different ....therefore it's impossible" is not a fact, it's an assertion.
Click to expand...


This is set theory mathematics, dude, not imagination.

Please, show me why you are a total moron.

I gots time.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity
> 
> 
> 
> Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.
> 
> 1) One cannot count to infinity.  I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc.  But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because *THERE IS NO LAST* PEANUT.  Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.
> 
> 2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE *THERE IS NO FIRST* PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.
> 
> This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.
> 
> Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will quite easily expose the flaw in this line of reasoning But first you have to commit to two things..
> 
> number one ...enough of the ad hominem   if you really expect me to bother. number two..... study the difference between assertion and fact.  quite plainly a lot of your assertions are based upon the fact that your imagination can do no better. "We have not observed any different ....therefore it's impossible" is not a fact, it's an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is set theory mathematics, dude, not imagination.
> 
> Please, show me why you are a total moron.
> 
> I gots time.
Click to expand...

You failed. I wont waste my time if ad hom is your go to....sorry not sorry go fry some eggs


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself
Click to expand...

You validate that deniers have to use limited and dishonest logic to support themselves.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> You failed. I wont waste my time if ad hom is your go to....sorry not sorry go fry some eggs



Lol, go piss up a rope, fool.

I dont care about your stupid ass lame-o shit.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.
> 
> And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You validate that deniers have to use limited and dishonest logic to support themselves.
Click to expand...

Not true, when Im talking about origins I dont commit to any flawed reasoning because its the most interesting topic that there is.

Its hard to do over the internet.... when everyone just shoves their logically flawed assertions in your face and wastes 6 hours combatting that, alone.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay



roflmao, that is not what has been said, and if anyone thinks it is then they are beyond remedy.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
Click to expand...

In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Not true, when Im talking about origins I dont commit to any flawed reasoning because its the most interesting topic that there is.
> Its hard to do over the internet.... when everyone just shoves their logically flawed assertions in your face and wastes 6 hours combatting that, alone.


You cannot even grasp the Infinite Regression Fallacy, but we all have flawed thinking?

ROFLMAO, this is just too fucking funny


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
Click to expand...

Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology. 

You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution. 

it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.



Here is another one; what happens to the value of a stock when it goes up or down?  Where does the value come from or go to?

That is hilarious as no energy or material changes hands and yet it affects the lives of millions of people.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, when Im talking about origins I dont commit to any flawed reasoning because its the most interesting topic that there is.
> Its hard to do over the internet.... when everyone just shoves their logically flawed assertions in your face and wastes 6 hours combatting that, alone.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot even grasp the Infinite Regression Fallacy, but we all have flawed thinking?
> 
> ROFLMAO, this is just too fucking funny
Click to expand...

I grasp it, and so has most that know philosophy except for you.....since, its flawed and you didnt even know that.

Youre a god of the gaps guy.

And youre an ad hom guy.

This is my last post to you until you make a commitment to no ad hom. Bye, Jimmithy


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> You make no sense. .


Because you are an I D I O T


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
Click to expand...

What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject. 

So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
> useless
> you dont reason correctly
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
Click to expand...

I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.

Which proves nothing.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> I grasp it, and so has most that know philosophy except for you.....since, its flawed and you didnt even know that.



It is not flawed just because you think it so.  I challenge anyone to prove a flaw to my illustration of the Infinite Regression Fallacy.



G.T. said:


> Youre a god of the gaps guy.



Nope, not at all.



G.T. said:


> And youre an ad hom guy.



It isnt ad hominem if it is true, fool.



G.T. said:


> This is my last post to you until you make a commitment to no ad hom. Bye, Jimmithy



Good, now just shut the fuck up and go back to fapping to your porn, mmmk?


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> Which proves nothing.


No, it proves that you are an ignoramus talking out of his ass.

IT proves that, idiot.


----------



## G.T.

Jimmithy, I wont do anything but mock you - youre not worth a discussion with that level of errmeeedeeerp you spew. Sorry, bud.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Jimmithy, I wont do anything but mock you - youre not worth a discussion with that level of errmeeedeeerp you spew. Sorry, bud.


You only mock yourself, stupid shit4brains.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmithy, I wont do anything but mock you - youre not worth a discussion with that level of errmeeedeeerp you spew. Sorry, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> You only mock yourself, stupid shit4brains.
Click to expand...

According to an old dude who lacks reasoning and pimps sky daddy using logical fallacy and ad hom on the internet? 

Whoa thats a mouth full, jimmithy.

And thats what she said, jimbob


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.
> 
> You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
Click to expand...

That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music. 

Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient. 

Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently
> 
> me: you have no proof
> you: yes i do yes i do.
> me: give it a shot
> you: infinite regression fallacy
> me: omg. ermm kay
> 
> 
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
Click to expand...

Because someone hasnt explained it to you...

because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt



^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmithy, I wont do anything but mock you - youre not worth a discussion with that level of errmeeedeeerp you spew. Sorry, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> You only mock yourself, stupid shit4brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to an old dude who lacks reasoning and pimps sky daddy using logical fallacy and ad hom on the internet?
> 
> Whoa thats a mouth full, jimmithy.
> 
> And thats what she said, jimbob
Click to expand...

No one is talking about a 'Sky Daddy' except you,  idiot, throughout this entire thread.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmithy, I wont do anything but mock you - youre not worth a discussion with that level of errmeeedeeerp you spew. Sorry, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> You only mock yourself, stupid shit4brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to an old dude who lacks reasoning and pimps sky daddy using logical fallacy and ad hom on the internet?
> 
> Whoa thats a mouth full, jimmithy.
> 
> And thats what she said, jimbob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is talking about a 'Sky Daddy' except you,  idiot, throughout this entire thread.
Click to expand...

I say sky daddy as a form of mockery towards liars

I address the intelligent as peers.
I address liars as liars.
I have positively toned discussions with those who are able to remain cordial.


Finally, I couldnt give a sonny clark happy rat's ass what you think, gomer.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table...


If you understood science better you'd see what a silly question this is.  But others have tried to point this out so I won't bother.  I'll only say how funny it is that creationists can not say how their God created life (or did anything for that matter) they only know how he didn't create life.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> I say sky daddy as a form of mockery towards liars


That is a lie.

IT is because you do not grasp the difference between Zeus and the Creator.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say sky daddy as a form of mockery towards liars
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> IT is because you do not grasp the difference between Zeus and the Creator.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, but co0l assertion.

I dont have reasoned discussions with pig headed, angry ass holes.

Sorry, jimmithy. I even sent you the olive branch and your fat ass broke it.


----------



## Political Junky

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


I'd like to see you explain the information in your OP.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> If you understood science better you'd see what a silly question this is.  But others have tried to point this out so I won't bother.  I'll only say how funny it is that creationists can not say how their God created life (or did anything for that matter) they only know how he didn't create life.



You are missing his point, which is that mere material (represented by the Periodic Table) cannot account for sentient life.

Science can only address repeatable deterministic natural events and cannot prove or disprove anything beyond that narrow scope of inquiry.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say sky daddy as a form of mockery towards liars
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> IT is because you do not grasp the difference between Zeus and the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect, but co0l assertion.
> 
> I dont have reasoned discussions with pig headed, angry ass holes.
> 
> Sorry, jimmithy. I even sent you the olive branch and your fat ass broke it.
Click to expand...

Fuck your olive branch, moron.

I gave evidence and you couldnt handle it and decided to whine all the way home instead.

I dont care what idiots like you do.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.
> 
> 
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
Click to expand...

You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator. 

You’re arguing against yourself. 

BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say sky daddy as a form of mockery towards liars
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> IT is because you do not grasp the difference between Zeus and the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect, but co0l assertion.
> 
> I dont have reasoned discussions with pig headed, angry ass holes.
> 
> Sorry, jimmithy. I even sent you the olive branch and your fat ass broke it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck your olive branch, moron.
> 
> I gave evidence and you couldnt handle it and decided to whine all the way home instead.
> 
> I dont care what idiots like you do.
Click to expand...

You gave unreasonable assertions. And whined names and blahblah like a do do head


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> You gave unreasonable assertions.


Bullshit.

They are not unreasonable simply because you say so, idiot.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
Click to expand...

You got the first two paragraphs of this wrong, so....thats just a misunderstanding. 

I never said the basis of sentience doesnt need to be proven....I said ask a biologist.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> I never said the basis of sentience doesnt need to be proven....I said ask a biologist.


Lol, an Appeal to Ignorance with Appeal to Authority as a backstop.

So you cant think on the topic so why dont you go home and whack you little noodle then?


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gave unreasonable assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> They are not unreasonable simply because you say so, idiot.
Click to expand...

Thats accurate.

I was going to show you the flaw in the logic, but I couldnt get there because of all of your angry blahblah name calling crap.

Youre just angry old jimmithy, now. Nothing I can do about it. Id recommend sex.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got the first two paragraphs of this wrong, so....thats just a misunderstanding.
> 
> I never said the basis of sentience doesnt need to be proven....I said ask a biologist.
Click to expand...

Why is there life?

We are all just remnants of a huge explosion, right?  What in science tells you chaos naturally evolves into order and atoms care about anything?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> You are missing his point, which is that mere material (represented by the Periodic Table) cannot account for sentient life.


I took his point to be that since *he *can't see how life can come from non-life it must be impossible.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Thats accurate.
> I was going to show you the flaw in the logic, but I couldnt get there because of all of your angry blahblah name calling crap.
> Youre just angry old jimmithy, now. Nothing I can do about it. Id recommend sex.


"I was going to show him a thing or two, but I gotta roast in the oven and had to get home."

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing his point, which is that mere material (represented by the Periodic Table) cannot account for sentient life.
> 
> 
> 
> I took his point to be that since *he *can't see how life can come from non-life it must be impossible.
Click to expand...

That is why he *asked *people to explain it.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the basis of sentience doesnt need to be proven....I said ask a biologist.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, an Appeal to Ignorance with Appeal to Authority as a backstop.
> 
> So you cant think on the topic so why dont you go home and whack you little noodle then?
Click to expand...

Youre confused because theres 2 different conversations at work.

I can help you with the moving parts.

I cannot explain how sentience came to be in  terms of the periodic table of elements.


The explanation for sentience and the "creator has or hasnt been proven" discussion are two seperate things going on right now. 


In terms of a creator, my claim this entire time has been agnosticism, and Ive said "if not, wheres proof?"

That has nothing to do with elements forming sentience.
..and if I can explain that or not.

Clue, got one?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you ask me that ...why dont you first point to the post I made which proclaims that I have an in depth background in biology.
> 
> You make no sense. All ive told you, is that any random joe on the internet being able to, or not being able to explain this to you does not somehow negate evolution.
> 
> it doesnt hinge in that question and messageboarder's ability to answer it. its just absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
Click to expand...

I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."


You are wrong.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> That is why he *asked *people to explain it.


People tried but I don't think he was listening.  I wonder if he'll explain how he knows God didn't create life just as science has speculated?


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean before I ask you that. This entire thread is on that subject.
> 
> So why do elements of the periodic table write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
Click to expand...

OK. 
Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why. 

Right?


----------



## BlindBoo

Why did the supernatural creator create creationist that revel in the denigration of those who don't believe in this supernatural creator?


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?


Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.
Click to expand...

And the price of tea in China went up. 

Now back to the OP. Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?


----------



## Weatherman2020

BlindBoo said:


> Why did the supernatural creator create creationist that revel in the denigration of those who don't believe in this supernatural creator?


Good question. Start a thread so people can talk about it.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> 
> Tell us what atoms have bonded that are sentient.


The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the background to be able to answer that, and wont pretend to.
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...

I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?

I dont operate that way.

What you're doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."

IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.

Its possible, its just not been proven to me.


Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the price of tea in China went up.
Click to expand...

So you can't rebut my reply.
Thank you.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?


Because they can!


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the issue. No one can answer why elements of the periodic table writes music.
> 
> Because they dont. Atoms and bonded atoms don’t care. They are not sentient.
> 
> Which means life is something beyond what we can detect.
> 
> 
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
Click to expand...

So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
Click to expand...

Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why is there life?
> 
> We are all just remnants of a huge explosion, right?  What in science tells you chaos naturally evolves into order and atoms care about anything?


The trillions of atoms that self-organized themselves into a salt crystal that I put on my lunch didn't care about how I like my food but did it anyway because the conditions at the time were right.  Life arose because the conditions were right.  How is not known but there are plenty of theories (see Abiogenesis) or last months Scientific American.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the price of tea in China went up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't rebut my reply.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

No, you’re off topic.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there life?
> 
> We are all just remnants of a huge explosion, right?  What in science tells you chaos naturally evolves into order and atoms care about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> The trillions of atoms that self-organized themselves into a salt crystal that I put on my lunch didn't care about how I like my food but did it anyway because the conditions at the time were right.  Life arose because the conditions were right.  How is not known but there are plenty of theories (see Abiogenesis) or last months Scientific American.
Click to expand...

Why would a carbon atom care?  It’s the same in a thousand years wether it’s in my body or floating in the air.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> Creator exists outside the flow of time since the Creator created time itself.


Time began at the Big Bang.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because someone hasnt explained it to you...
> 
> because youve proven its impossible to explain beyond the shadow of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ^ which is more accurate of the above two statements.
> 
> 
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
Click to expand...

No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits. 

lol the fakk


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Life arose because the conditions were right.  How is not known but there are plenty of theories (see Abiogenesis) or last months Scientific American.


So why ASSUME that it was merely because the conditions were right?

And why havent any of those theories been proven?  Because Science cannot prove the answer to 'why' anyway.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why would a carbon atom care?  It’s the same in a thousand years wether it’s in my body or floating in the air.


Silly question as you well know but it is also a straw man if you're asking about the creation of life.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> 
> Tell us what atoms have bonded that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
Click to expand...

The atoms are not sentient, doofus.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the price of tea in China went up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't rebut my reply.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you’re off topic.
Click to expand...

No, valence electrons prove molecular life is NO accident, as YOU falsely claim in your own title of this thread.
You can't rebut that fact so you dodge by claiming it is off topic.
Thank you again!


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just mocked the belief in God because you don’t see evidence. And now you claim the basis for sentience does not need to be proven because you know it’s not from a creator.
> 
> You’re arguing against yourself.
> 
> BTW - the OP screams the evidence of a creator. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because it blows your belief system apart.
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
Click to expand...

You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> Tell us what atoms have *bonded* that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms are not sentient, doofus.
Click to expand...

But the atoms BONDED into a human ARE sentient.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the basis of sentience doesnt need to be proven....I said ask a biologist.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, an Appeal to Ignorance with Appeal to Authority as a backstop.
> 
> So you cant think on the topic so why dont you go home and whack you little noodle then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre confused because theres 2 different conversations at work.
> 
> I can help you with the moving parts.
> 
> I cannot explain how sentience came to be in  terms of the periodic table of elements.
> 
> 
> The explanation for sentience and the "creator has or hasnt been proven" discussion are two seperate things going on right now.
> 
> 
> In terms of a creator, my claim this entire time has been agnosticism, and Ive said "if not, wheres proof?"
> 
> That has nothing to do with elements forming sentience.
> ..and if I can explain that or not.
> 
> Clue, got one?
Click to expand...

I know that there were two discussion, jack ass, but I am only concerned about one of them, and again you fail to support your claims.

Got a brain? Then get one.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how these atoms have combined.
> 
> You do know you are telling us the Periodic table is wrong and obsolete, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms combine according to the number of electrons in their outer shell, called valence electrons. Nothing random about it, therefore it is YOU who are contradicting the periodic table which is arranged in groups according to their valence electrons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the price of tea in China went up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't rebut my reply.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you’re off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, valence electrons prove molecular life is NO accident, as YOU falsely claim in your own title of this thread.
> You can't rebut that fact so you dodge by claiming it is off topic.
> Thank you again!
Click to expand...




edthecynic said:


> No, valence electrons prove molecular life is NO accident, as YOU falsely claim in your own title of this thread.



Why would I do that?


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> Tell us what atoms have *bonded* that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms are not sentient, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the atoms BONDED into a human ARE sentient.
Click to expand...

That is his point, doofus.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say "the basis for sentience does not need to be proven."
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
Click to expand...

I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.

For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> Tell us what atoms have *bonded* that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms are not sentient, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the atoms BONDED into a human ARE sentient.
Click to expand...

So if I pick my scab off it’ll write music?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> Tell us what atoms have *bonded* that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms are not sentient, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the atoms BONDED into a human ARE sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I pick my scab off it’ll write music?
Click to expand...

They are engaging in a tautology and they know it.

Things are sentient because they are sentient things is about all their supposed counterpoints amount to.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> Then why does life exist?  If all that we are are the elements listed, I think we can agree that does not explain why.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
Click to expand...

No biologist has an answer either.  

Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.


No surprise there for a great many reasons.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DONT KNOW that sentience isnt adequatly explained via biology - so why would I AGREE with that comment?
> 
> I dont operate that way.
> 
> What your doing here is saying "because it hasnt been explained to me, its not possible."
> 
> IM NOT doing that regarding a creator. If I didnt think one was "possible," Id be an atheist.... and not an agnostic.
> 
> Its possible, its just not been proven to me.
> 
> 
> Same as sentience coming from a conglomeration of the periodic table (which is probably a malformed question to begin with....but Id defer to a biologist).......just because nobodys yet explained it to you doesnt make it impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has an answer either.
> 
> Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

No biologist has the answer to evolutionary biology? 

I think theres several, if you went and looked. 

You are asserting that because you dont posess the explanation, therefore something is impossible.

Thats not reasonable. 

In order to assert that, you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary....which you arent doing, youre merely asserting.


----------



## deanrd

*The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*

Right wing beliefs are fuked up in so many ways.  First, because of the nonsense they believe.  Second, because of the nonsense they imagine, and then believe others believe that same ridiculous nonsense they imagined to begin with.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life arose because the conditions were right.  How is not known but there are plenty of theories (see Abiogenesis) or last months Scientific American.
> 
> 
> 
> So why ASSUME that it was merely because the conditions were right?
> 
> And why havent any of those theories been proven?  Because Science cannot prove the answer to 'why' anyway.
Click to expand...

Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.  If you wish to postulate it was aliens or a supernatural world, I await the evidence.

Was Jesus a man or a myth?  We have a reasonable amount of evidence he lived but, whatever believers may say, we have no proof.


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise there for a great many reasons.
Click to expand...

You seem to need better things to do, I dont care about your lil schoolgirl posts bro


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re open to the possibility that the pencil on your desk may get up and do the cha-cha?
> 
> 
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has an answer either.
> 
> Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has the answer to evolutionary biology?
> 
> I think theres several, if you went and looked.
> 
> You are asserting that because you dont posess the explanation, therefore something is impossible.
> 
> Thats not reasonable.
> 
> In order to assert that, you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary....which you arent doing, youre merely asserting.
Click to expand...

For the tenth time then, offer a theory why elements of the periodic table dance and write poetry.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.



Of course there is.

Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.

If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.

It was not due to random events.

When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.

Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.

The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.

The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.

Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.


----------



## Weatherman2020

deanrd said:


> *The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*
> 
> Right wing beliefs are fuked up in so many ways.  First, because of the nonsense they believe.  Second, because of the nonsense they imagine, and then believe others believe that same ridiculous nonsense they imagined to begin with.


Well, since your entire rebuttal consisted of childish personal attacks, guess who wins the debate.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise there for a great many reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to need better things to do, I dont care about your lil schoolgirl posts bro
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to ignore my posts?

Make your fucking mind up, moron.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because gravity is a concept thats been explained to me adequately...and I know the composition of a pencil does not express those traits.
> 
> lol the fakk
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has an answer either.
> 
> Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has the answer to evolutionary biology?
> 
> I think theres several, if you went and looked.
> 
> You are asserting that because you dont posess the explanation, therefore something is impossible.
> 
> Thats not reasonable.
> 
> In order to assert that, you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary....which you arent doing, youre merely asserting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the tenth time then, offer a theory why elements of the periodic table dance and write poetry.
Click to expand...

I have evidence they DO - i can type you this message. 



but for the last time, only a biologist could... or someone very studied in the field could explain it to you in a scientific way


----------



## Weatherman2020

We just had a horrible shooting last night. Why should atoms care? No atoms were harmed nor destroyed.


----------



## G.T.

Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> We just had a horrible shooting last night. Why should atoms care? No atoms were harmed nor destroyed.


Your cells dont die when your body dies? Just a question.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have the reason why elements are sentient explained to well enough as to know why this is and is not, so why don’t you share with the class.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has an answer either.
> 
> Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has the answer to evolutionary biology?
> 
> I think theres several, if you went and looked.
> 
> You are asserting that because you dont posess the explanation, therefore something is impossible.
> 
> Thats not reasonable.
> 
> In order to assert that, you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary....which you arent doing, youre merely asserting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the tenth time then, offer a theory why elements of the periodic table dance and write poetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have evidence they DO - i can type you this message.
> 
> 
> 
> but for the last time, only a biologist could... or someone very studied in the field could explain it to you in a scientific way
Click to expand...

Something is manipulating the atoms in your body.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just had a horrible shooting last night. Why should atoms care? No atoms were harmed nor destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Your cells dont die when your body dies? Just a question.
Click to expand...

Cells are made up of atoms. Atoms don’t care.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> I have evidence they DO - i can type you this message.
> but for the last time, only a biologist could... or someone very studied in the field could explain it to you in a scientific way


OMG, you are a fucking retard.

Have other atheists started bribing you to get out of the thread yet?

No, probably not as most of them as as stupid as you are.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont even think "elements are sentient" is an accurate statement to begin with...but again, a biologist could better explain than I could.
> 
> For example, if you extract a carbon molecule from my body ~ it wouldnt be sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> No biologist has an answer either.
> 
> Because the answer makes many uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No biologist has the answer to evolutionary biology?
> 
> I think theres several, if you went and looked.
> 
> You are asserting that because you dont posess the explanation, therefore something is impossible.
> 
> Thats not reasonable.
> 
> In order to assert that, you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary....which you arent doing, youre merely asserting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the tenth time then, offer a theory why elements of the periodic table dance and write poetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have evidence they DO - i can type you this message.
> 
> 
> 
> but for the last time, only a biologist could... or someone very studied in the field could explain it to you in a scientific way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something is manipulating the atoms in your body.
Click to expand...

Is that an assertion....


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.


Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is manipulating the atoms in your body.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an assertion....
Click to expand...


Damn, and you were hoping for an insertion?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just had a horrible shooting last night. Why should atoms care? No atoms were harmed nor destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Your cells dont die when your body dies? Just a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cells are made up of atoms. Atoms don’t care.
Click to expand...

The central nervous system cares. Well, not in a sociopath.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just had a horrible shooting last night. Why should atoms care? No atoms were harmed nor destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Your cells dont die when your body dies? Just a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cells are made up of atoms. Atoms don’t care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The central nervous system cares. Well, not in a sociopath.
Click to expand...

And the central nervous system is just a collection of atoms too.

Next


----------



## G.T.

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.
Click to expand...

Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.


You have demonstrated that you dont understand what I am saying.

You thinking me stupid is nothing more than what a monkey might do observing someone putting on a pair of boots.

"Okkkey, ooookey, oookey, SQUEAL give me a banana!"  <- concise summary of your bullshit


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.
Click to expand...

The atoms that made up the bodies of those murdered last night are unchanged and will be here a thousand years from now. 

So why do they care about last night?


----------



## G.T.

Anyway, my understanding is that either abiogenesis or panspermia resulted in life on earth - and from there evolutionary biology over time resulted in what you see, today.

We are obviously not at the peak of our evolution, as the fear of death still allows cognitive dissonance and mass manipulation to be possible ....when it comes to coping with that ultimate question.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms that made up the bodies of those murdered last night are unchanged and will be here a thousand years from now.
> 
> So why do they care about last night?
Click to expand...

The atoms individually dont. 

The central nervous system did. Which is something biology explains as having developed over time through cellular mutations.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Anyway, my understanding is that either abiogenesis or panspermia resulted in life on earth - and from there evolutionary biology over time resulted in what you see, today.
> 
> We are obviously not at the peak of our evolution, as the fear of death still allows cognitive dissonance and mass manipulation to be possible ....when it comes to coping with that ultimate question.


Doesn’t address the OP. Why do you think elements of the periodic table are sentient?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
Click to expand...

If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.

The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> Doesn’t address the OP. Why do you think elements of the periodic table are sentient?



"Because....science!"


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms that made up the bodies of those murdered last night are unchanged and will be here a thousand years from now.
> 
> So why do they care about last night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms individually dont.
> 
> The central nervous system did. Which is something biology explains as having developed over time through cellular mutations.
Click to expand...

That’s all we are. Atoms. Atoms that bond with each other to form the elements in the periodic table.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, my understanding is that either abiogenesis or panspermia resulted in life on earth - and from there evolutionary biology over time resulted in what you see, today.
> 
> We are obviously not at the peak of our evolution, as the fear of death still allows cognitive dissonance and mass manipulation to be possible ....when it comes to coping with that ultimate question.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t address the OP. Why do you think elements of the periodic table are sentient?
Click to expand...

Why do I think so? Oh ....just my opinion? 

Survival of the fittest traits... times close to 4 billion years of mutations and reproduction.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get jimmothy a xanax, jeezisss that dudes legit angered.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, me making a fool out of you does not make me anything more than a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not really mad at your embarraasing grovelling and shit. I like it, I just dont take it "seriously" because youre stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms that made up the bodies of those murdered last night are unchanged and will be here a thousand years from now.
> 
> So why do they care about last night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms individually dont.
> 
> The central nervous system did. Which is something biology explains as having developed over time through cellular mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s all we are. Atoms. Atoms that bond with each other to form the elements in the periodic table.
Click to expand...

So what?

If you want proof that atoms can form in such a way as to create thinking organisms, look in the mirror .....or prove we arent atoms...


both would be more rational than inserting god into that gap of knowledge


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, my understanding is that either abiogenesis or panspermia resulted in life on earth - and from there evolutionary biology over time resulted in what you see, today.
> 
> We are obviously not at the peak of our evolution, as the fear of death still allows cognitive dissonance and mass manipulation to be possible ....when it comes to coping with that ultimate question.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t address the OP. Why do you think elements of the periodic table are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I think so? Oh ....just my opinion?
> 
> Survival of the fittest traits... times close to 4 billion years of mutations and reproduction.
Click to expand...

Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonding is what you are talking about.
> Tell us what atoms have *bonded* that are sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> The atoms YOU listed in your OP. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The atoms are not sentient, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the atoms BONDED into a human ARE sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I pick my scab off it’ll write music?
Click to expand...

Only if YOU are a scab of a human!


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, my understanding is that either abiogenesis or panspermia resulted in life on earth - and from there evolutionary biology over time resulted in what you see, today.
> 
> We are obviously not at the peak of our evolution, as the fear of death still allows cognitive dissonance and mass manipulation to be possible ....when it comes to coping with that ultimate question.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t address the OP. Why do you think elements of the periodic table are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I think so? Oh ....just my opinion?
> 
> Survival of the fittest traits... times close to 4 billion years of mutations and reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?
Click to expand...

You kill a biological organism.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.



You know that is not true if you have ever tried to build a camp fire, lol.

That would make any rational person believe in fire spirits.



alang1216 said:


> Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.



Exactly, but scientific inquiry can distinguish between random fires and fires started with intent, which was the point.



alang1216 said:


> The OP is asking which *materialistic behavior causes* mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.


That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.

However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?


Split the nucleus.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> You kill a biological organism.


And you kill common sense.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
Click to expand...

Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.

So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?
> 
> 
> 
> Split the nucleus.
Click to expand...

Lol, you are such an idiot.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
Click to expand...

Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?
> 
> 
> 
> Split the nucleus.
Click to expand...

Funny.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
Click to expand...


So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?

Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?
> 
> 
> 
> Split the nucleus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.
Click to expand...

Lol, it is like saying that you can kill a rock by splitting it.

Leftards are some of the stupidest people on the entire fucking planet.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence that anything in the physical world happens for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?
> 
> Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.
Click to expand...

No, to sentence #1 & I did t even IMPLY that.

2, my argument is that 


1. we are made of atoms
2. we are sentient

Therefore, its possible that the mixture can facilitate sentience.


You argument is..

unless you messageboard idiots can tell me how an atom becomes sentient, therefore god.

thats not logical, until you can prove the impossibility of the contrary


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> Some events are caused by a sentient decision, while others are simply random events.
> 
> If I set fire to my neighbors house, the resulting fire is due to my ability to assemble the proper elements and my moral choice to do the heinous deed.
> 
> It was not due to random events.
> 
> When investigators look into the causes of house fires they look for clues that point to intent and design, using scientific forensic techniques to find that tell-tale order and signs of intent.
> 
> Have an idiot do the investigation and no, they probably wont find anything. But put a 30 year veteran of such investigations like a Fire Marshal and they probably will find such clues for many reasons.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is 'None of them' as material lying on a floor does not do such things and have never been observed to do so.
> 
> The predictable non-response is to bend the behavior around on itself in a tautology; 'Sentient things are sentient things because they are sentient things'  and ducks the entire question as to why.
> 
> Deterministic materialism cannot explain things that are not materialistic and sentience is not materialistic.
> 
> 
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?
> 
> Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, to sentence #1 & I did t even IMPLY that.
> 
> 2, my argument is that
> 
> 
> 1. we are made of atoms
> 2. we are sentient
> 
> Therefore, its possible that the mixture can facilitate sentience.
> 
> 
> You argument is..
> 
> unless you messageboard idiots can tell me how an atom becomes sentient, therefore god.
> 
> thats not logical, until you can prove the impossibility of the contrary
Click to expand...

You didn’t imply that letting those elements sit for 4 billion years will create life, you stated it. 

You’re fabricating reasons why atoms care to look at a sunset.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.



Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.



JimBowie1958 said:


> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.



If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ignite a flammable substance it will burn if the conditions are right.  That is science and the result will always be the same.  Why you choose to ignite the substance is not a scientific question so don't expect science to provide an answer.
> 
> The OP is asking which materialistic behavior causes mere atoms to combine together in such a way as to cause sentience to occur.  The answer is the combination of the availability of many different atoms, the electro-magnetic force, natural selection, and time will (inevitably?) lead to life.  Does life always lead to sentient life?  Unknown at this time but it obviously can.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?
> 
> Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, to sentence #1 & I did t even IMPLY that.
> 
> 2, my argument is that
> 
> 
> 1. we are made of atoms
> 2. we are sentient
> 
> Therefore, its possible that the mixture can facilitate sentience.
> 
> 
> You argument is..
> 
> unless you messageboard idiots can tell me how an atom becomes sentient, therefore god.
> 
> thats not logical, until you can prove the impossibility of the contrary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t imply that letting those elements sit for 4 billion years will create life, you stated it.
> 
> You’re fabricating reasons why atoms care to look at a sunset.
Click to expand...

elements creating life is not "new and different elements being added to the periodic table"


im not fabricating anything - im proposing possibilities and saying that "i dont know;" however, I do know that there are scientific theories published on the matter....(abiogenesis, evolutionary biology)

and i also know that you havent proven its IMPOSSIBLE to have happened without a creator.


So, Im not sure why you think that advances the proof of a creator.....

youd have to prove its impossible otherwise.

You havent.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.



OK, see you back here in a few million years.  May take a few billion if I don't actively direct it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
Click to expand...

Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

Evolutionary Biology.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, I made it easy for you. All the ingredients of a human being. They can all be purchased on Amazon.
> 
> So go make yourself a friend and let us know how it went.
> 
> View attachment 152388
> 
> 
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?
> 
> Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, to sentence #1 & I did t even IMPLY that.
> 
> 2, my argument is that
> 
> 
> 1. we are made of atoms
> 2. we are sentient
> 
> Therefore, its possible that the mixture can facilitate sentience.
> 
> 
> You argument is..
> 
> unless you messageboard idiots can tell me how an atom becomes sentient, therefore god.
> 
> thats not logical, until you can prove the impossibility of the contrary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t imply that letting those elements sit for 4 billion years will create life, you stated it.
> 
> You’re fabricating reasons why atoms care to look at a sunset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> elements creating life is not "new and different elements being added to the periodic table"
> 
> 
> im not fabricating anything - im proposing possibilities and saying that "i dont know;" however, I do know that there are scientific theories published on the matter....(abiogenesis, evolutionary biology)
> 
> and i also know that you havent proven its IMPOSSIBLE to have happened without a creator.
> 
> 
> So, Im not sure why you think that advances the proof of a creator.....
> 
> youd have to prove its impossible otherwise.
> 
> You havent.
Click to expand...

I’ll ask you too. 
Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
Click to expand...

Nope. It does not.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give him 4 billion years and the early conditions of earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think new and different elements will be added to the periodic table?
> 
> Your argument lacks all logic and science. Atoms are not going to start bonding to new things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, to sentence #1 & I did t even IMPLY that.
> 
> 2, my argument is that
> 
> 
> 1. we are made of atoms
> 2. we are sentient
> 
> Therefore, its possible that the mixture can facilitate sentience.
> 
> 
> You argument is..
> 
> unless you messageboard idiots can tell me how an atom becomes sentient, therefore god.
> 
> thats not logical, until you can prove the impossibility of the contrary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t imply that letting those elements sit for 4 billion years will create life, you stated it.
> 
> You’re fabricating reasons why atoms care to look at a sunset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> elements creating life is not "new and different elements being added to the periodic table"
> 
> 
> im not fabricating anything - im proposing possibilities and saying that "i dont know;" however, I do know that there are scientific theories published on the matter....(abiogenesis, evolutionary biology)
> 
> and i also know that you havent proven its IMPOSSIBLE to have happened without a creator.
> 
> 
> So, Im not sure why you think that advances the proof of a creator.....
> 
> youd have to prove its impossible otherwise.
> 
> You havent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll ask you too.
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

Evolutionary biology



Which is actually common sense. Natural selection isnt that hard to grasp.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?


A *crystal* or *crystalline solid* is a solid material whose constituents (such as atoms, molecules, or ions) are arranged in a highly ordered microscopic structure, forming a crystal lattice that extends in all directions.[1][2] In addition, macroscopic single crystals are usually identifiable by their geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations. The scientific study of crystals and crystal formation is known as crystallography. The process of crystal formation via mechanisms of crystal growth is called crystallization or solidification.

Let me know if you want others.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely does. Evolutionary biology states that the fittest gene characteristics survive - so naturally, organisms become more adaptable to their environments which is what Id describe as "order," unless you mean something else.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That materialistic behavior leads to nonmaterialistic events is a huge supposition that there is simply no evidence for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our experience with all known planned events tells us that sentience was planed and not randomly caused, just as a Fire Marshal knows arson from random fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it absolutely does. Evolutionary biology states that the fittest gene characteristics survive - so naturally, organisms become more adaptable to their environments which is what Id describe as "order," unless you mean something else.
Click to expand...

No, your talking about life. And we are discussing why there is life. You have to start with your cosmic explosion and dirt.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> Lol, it is like saying that you can kill a rock by splitting it.
> 
> Leftards are some of the stupidest people on the entire fucking planet.



You can't kill a rock because it is no a living thing.  However, if you split it into it constituent minerals it is no longer a rock.  Same goes for atoms.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Except you have not shown the sentience is nonmaterialistic.  AI is quickly reaching a point where it may achieve sentience.
> 
> If we can produce AI/sentience in just a few decades, who is to say natural forces can't produce it in billions of years?
> 
> 
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it absolutely does. Evolutionary biology states that the fittest gene characteristics survive - so naturally, organisms become more adaptable to their environments which is what Id describe as "order," unless you mean something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your talking about life. And we are discussing why there is life. You have to start with your cosmic explosion and dirt.
Click to expand...

My cosmic explosion and dirt?

I dont have a cosmic explosion.

Dirt has nutrients. 

Youre going to have to be more specific.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> 
> 
> A *crystal* or *crystalline solid* is a solid material whose constituents (such as atoms, molecules, or ions) are arranged in a highly ordered microscopic structure, forming a crystal lattice that extends in all directions.[1][2] In addition, macroscopic single crystals are usually identifiable by their geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations. The scientific study of crystals and crystal formation is known as crystallography. The process of crystal formation via mechanisms of crystal growth is called crystallization or solidification.
> 
> Let me know if you want others.
Click to expand...

Already posted the periodic table. We all know atoms bond and we know how they bond and what they form. 

Carbon being compressed into an aligned matrix is not order.


----------



## Weatherman2020

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it absolutely does. Evolutionary biology states that the fittest gene characteristics survive - so naturally, organisms become more adaptable to their environments which is what Id describe as "order," unless you mean something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your talking about life. And we are discussing why there is life. You have to start with your cosmic explosion and dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My cosmic explosion and dirt?
> 
> I dont have a cosmic explosion.
> 
> Dirt has nutrients.
> 
> Youre going to have to be more specific.
Click to expand...

You’re not a Big Bang guy?


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> 
> 
> A *crystal* or *crystalline solid* is a solid material whose constituents (such as atoms, molecules, or ions) are arranged in a highly ordered microscopic structure, forming a crystal lattice that extends in all directions.[1][2] In addition, macroscopic single crystals are usually identifiable by their geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations. The scientific study of crystals and crystal formation is known as crystallography. The process of crystal formation via mechanisms of crystal growth is called crystallization or solidification.
> 
> Let me know if you want others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already posted the periodic table. We all know atoms bond and we know how they bond and what they form.
> 
> Carbon being compressed into an aligned matrix is not order.
Click to expand...

What is order, and what is chaos....


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. It does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it absolutely does. Evolutionary biology states that the fittest gene characteristics survive - so naturally, organisms become more adaptable to their environments which is what Id describe as "order," unless you mean something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your talking about life. And we are discussing why there is life. You have to start with your cosmic explosion and dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My cosmic explosion and dirt?
> 
> I dont have a cosmic explosion.
> 
> Dirt has nutrients.
> 
> Youre going to have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not a Big Bang guy?
Click to expand...

Big bang might be the origin of this iteration of this universe...

its doesnt speak to existence overall, and doesnt even claim to....


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Atoms that bond with each other to form the elements in the periodic table.


Proof that you know nothing about atoms, molecules, elements or the periodic table.
It is also proof that you are too stupid to know just how stupid that statement is!

March 01, 2012

RUSH:  *To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! *You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and* there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.*


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Already posted the periodic table. We all know atoms bond and we know how they bond and what they form.
> 
> Carbon being compressed into an aligned matrix is not order.


That is where you are wrong.  Atoms arranged in an matrix is the definition of order.

More to the point, the carbon aligned themselves into a matrix.  They didn't want to, choose to, or knew how to, they just did because the conditions were right.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms that bond with each other to form the elements in the periodic table.
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that you know nothing about atoms, molecules, elements or the periodic table.
> It is also proof that you are too stupid to know just how stupid that statement is!
> 
> March 01, 2012
> 
> RUSH:  *To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! *You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and* there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.*
Click to expand...

Calling everyone you disagree with stupid while ignoring the OP. 
Can’t get anymore unscientific than that.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest? How do you kill an atom?
> 
> 
> 
> Split the nucleus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, *it is like saying that you can kill a rock by splitting it.*
> Leftards are some of the stupidest people on the entire fucking planet.
Click to expand...

Again we have someone too stupid to know just how stupid they are!!!
Once U235 is split, it is no longer an atom of U235.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already posted the periodic table. We all know atoms bond and we know how they bond and what they form.
> 
> Carbon being compressed into an aligned matrix is not order.
> 
> 
> 
> That is where you are wrong.  Atoms arranged in an matrix is the definition of order.
> 
> More to the point, the carbon aligned themselves into a matrix.  They didn't want to, choose to, or knew how to, they just did because the conditions were right.
Click to expand...

If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things. 

Do you worry that all the oxygen will move to a corner of the room you are in?  

I want to know why a water molecule is interested in who wins Monday night football tonight.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atoms* that *bond with each other to form the elements in the periodic table*.
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that you know nothing about atoms, molecules, elements or the periodic table.
> It is also proof that you are too stupid to know just how stupid that statement is!
> March 01, 2012
> RUSH:  *To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! *You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and* there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling everyone you disagree with stupid while ignoring the OP.
> Can’t get anymore unscientific than that.
Click to expand...

Again, thank you for proving you are too stupid to know just how stupid your post was!


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Where in science does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?


Chemistry.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.


Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?

Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:

or·der
ˈôrdər/
_noun_
noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
1*.
the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.


----------



## Votto

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

No, not at all, no one believes that life was the result of an accident, it was the result of the laws of chemistry and physics in this universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> Again we have someone too stupid to know just how stupid they are!!!
> Once U235 is split, it is no longer an atom of U235.


roflmao, the irony is thicker than a London fog

1) the atom still exists, it was not killed

2) your attempt to move the goal posts was juvenile and too predictable, idiot.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Votto said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

God cuts us all down eventually


----------



## irosie91

chance occurrence is not  "accident"


----------



## Votto

JimBowie1958 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God cuts us all down eventually
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Darwin done it.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Votto said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atoms write music and watch funny cat videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God cuts us all down eventually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Darwin done it.
Click to expand...

Darwin is the tool God uses to cull the heard early of its retards and leftists.


----------



## Votto

JimBowie1958 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can!
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting belief system thinking that atoms in your chair are interested in listening to Johnny Cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God cuts us all down eventually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Darwin done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin is the tool God uses to cull the heard early of its retards and leftists.
Click to expand...


Stop reading that silly book called the Bible.

Darwin was a man of science, are you a science denier?

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” 
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 

Which reminds me, when is the Klan rally again?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have someone too stupid to know just how stupid they are!!!
> Once U235 is split, it is no longer an atom of U235.
> 
> 
> 
> roflmao, the irony is thicker than a London fog
> 
> 1) the atom still exists, it was not killed
> 
> 2) your attempt to move the goal posts was juvenile and too predictable, idiot.
Click to expand...

You may want to rethink this post since Ed is right.  The uranium atom is no more, the 2 atoms left have neither the mass nor the physical properties of the uranium 235.  The subatomic particles not converted to energy still exist though.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Votto said:


> Stop reading that silly book called the Bible.
> 
> Darwin was a man of science, are you a science denier?



Lol, there is nothing contradictory between evolution and the Bible.

“





Votto said:


> At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the *civilised races* of man will almost certainly *exterminate *and replace throughout the world the *savage races*. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
> ― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man



^^ one of the many reasons that Darwin so popular with racists and Nazis.



Votto said:


> Which reminds me, when is the Klan rally again?



I dont keep your schedule for you, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have someone too stupid to know just how stupid they are!!!
> Once U235 is split, it is no longer an atom of U235.
> 
> 
> 
> roflmao, the irony is thicker than a London fog
> 
> 1) the atom still exists, it was not killed
> 
> 2) your attempt to move the goal posts was juvenile and too predictable, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may want to rethink this post since Ed is right.  The uranium atom is no more, the 2 atoms left have neither the mass nor the physical properties of the uranium 235.  The subatomic particles not converted to energy still exist though.
Click to expand...


A rock split into two pieces are still rocks. The rock was not killed for obvious reasons.

An atom split is not killed either for the same reasons.

Maybe you need to rethink you post?


----------



## PoliticalChic

K9Buck said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not an atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not an atheist, then why do you mock the concept of a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i mock manmade religion
> 
> also mock folks who pretend to know.
> 
> im agnostic in terms of origins
> im anti man made religion
> im anti atheist, unless theyre one of the onces that defines themselves fancily as an agnostic
> 
> and as far as anyone has been able to show or reproduce to date, "we dont know" is the answer. anything else is dishonesty or hope/faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you mock those who believe in a creator, you are acting as if you know.  In my view and in the views of others, there is significant evidence, scientific and otherwise, to suggest that there is a creator and that life exists after death.  If you've got something to counter such a belief, by all means, share it, but stop with the k*nt act.
Click to expand...



The Founders of this nation certainly believed there was a Creator....that's what they said in the D of I.


----------



## Mac1958

Those who are religious have to pass two (2) tests.

First, that there was indeed a Creator, and second, that He is as advertised:  Omnipotent, able to read our minds, interested in all of our actions, responsible for a heaven and hell, demanding of our worship, operating kind of a divine North Korea, the whole shebang.

If there is a Creator, he appears to be an absentee landlord.

And, of course, no one knows for sure one way or the other, even if they claim to.
.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Mac1958 said:


> Those who are religious have to pass two (2) tests.
> 
> First, that there was indeed a Creator, and second, that He is as advertised:  Omnipotent, able to read our minds, interested in all of our actions, responsible for a heaven and hell, demanding of our worship, operating kind of a divine North Korea, the whole shebang.



Well yes, you can get from here to there, but it requires small steps.  there is nothing that proves the Judeo-Christgian God all in one argument.

And even so, what is being done is accumulating a mountain of evidence that makes a belief in God more plausible than not believing in God.

God gives us Free Will and enough evidence thereby to either believe or to not believe if we do not want to.  Kind of like those computer generated 3D pics, you can see it if you want to.




Mac1958 said:


> If there is a Creator, he appears to be an absentee landlord.
> 
> And, of course, no one knows for sure one way or the other, even if they claim to.
> .



God is not an absentee landlord. the problem is that in the modern age we have strung together a myriad number of explanations about what it *really* is when we see God and His interactions with us and our Universe.

Dont blame the savior of Israel for that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> Those who are religious have to pass two (2) tests.
> 
> First, that there was indeed a Creator, and second, that He is as advertised:  Omnipotent, able to read our minds, interested in all of our actions, responsible for a heaven and hell, demanding of our worship, operating kind of a divine North Korea, the whole shebang.
> 
> If there is a Creator, he appears to be an absentee landlord.
> 
> And, of course, no one knows for sure one way or the other, even if they claim to.
> .




Well, FenceSitter.....I suggest you use the test that the brilliant mathematician favored...

*"Pascal's Wager* is an argument in philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century Frenchphilosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]"
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia


----------



## K9Buck

I guess when one accepts the likelihood that there is a creator, then we can get into theology.  However, I don't think it's possible to have theological discussions in this forum as atheist trolls come in and derail them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

K9Buck said:


> I guess when one accepts the likelihood that there is a creator, then we can get into theology.  However, I don't think it's possible to have theological discussions in this forum as atheist trolls come in and derail them.




1.In the book of Exodus, we find Moses up on Mount Sinai, when he sees a bush, on fire, yet not being consumed by the flames. Moses has a colloquy with himself, commenting on the incident…actually saying ‘Look at that great thing!’  Only after he comments on the event does God call to him…and he replies ‘Here I am.” The explanation of that passage is that *God wanted him to notice the remarkable occurrence. *


2. ✔ Here is one such remarkable occurrence.

The 50th anniversary of independence (1776) was anticipated by the people of this nation, the 'Golden Anniversary'! On that day, July 4th, 1826, remarkably, both Samuel Adams, 90 years old, and Thomas Jefferson, 83, were alive. What are the odds?  And what are the odds that these men, having lived to see the 50th anniversary of independence would both die on that day? The people of America recognized that remarkable occurrence as the Hand of God at work.


3. ✔And, another.  Prior to the Pilgrims landing, visits by other Europeans resulted in plague that wiped out most of the indigenous inhabitants. In fact, the Pilgrims found empty villages. But one of the residents had remained. This solitary Indian was invaluable to the Pilgrims, teaching them how to plant, hunt, and survive. What made him remain? What are the odds..... Sqanto....one fact about Squanto: he had been to England! And he was there, waiting. And he spoke English! What are the odds?


a. ✔ "Hardly four months after the _Mayflower_ reached Plymouth Rock.... an Indian reaches your outpost... he opens his mouth. He speaks English! More amazing, he does so with a British accent and the demeanor of someone who had lived and worked among England’s elite.... a Patuxet Indian, associated with the Wampanoag... lured ...onto [a British] ship, ostensibly to discuss the beaver trade. Instead, as MayflowerHistory.com explains, Hunt kidnapped them to sell them into slavery....“most dishonestly, and inhumanely, for their kind usage of me and all our men, carried them with him to Malaga, and there for a little private gain sold those silly savages for rials of eight.”

... However, local friars sabotaged his scheme. They gained custody of, freed, and Catholicized the remaining Indians, including Squanto. Squanto somehow talked his way to London... Squanto soon found himself bound for Newfoundland,... In 1619, ... Squanto crossed the Atlantic yet again. Destination: Plymouth. To Squanto’s horror, a suspected smallpox outbreak had annihilated his village. Squanto moved in with the nearby Wampanoag, including its leaders, Massasoit and Squanto’s brother Quadequina. http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...dly-indian-who-dazzled-pilgrims-deroy-murdock






4. And we are encouraged to notice other remarkable occurrences, as well. Too many overlook similarly significant events in the history of this great nation.


 When George Washington was 23, he served as a colonel in the Virginia militia. It was 1755, he was assigned to British General Braddock’s army, involved in an ambush at Monongahela. by Indians. To this day, it remains the single worst day in the annals of British military history. Of the thousand man contingent, only 23 escaped.  And only three officers survived; only one of them, unwounded. Washington. And what a target he was: 6’3” at a time when the average was 5’5”!  Two horses were shot out from under him...and he had four bullet holes in his coat! This was Washington’s comment, he was “protected beyond all human probability or expectation.”


a. Presbyterian pastor Reverend Samuel Davies, in a sermon that very year, 1755, said, “ I may point out to the public that heroic youth Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal [remarkable] a manner for some important service to his country.” http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/lessons/washington/ohio.html


b. “The really interesting part was the testimony of a pioneer woman, Mary Draper Ingles, who was captured by a band of Shawnee Indians and held in their village for several months. She overheard French officers discussing the battle of the Monongahela with their Indian allies. An Indian chief named Red Hawk said he had shot at Washington eleven times- claiming his rifle had never missed-  and then he ceased firing, convinced that the Great Spirit was protecting him….Washington’s close friend and personal physician, Dr. James Craik, later wrote of meeting an elderly Indian chief who described the same battle in which the Indians ceased firing at Washington because they were convinced he was protected by the Great Spirit.”
"Bulletproof" George


c. A little-known sidelight connected with Braddock's defeat [referring to a battle Washington fought in during The French and Indian War, under a British General named Edward Braddock] was an "Indian prophecy" pronounced fifteen years later by an aged Indian chief. In the fall of 1770, Washington and several other men traveled to the Ohio to examine some of the western lands that had been granted to colonial veterans of the French and Indian War. During that journey the men were met by an Indian trader who "declared that he was conducting a party which consisted of a grand sachem and some attendant warriors; that the chief was a very great man among the northwestern tribes, and the same who [had] commanded the Indians on the fall of Braddock.... Hearing of the visit of Colonel Washington to the western country, this chief had set out on a mission, the object of which [he] himself would make known." After the two groups had arranged themselves around a council fire, the old Indian rose and spoke to the group through an interpreter:

'I am a chief, and the ruler over many tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes, and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. 

It was on the day when the white man's blood mixed with the streams of our forest that I first beheld this chief. I called to my young men and said, Mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe-he hath an Indian's wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do-himself is alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were levelled, rifles which but for him knew not how to miss- 'twas all in vain; a power mightier far than we shielded him from harm. He cannot die in battle. 

I am old, and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades; but ere I go there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy. Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his destinies-he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire!' http://lindy1950.tripod.com/washington.html


5. And this.....During Andrew Jackson's second term, he became the first President to face an assassin's bullets. January 30th, 1835, age 67,  a gaunt and ill man, suffering from malaria and dysentery, carrying two bullets from disagreements that took place prior to his presidency, attended an official event. A stranger came up to him...within 6 feet, took out a small pistol...BANG! Jackson wasn't wounded! The stranger took out a second pistol and fired....BANG! Again....Jackson wasn't wounded. Jackson went on the attack shouting 'They can't kill me!'


The stranger was Richard Lawrence, a madman. But the pistols were tested by the army, and found that the firing occurred but neither charge ignited! When reloaded....they worked! What are the odds that two pistols misfired?

Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party....was not meant to die.


6. California is our most populous state. It's history reveals one more episode of the Hand of God in United States history. On February 2. 1848, "...  the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is signed, ending the Mexican-American War in favor of the United States. The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo added an additional 525,000 square miles to United States territory, including the area that would become the states of Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona, as well as parts of Colorado and Wyoming. "
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is signed - Feb 02, 1848 - HISTORY.com

 The US paid  $20 million to Mexico and assume up to $3 million in U.S. citizens' claims against Mexico.


a. Why is the date important?
*James Marshall* ) was an American carpenter and sawmill operator, whose discovery of gold at Suttter's Mill, in California, on January 24, 1848 set the stage for the California Gold Rush. The result was one of the fastest migrations in history: 80,000 streamed to California in one year! Had gold been discovered earlier....would Mexico have signed that treaty? Would the United States have grown so precipitously, an become a world power? What are the odds?


7. Was the nation punished by God for allowing slavery? There was a man who saw himself as an Old Testament prophet....he would often quote his favorite passage, from the Book of Job, 29:17, 'And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth." The man was strange, a failure at everything else he did, but served as a 'vessel of justice.' He attended the funeral of  Elijah Lovejoy, American Presbyterian minister, journalist, newspaper editor and abolitionist, who was murdered by pro-slavery mob in Alton, Illinois. At the funeral, 'the prophet'  raised his hand and vowed that he would destroy slavery. John Brown's aim was to fight to end slavery; "Brown’s men murdered five pro-slavery settlers in Pottawatomie on May 24, 1856 by hacking them to death with cavalry broad-swords." http://www.thetelegraph.com/opinion/columnists/article_6f8815e8-ee38-11e1-85fc-0019bb30f31a.html

a. "John Brown is chiefly remembered today for his assault on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, now West Virginia, in October of 1859. His plan was to capture the firearms and distribute them to slaves, who would then free other slaves in Virginia and the rest of the South. Ironically, the U.S. Marines who recaptured the arsenal for the federal government were led by Union Army Colonel Robert E. Lee, who in just two years would become the Confederacy’s most celebrated general.


Brown was tried, convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Five days after his sentencing, Ralph Waldo Emerson delivered a speech in Boston and proclaimed Brown to be a new saint awaiting martyrdom. If Brown is executed by hanging, Emerson said, he will make “the gallows glorious as the cross.” While awaiting execution, a jail guard asked Brown for his autograph. Instead, Brown wrote a short note that predicted the Civil War. “I, John Brown,” the note read in part, “am now quite certain that the crimes of this land will never be purged away except with blood.” Ibid.

In death, he became a prophet.


b. Newspapers throughout the nation filled with his fame...in the North, and in the South...for very different reasons.


c. He refused attempts to break him out of jail..."Some 1800 years ago, Christ was crucified. This morning, Captain Brown was hung. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light." --*Henry David Thoreau*....  "Let them hang me," John Brown had written. "I am worth inconceivably more to hang than for any other purpose." 

After a life of failure, John Brown was finally a success. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html


8. The Civil War ensued....and the Battle of Antietam. 'The Army of the Potomac, under the command of George McClellan, mounted a series of powerful assaults against Robert E. Lee’s forces near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862. It is the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with 22,717 dead, wounded, and missing on both sides combined. Battle of Antietam - Wikipedia 

For comparison, the D-Day Normandy Invasion resulted in United States – 6,603 casualties (1,465 killed)
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/media/press-releases/d-day-fact-sheet.html


a. This battle was, perhaps, more significant than Gettysburg, as Lee's plan was to attack Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and sever rail connections between the East and West. Then, he could attack anywhere in Pennsylvania, or Maryland, or Washington, D.C. This presented the hope that Britain or France would recognize the Confederacy.


b. Lee's problem was a federal garrison at Harpers' Ferry, behind him...and McClellan slowly following him with a much larger force. But he knew how 'cautious' McClellan was, so he took the chance and split his forces; he sent Stonewall Jackson to attack Harper's Ferry.


c. Then...a remarkable occurrenc: " On the morning of September 13, the 27th Indiana rested in a meadow outside of Frederick, Maryland, which had served as the site of a Confederate camp a few days before. Sergeant John Bloss and Corporal Barton W. Mitchell found a piece of paper wrapped around three cigars.....The paper was Lee's battle plan, the splitting up of his forces! Now the Confederate plan was clear. He reportedly gloated, "Here is a paper with which if I cannot whip Bobbie Lee, I will be willing to go home."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-union-discovers-lost-order


d. Antietam was not a victory for either side....but it ended Lee's plans. Three cigars saved the war for the Union. What are the odds?


9. " The *Battle of Chancellorsville* was a major battle of the American Civil War, ...fought from April 30 to May 6, 1863, in Spotsylvania County, Virginia....Chancellorsville is known as Lee's "perfect battle."
Battle of Chancellorsville - Wikipedia


a. "  The victory, a product of Lee's audacity and Hooker's timid decision making, was tempered by heavy casualties and the mortal wounding of Lt. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson to friendly fire, Confederate troops,  a loss that Lee likened to "losing my right arm." Ibid.


b. The loss of Jackson deprived Lee of one of his best generals...and might have made the Battle of Gettysburg, July, 1863, a very different event. What are the odds?


10. April 4, 1865
Lincoln dreams about a presidential assassination
According to the recollection of one of his friends, Ward Hill Lamon, President Abraham Lincoln dreams on this night in 1865 of “the subdued sobs of mourners” and a corpse lying on a catafalque in the White House East Room. In the dream, Lincoln asked a soldier standing guard “Who is dead in the White House?” to which the soldier replied, “the President….he was killed by an assassin.” Lincoln woke up at that point. On April 11, he told Lamon that the dream had “strangely annoyed” him ever since. Ten days after having the dream, Lincoln was shot dead by an assassin while attending the theater. April 4 - President Abraham Lincoln's prophetic dream about assassination that happened 10 days later | WcP Blog


The above from Michal Medved's July 4, 2013 radio show: "The Hand of God in American History."


----------



## PoliticalChic

JimBowie1958 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop reading that silly book called the Bible.
> 
> Darwin was a man of science, are you a science denier?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, there is nothing contradictory between evolution and the Bible.
> 
> “
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the *civilised races* of man will almost certainly *exterminate *and replace throughout the world the *savage races*. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
> ― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^ one of the many reasons that Darwin so popular with racists and Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which reminds me, when is the Klan rally again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont keep your schedule for you, dude.
Click to expand...



The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....

If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.



“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have someone too stupid to know just how stupid they are!!!
> Once U235 is split, it is no longer an atom of U235.
> 
> 
> 
> roflmao, the irony is thicker than a London fog
> 1) the atom still exists, it was not killed
> 2) your attempt to move the goal posts was juvenile and too predictable, idiot.
Click to expand...

Even when shown their error, they are too stupid to see their error!!!


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> A rock split into two pieces are still rocks. The rock was not killed for obvious reasons.
> 
> An atom split is not killed either for the same reasons.


You obviously never heard of an atom smasher/particle accelerator.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
Click to expand...



So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!

Let's go over the events:

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

 That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science. 


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> A rock split into two pieces are still rocks. The rock was not killed for obvious reasons.
> 
> An atom split is not killed either for the same reasons.
> 
> Maybe you need to rethink you post?



No, you seem to know little about either.  Granite is a mixture of quartz and other grains.  If you remove all the quartz you don't have granite, you may still have a rock but it is not granite.  Likewise with splitting uranium.  Once split you still have atoms but you no longer have uranium.  In theory you have rock and atoms but in practice you have very different things.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
Click to expand...

Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”


----------



## edthecynic

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rock split into two pieces are still rocks. The rock was not killed for obvious reasons.
> 
> An atom split is not killed either for the same reasons.
> 
> Maybe you need to rethink you post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seem to know little about either.  Granite is a mixture of quartz and other grains.  If you remove all the quartz you don't have granite, you may still have a rock but it is not granite.  Likewise with splitting uranium.  Once split you still have atoms but you no longer have uranium.  In theory you have rock and atoms but in practice you have very different things.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, atom smashers break atoms into their subatomic particles. The atom is no more an atom but electrons, neutrons, quarks, energy, etc.


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if the Big Bang emitted light in the visible spectrum and it would be a while before stars began showering the cosmos with photons. 

But, based in Hebrew Scriptures, we consider the start of every day to be the sunset of the previous days.  First darkness, then light.  

As a Neolithic analogy of creation goes, it's not too far off.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
Click to expand...



So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?

I've got the new symbol for your party right here:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


Scientists don't believe it was an accident.  Selection is anything but random.  So, how many completely false and stupid things have you said on this topic, now? Let's count:

1) Scientists say life came from rocks
2) Scientists say life happened from an accident
3) Scientists basically say minnows turned into elephants in 2 million years
4) Scientists haven't found any "transitional" species or fossils
5) Scientists say life came from "nothing"
6) We can't figure out if the chicken came first, or the egg
7) Scientists say life and species just "opped" into existence

When are you going to get the hint that you know less than nothing about any of this, and should probably never talk about it ever again?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> it musta been a sky daddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently men who say that the sky daddy did not do it also say that it happened by accident....only.....they never observe it happening nor can they replicate it.
> 
> That's not science
Click to expand...

No they don't, and you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
Click to expand...

There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.


----------



## Votto

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
Click to expand...


I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun in my science class.  Scientists, ya got ta love them.

That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
Click to expand...

It's liquid water, not ice, because of the Sun.  So your teacher was right.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> it musta been a sky daddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently men who say that the sky daddy did not do it also say that it happened by accident....only.....they never observe it happening nor can they replicate it.
> 
> That's not science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's liquid water, not ice, because of the Sun.  So your teacher was right.
Click to expand...


Is that why they think there might be life on one of Saturn's moons?

You dolt, the center of the earth has plenty of heat that is coming up with or without the sun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's liquid water, not ice, because of the Sun.  So your teacher was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why they think there might be life on one of Saturn's moons?
Click to expand...

 "Is that fact that the Sun keeps our planet from freezing the reason why they think there is life on one of Saturn's Moons?"..... is that gibberish? English, please!


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's liquid water, not ice, because of the Sun.  So your teacher was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why they think there might be life on one of Saturn's moons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is that fact that the Sun keeps our planet from freezing the reason why they think there is life on one of Saturn's Moons?"..... is that gibberish? English, please!
Click to expand...


So the deep sea volcanic activity would cease without the sun or would the heat not be enough to melt the ice?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's liquid water, not ice, because of the Sun.  So your teacher was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why they think there might be life on one of Saturn's moons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is that fact that the Sun keeps our planet from freezing the reason why they think there is life on one of Saturn's Moons?"..... is that gibberish? English, please!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the deep sea volcanic activity would cease without the sun or would the heat not be enough to melt the ice?
Click to expand...

Correct, it would not be enough.  Not  in our oceans, as they look today.  They would freeze solid. It would take a little while, but they would freeze entirely.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
Click to expand...

Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
Click to expand...

Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".

Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
Click to expand...




fncceo said:


> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.



Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.




So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
Click to expand...

Do show us your picture of a lunar square!

And no, atomic bonding does not diverge from the Periodic table.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> No, you seem to know little about either.  Granite is a mixture of quartz and other grains.  If you remove all the quartz you don't have granite, you may still have a rock but it is not granite.  Likewise with splitting uranium.  Once split you still have atoms but you no longer have uranium.  In theory you have rock and atoms but in practice you have very different things.


But his post did not say you get rid of the uranium-ness of the atom.

He simply said you killed the atom which is impossible since atoms are not living things.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
Click to expand...

Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.

The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.

Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?

Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?



No.  Because I understand Brownian Motion and convection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Who exactly is it that believes atoms have sentient life?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
Click to expand...

"Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "

No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.



But doesn't look a day over 4.53.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do show us your picture of a lunar square!
> 
> And no, atomic bonding does not diverge from the Periodic table.
Click to expand...

Show you a pistire of a crystal? Is your Google broken?

"Atomic bonding does not diverge from the periodic table"

I don't even know what to make of this utterly nonsensical statement.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
Click to expand...

"Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?"

No, stop making stupid, false statements that any 6-year old can look up and find they are stupid and false, and also stop trying to argue from them. I thought I was pretty clear.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you continue to ignore the *astounding similarity* between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
Click to expand...

The similarity is as different as night and day!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
Click to expand...

Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.
Click to expand...

So that chart is wrong? New life forms are emerging today?


----------



## edthecynic

Votto said:


> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun in my science class.


No you weren't! You were taught that from the pulpit.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "
> 
> No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Click to expand...

Oh, so 4.54 billion years is not enough time for your elements to become life?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?"
> 
> No, stop making stupid, false statements that any 6-year old can look up and find they are stupid and false, and also stop trying to argue from them. I thought I was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Well into this thread now, I'm still waiting for the evidence that carbon writes poetry.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Votto said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun in my science class.  Scientists, ya got ta love them.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
Click to expand...

Yep. But then they started finding life in places with no sunlight. The science was not settled!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> 
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that chart is wrong? New life forms are emerging today?
Click to expand...

I didn't even glance at your goofy chart. I get my science knowledge elsewhere.

Yes, of course new "life forms" (whatever the hell that means...aliens? Species? Tall versus short? Round versus blocky? Squishy versus hard? Speak English!!!), i.e. species, are emrging always. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Evolution is not something that can be stopped.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> 
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?"
> 
> No, stop making stupid, false statements that any 6-year old can look up and find they are stupid and false, and also stop trying to argue from them. I thought I was pretty clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well into this thread now, I'm still waiting for the evidence that carbon writes poetry.
Click to expand...


All known poetry is carbon-based.  Except Horta Poetry (which isn't very good).


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that chart is wrong? New life forms are emerging today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't even glance at your goofy chart. I get my science knowledge elsewhere.
> 
> Yes, of course new "life forms" (whatever the hell that means...aliens? Species? Tall versus short? Round versus blocky? Squishy versus hard? Speak English!!!), i.e. species, are emrging always. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Evolution is not something that can be stopped.
Click to expand...

Show us your own evolutionary tree then.
Oh wait, all evolutionary trees have a single point of origin based upon one single occurrence of life starting.

Just like Genesis.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun in my science class.  Scientists, ya got ta love them.
> 
> That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But then they started finding life in places with no sunlight. The science was not settled!
Click to expand...


Science is never settled.  That's what makes it so fun.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.


Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
Click to expand...

So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?

You have more faith than I will ever have.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that chart is wrong? New life forms are emerging today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't even glance at your goofy chart. I get my science knowledge elsewhere.
> 
> Yes, of course new "life forms" (whatever the hell that means...aliens? Species? Tall versus short? Round versus blocky? Squishy versus hard? Speak English!!!), i.e. species, are emrging always. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Evolution is not something that can be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us your own evolutionary tree then.
> Oh wait, all evolutionary trees have a single point of origin based upon one single occurrence of life starting.
> 
> Just like Genesis.
Click to expand...


Just like this ... but with molecules.


----------



## Picaro

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.



Yep. the mathematical probabilities of life evolving randomly are simply fantastic at nearly every stage of the process.


----------



## fncceo

Picaro said:


> Yep. the mathematical probabilities of life evolving randomly are simply fantastic at nearly every stage of the process.



Show your math.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> 
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?"
> 
> No, stop making stupid, false statements that any 6-year old can look up and find they are stupid and false, and also stop trying to argue from them. I thought I was pretty clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well into this thread now, I'm still waiting for the evidence that carbon writes poetry.
Click to expand...


Here's one possible explanation:

Well, considering we do not have the ability to replicate trillions of billions of chemical reactions that happened over the course of billions of years, we'll have to use the circumstantial and theoretical evidence for abiogenesis.

The strongest being, the universe, on the scale of the observable universe (matter), appears to be deterministic. So, no magic. Therefore, it follows that all life forms on this planet arose from physical interactions of matter. The most successful molecular structures are selected "for" by physical laws; else other structures would have been more successful. Given enough time and iterations, cellular life formed. As this first life diversified over billions of years, our species evolved. Sentience itself evolved in degrees, as we know from studying other primates and other vertebrates. Ability of language also evolved in degrees, as we know for the same reason. Eventually our species got so good at it, that they learned to span chasms of time and space to communicate...by writing things down.

Well that was easy. What's your explanation? Jaysus? That's not an explanation. It's the opposite of an explanation. It explains exactly nothing at all.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was told in school that life could not survive without the sun in my science class.  Scientists, ya got ta love them.
> 
> *That was before they found life at the bottom of the ocean that gets no sun*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But then they started finding life in places with no sunlight. The science was not settled!
Click to expand...

Scientists were finding life in places with no sunlight long before they were able to explore the depths of the ocean. Endoliths were first discovered in 1889.


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> Scientists were finding life in places with no sunlight long before they were able to explore the depths of the ocean. Endoliths were first discovered in 1889.



I had a roomate that was an Endolith in college.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Picaro said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. the mathematical probabilities of life evolving randomly are simply fantastic at nearly every stage of the process.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no math at hand and couldn't produce any if your life depended on it.

What you are doing is employing a fallacy often called, "Hoyle's fallacy", which is just a reiteration of Zeno's paradox. It is not valid reasoning. By this specious reasoning, you can reduce the probability of any event to virtually zero. Of course, that's absurd. Also, by this specious reasoning, you actually make the probability of all events to be equal to one another, as this same, invalid treatment can be used on the "probability" of any event, reducing it to virtually zero. Obviously, the idea that all events have equal probability is absurd. You guys are spouting creationist talking points that were debunked literally 150 years ago.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So do we see new species popping up* out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
Click to expand...

Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?"

7th grade science students are laughing at you.


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


What about all the other animals? Many of them more amazing than us. You may be asking unknowable things my friend. It's you who claims to know how


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "
> 
> No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so 4.54 billion years is not enough time for your elements to become life?
Click to expand...

It clearly is, by my arguments. Your tactics are those of a simpleton. Instead, state your claim, then argue it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another concept you are mangling. Yes, a body in space represents "order". Every celestial body is an example of local ordering. Every atom, every molecule, every chunk of anything is "order". And yes, there are square shapes in the Moon. We Earthlings call them "crystals".
> 
> Yes, molecules form and become more complex. You are 100% wrong and should just stop right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop what? Asking why you believe atoms create music and like funny cat videos?  No, it will always intrigue me.
> 
> The laws of nature dictate chemical reactions.  And everything eventually erodes, and nothing becomes more orderly once equilibrium is established.
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> Nope, you don't.  Because you know in nature chaos rules the day, not order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we know you know less than nothing about evolution. Now we also know that you know less than nothing about chaos and entropy, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that chart is wrong? New life forms are emerging today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't even glance at your goofy chart. I get my science knowledge elsewhere.
> 
> Yes, of course new "life forms" (whatever the hell that means...aliens? Species? Tall versus short? Round versus blocky? Squishy versus hard? Speak English!!!), i.e. species, are emrging always. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Evolution is not something that can be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us your own evolutionary tree then.
> Oh wait, all evolutionary trees have a single point of origin based upon one single occurrence of life starting.
> 
> Just like Genesis.
Click to expand...

Not "just like genesis", in fact, completely the opposite. 

In the Genesis myth, different kingdoms of life were popped into existence on different days. So, not a single event, but several.  And we have completely ruled out the idea of 2 humans populating the planet, which is why the apologists now just say , "They weren't the only two humans on the planet".

Also, your comparison is not based on what scientists think, because no scientist thinks all life arose from a single event. RNA , or at least its precursors, likely formed simultaneously in more than one place at one time. The concept of "one common ancestor" is a mathematical certainty.  It does not imply that there was one cell on the planet at the time.  Much as "surprise!", the apologists say about the Genesis myth, now.  


And don't take me as bashing apologists. They are the good guys, IMHO.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, theyre saying that atoms can lead to sentient life.
> 
> which they can
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "
> 
> No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so 4.54 billion years is not enough time for your elements to become life?
Click to expand...

Please, for the sake of your own self-respect, intellect, and credibility....watch this short video. Selection is not random.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Because I understand Brownian Motion and convection.
Click to expand...

True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> But doesn't look a day over 4.53.
Click to expand...

Well, personally I think the Earth is even older, as it, and our Solar System, is formed from the remnants of a star that went Supernova.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?



Yes, but entropy only increases in a closed environment.  People leave out that part.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but entropy only increases in a closed environment.  People leave out that part.
Click to expand...

What? You sit in your room with the doors and windows open?

lol

Seriously, you have a point but need we go into the details of how modern AC systems have led to the development of techniques to insulate buildings and individual rooms from the loss or gain of heat?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you sit in your room in a panic fearful all of the Oxygen will assemble themselves in one corner of the room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Because I understand Brownian Motion and convection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?
Click to expand...

Do you?


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So do we see new species popping up* out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
Click to expand...

You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So do we see new species popping up* out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.
Click to expand...

Nobody thinks that.  When you aren't saying false things on accident, you are shamelessly lying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> But doesn't look a day over 4.53.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, personally I think the Earth is even older, as it, and our Solar System, is formed from the remnants of a star that went Supernova.
Click to expand...

"Well, personally I think the Earth is even older, as it, and our Solar System, is formed from the remnants of a star that went Supernova."

It doesn't have to be older than we think for that to be true. Some stars only live a few million years.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Some stars only live a few million years.



Live fast, die young.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some stars only live a few million years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Live fast, die young.
Click to expand...


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "
> 
> No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so 4.54 billion years is not enough time for your elements to become life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, for the sake of your own self-respect, intellect, and credibility....watch this short video. Selection is not random.
Click to expand...

I liked Dawkins. Smart, funny.
And his atoms are still with us, unchanged.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So do we see new species popping up* out of the ground around us? Why not? All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks that.  When you aren't saying false things on accident, you are shamelessly lying.
Click to expand...

I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat.  Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
Takes a lot of faith to follow your religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to mix for a few billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many say the earth is older than a few billion years.  So you've got your mixing completed. All these elements required for a human are all mixed up.
> View attachment 152431
> 
> So do we see new species popping up out of the ground around us?  Why not?  All of the elements are there and have been mixing for billions of years.
> Oh wait. The claim is life only started at one single point in time. The rest is just mutations (mutations becoming more and more complex, ah!).  There are no new life forms starting since that one single blip in time.  Why is that?
> View attachment 152432
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Many say the earth is older than a few billion years. "
> 
> No they don't. Shameless lie. We know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so 4.54 billion years is not enough time for your elements to become life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, for the sake of your own self-respect, intellect, and credibility....watch this short video. Selection is not random.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I liked Dawkins. Smart, funny.
> And his atoms are still with us, unchanged.
Click to expand...

"Unchanged".... uh, wha?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks that.  When you aren't saying false things on accident, you are shamelessly lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat.  Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
> Takes a lot of faith to follow your religion.
Click to expand...

"I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat. "

That's not what he was answering.  You know this.  Everyone knows you know this.  You know everyone knows you know this.  Bizarre.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat. Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.



The 51 known rat species all belong to the genus Rattus of the family of Muroidea of the order Rodentia of the class Mammalia which also includes us.

Rats, Cats, Dogs, and Us all share a common ancestor.  Probably this guy ...


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat. Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 51 known rat species all belong to the genus Rattus of the family of Muroidea of the order Rodentia of the class Mammalia which also includes us.
> 
> Rats, Cats, Dogs, and Us all share a common ancestor.  Probably this guy ...
Click to expand...


But cats are much closer in the evolutionary tree to rats than dogs are.  Much much closer.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat. Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 51 known rat species all belong to the genus Rattus of the family of Muroidea of the order Rodentia of the class Mammalia which also includes us.
> 
> Rats, Cats, Dogs, and Us all share a common ancestor.  Probably this guy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But cats are much closer in the evolutionary tree to rats than dogs are.  Much much closer.
Click to expand...


I don't like to judge them ... but it must be why I hate cats.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But cats are much closer in the evolutionary tree to rats than dogs are.  Much much closer.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to judge them ... but it must be why I hate cats.
Click to expand...







You were saying?


----------



## JimBowie1958




----------



## fncceo

My favourite cat ...


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> My favourite cat ...


Yeah, we have a local Korean Restaurant that has BYOC Thursdays.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks that.  When you aren't saying false things on accident, you are shamelessly lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat.  Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
> Takes a lot of faith to follow your religion.
Click to expand...

You must work really hard at sounding stupid. Very hard, indeed. Quite obviously, that rat descended from another rat.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?


I'm sure YOU don't!!!


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species Discovered 2017
> Every year brings a new cohort of species into the encyclopedia of life. In the past 12 months, there have been at least 18,000 new species described.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a rat just appeared out of nowhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wherever it came from, it IS a new species of rat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one crazy dude for thinking a rat just came out of dust this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks that.  When you aren't saying false things on accident, you are shamelessly lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked if new species appeared in the evolutionary process, and the answer was yes, a rat.  Just this year a rat became life out of dirt.
> Takes a lot of faith to follow your religion.
Click to expand...

The fact that you created a Straw Man proves you know I was correct.
BTW it is the bible that claims life came from dirt.


----------



## cnm

Weatherman2020 said:


> Anyone who believes life is an accidental byproduct of an explosion long ago is saying atoms have sentient life.


The limp dick fail is strong in this one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The order of events in Genesis is astoundingly similar to what modern scientists posit.....
> 
> If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that *life forms were photosynthetic...*
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
Click to expand...



Wrong, you dunce.


1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

 That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science. 


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.



“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
Click to expand...

No Apple computers in my house either.  So?  There are likely trillions of square shapes on the moon since many minerals display that shape.  As for complexity, you are incorrect here too.  See here.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU don't!!!
Click to expand...

Entropy is the increase in disorder on a collection of atoms that have order.

Your brain is in meltdown and therefore an example of Entropy.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?


----------



## JimBowie1958

PoliticalChic said:


> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?


An alternative explanation to Genesis being about the creation of the universe is that it was an oral history of humanity surviving the Toba Extinction event. The cloud cover from that massive volcano went from the surface on up and initiated a 6 year long volcanic winter and global darkness.

The penetration of light would have been a dim vague glow initially then separating into periods of night and day as the cloud covered thinned.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

The *Toba supereruption* was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred about 75,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The *Toba catastrophe theory* holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of 6–10 years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode....

The erupted mass was 100 times greater than that of the largest volcanic eruption in recent history, the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, which caused the 1816 "Year Without a Summer" in the Northern Hemisphere.[13] Toba's erupted mass deposited an ash layer about 15 centimetres (6 inches) thick over the whole of South Asia. A blanket of volcanic ash was also deposited over the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Sea and South China Sea.[14] Deep-sea cores retrieved from the South China Sea have extended the known reach of the eruption, suggesting that the 2800 km3 calculation of the erupted mass is a minimum value or even an underestimate....

The Toba eruption apparently coincided with the onset of the last glacial period. Michael L. Rampino and Stephen Self argue that the eruption caused a "brief, dramatic cooling or 'volcanic winter'", which resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 3–5 °C and accelerated the transition from warm to cold temperatures of the last glacial cycle.[16] Evidence from Greenland ice cores indicates a 1,000-year period of low _δ_18O and increased dust deposition immediately following the eruption. The eruption may have caused this 1,000-year period of cooler temperatures (stadial), two centuries of which could be accounted for by the persistence of the Toba stratospheric loading.[17] Rampino and Self believe that global cooling was already underway at the time of the eruption, but that the process was slow; YTT "may have provided the extra 'kick' that caused the climate system to switch from warm to cold states".[18] Although Clive Oppenheimer rejects the hypothesis that the eruption triggered the last glaciation,[19] he agrees that it may have been responsible for a millennium of cool climate prior to the 19th Dansgaard-Oeschger event.[20]

According to Alan Robock, who has also published nuclear winter papers, the Toba eruption did not precipitate the last glacial period. However assuming an emission of six billion tons of sulphur dioxide, his computer simulations concluded that a maximum global cooling of approximately 15 °C occurred for three years after the eruption, and that this cooling would last for decades, devastating life....

The Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 70,000 years ago,[33][34] which may have resulted from a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate.[35]

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals.[36][37] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[38]

Proponents of the genetic bottleneck theory (including Robock) suggest that the Toba eruption resulted in a global ecological disaster, including destruction of vegetation along with severe drought in the tropical rainforest belt and in monsoonal regions. For example, a 10-year volcanic winter triggered by the eruption could have largely destroyed the food sources of humans and caused a severe reduction in population sizes.[24] Τhese environmental changes may have generated population bottlenecks in many species, including hominids;[39] this in turn may have accelerated differentiation from within the smaller human population. Therefore, the genetic differences among modern humans may reflect changes within the last 70,000 years, rather than gradual differentiation over hundreds of thousands of years.[40]

Other research has cast doubt on a link between Toba and a genetic bottleneck. For example, ancient stone tools in southern India were found above and below a thick layer of ash from the Toba eruption and were very similar across these layers, suggesting that the dust clouds from the eruption did not wipe out this local population.[41][42][43] Additional archaeological evidence from Southern and Northern India also suggests a lack of evidence for effects of the eruption on local populations, leading the authors of the study to conclude, "many forms of life survived the supereruption, contrary to other research which has suggested significant animal extinctions and genetic bottlenecks".[44] However, evidence from pollen analysis has suggested prolonged deforestation in South Asia, and some researchers have suggested that the Toba eruption may have forced humans to adopt new adaptive strategies, which may have permitted them to replace Neanderthals and "other archaic human species".[45] This has been challenged by evidence for the presence of Neanderthals in Europe and _Homo floresiensis_ in Southeastern Asia who survived the eruption by 50,000 and 60,000 years, respectively.​
Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first tribe of hominids that had language in combination with self awareness and spirituality??


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
Click to expand...

That does seem problematic, but it fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event.

The main point is that the Bible narrative is not scientific text. The events of that verse are not necessarily even meant to be interpreted as  sequential.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but you also understand Entropy also, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU don't!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Entropy is the increase in disorder on a collection of atoms that have order.
> Your brain is in meltdown and therefore an example of Entropy.
Click to expand...

I knew you had no Idea what entropy was in physics.
Thank you.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does seem problematic, but it fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how this fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event? 



JimBowie1958 said:


> The main point is that the Bible narrative is not scientific text. The events of that verse are not necessarily even meant to be interpreted as  sequential.


On this we can agree.  It is a collection of theology meant to impart the values of the Jewish people.  Same with the NT so taking either literally does each a disservice.


----------



## Picaro

PoliticalChic said:


> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:



Yes, that's pretty much it; they weren't even intellectually capable of inventing their own theory, they just stole the Genesis account and pronounced it 'science n stuff' just because they threw in some rubbish about 'genetics' and 'mutations'. Hilarious.



> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.



this is even more ignorant; the books were written by some very astute and intelligent people, quite obviously capable of writing way over your head. And, the 'flat earth' myth is just particularly stupid and illiterate nonsense:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia




> Wrong, you dunce.



Indeed. But then the vast majority of these semi-educated half-wits with high self-esteem are just peddling a blatantly political agenda, not 'science', and certainly not 'rationalism', so responding to their semantic idiocy is a big waste of time, since they can offer no empirical chain of evidence for their absurd cult's wild claims. Basic probability math is all that's necessary, and they wouldn't even remotely be able to grasp that, or they wouldn't be making these bizarre arguments in the first place.

They're only interested in promoting assorted sexual fetishes and mindless self-indulgence as some sort of 'natural rights' or something, that's all, and they see the refusal of religious people to validate their gross assortment of sicknesses as a massive roadblock to society's enthusiastic and complete affirmation of their infantile drives. They're just as ignorant as any illiterate medieval peasant, they just have a larger vocabulary to play with their ignorance and bigotry.

Note how much of their 'rationalism' parallels old-fashioned pagan brutalism in implementation just re abortions; killing babies is okay if they're 'inconvenient', and so can be sacrificed to the cult, just another variation on human sacrifices wildly popular with pagans, only they think if it's all done hidden away and in a clinic 'it's not the same thing n stuff'.


----------



## alang1216

Picaro said:


> Yes, that's pretty much it; they weren't even intellectually capable of inventing their own theory, they just stole the Genesis account and pronounced it 'science n stuff' just because they threw in some rubbish about 'genetics' and 'mutations'. Hilarious.



I would have thought believers would appreciate learning how God created.  Whatever you think of the Bible, if you believe in God then you should respect that this world is his work and studying it is learning about God.  Of course many believers think they know God and can ignore his creation.  



Picaro said:


> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is even more ignorant; the books were written by some very astute and intelligent people, quite obviously capable of writing way over your head. And, the 'flat earth' myth is just particularly stupid and illiterate nonsense:
> 
> Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Some of the ancients may have known the world was round but almost all believed the Earth was the center of the universe.  This is obvious in Genesis.



Picaro said:


> Basic probability math is all that's necessary, and they wouldn't even remotely be able to grasp that, or they wouldn't be making these bizarre arguments in the first place.



This only shows your ignorance of what you're talking about.  Evolution is NOT a random process as you've no doubt been told before.



Picaro said:


> Note how much of their parallels old-fashioned pagan brutalism in implementation just re abortions; killing babies is okay if they're 'inconvenient', and so can be sacrificed to the cult, just another variation on human sacrifices wildly popular with pagans, only they think if it's all done hidden away and in a clinic 'it's not the same thing n stuff'.



My view is that this "killing babies" garbage is nothing more than the Christian version of Sharia law.  A prohibition based, not on science but religion.  To me a fertilized egg is NOT the same as a human being.  It's no more a human than a blueprint is a building.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call an oxygen atom bonding to 2 hydrogen atoms order, we are talking at two kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to define 'order' for us?
> 
> Mine is below and seems to define crystals quite well:
> 
> or·der
> ˈôrdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *order*; plural noun: *orders*; noun: *Order
> 1*.
> the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find any apple computers on the moon?  No?  You just claimed an explosion resulted in order. Let's make it simple. Find any square shapes on the moon?  No?  What's that? Everything is eroded?  Uh. Who woulda thunk in the universe chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Apple computers in my house either.  So?  There are likely trillions of square shapes on the moon since many minerals display that shape.  As for complexity, you are incorrect here too.  See here.
Click to expand...

Wow!  There are molecules on the moon!  Thanks for letting us know, you are so learned and edjewmicated!


----------



## Weatherman2020

So has anyone found a sentient element yet?


----------



## K9Buck

Weatherman2020 said:


> So has anyone found a sentient element yet?
> View attachment 152522



I think my beer was talking to me last night.  Does that count?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wow!  There are molecules on the moon!  Thanks for letting us know, you are so learned and edjewmicated!


If you knew why do you make such ignorant statements?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  There are molecules on the moon!  Thanks for letting us know, you are so learned and edjewmicated!
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew why do you make such ignorant statements?
Click to expand...

Ignorant statements?  Like atoms write poetry and music?


----------



## K9Buck

Is it fair to say that, what makes one sentient, is the spirit that inhabits them?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ignorant statements?  Like atoms write poetry and music?


Exactly so.  I don't recall anyone else saying that.


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> Is it fair to say that, what makes one sentient, is the spirit that inhabits them?


Assuming computers become sentient in the near future as predicted, will they have a spirit too?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant statements?  Like atoms write poetry and music?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so.  I don't recall anyone else saying that.
Click to expand...

It is what the entire thread is about, dufus.

This is all you claim to be. I want to know why you think atoms like to watch funny cat videos.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that, what makes one sentient, is the spirit that inhabits them?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming computers become sentient in the near future as predicted, will they have a spirit too?
Click to expand...

Dufus and his Skynet fantasies.


----------



## miketx

The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.


----------



## K9Buck

alang1216 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that, what makes one sentient, is the spirit that inhabits them?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming computers become sentient in the near future as predicted, will they have a spirit too?
Click to expand...


Yea man.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant statements?  Like atoms write poetry and music?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so.  I don't recall anyone else saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what the entire thread is about, dufus.
> I want to know why you think atoms like to watch funny cat videos.
Click to expand...

Ignorant statements.  Do you think the bricks in my house want to keep me safe from the rain?  Yet they do.


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that, what makes one sentient, is the spirit that inhabits them?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming computers become sentient in the near future as predicted, will they have a spirit too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea man.
Click to expand...

Is that the same as a soul?


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.


People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant statements?  Like atoms write poetry and music?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so.  I don't recall anyone else saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is what the entire thread is about, dufus.
> I want to know why you think atoms like to watch funny cat videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorant statements.  Do you think the bricks in my house want to keep me safe from the rain?  Yet they do.
Click to expand...

When will the bricks play Canon in D for me?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
Click to expand...




alang1216 said:


> No one has ever said we are an accident.



Hilarious and outlandish lie.  Every child is forced to learn that BS is public school.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious and outlandish lie.  Every child is forced to learn that BS is public school.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem providing a link to a textbook or a school district's curriculum.


----------



## miketx

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
Click to expand...

Sure they have.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious and outlandish lie.  Every child is forced to learn that BS is public school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem providing a link to a textbook or a school district's curriculum.
Click to expand...

Dufus needs proof the Big Bang theory is taught in schools.


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they have.
Click to expand...

Not a very convincing argument as such.  Can you supply a link?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious and outlandish lie.  Every child is forced to learn that BS is public school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem providing a link to a textbook or a school district's curriculum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dufus needs proof the Big Bang theory is taught in schools.
Click to expand...

The big bang was an accident?  News to me, I never heard that, can you provide a link?


----------



## miketx

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a very convincing argument as such.  Can you supply a link?
Click to expand...

Why? You'll just deny it like libs always do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
Click to expand...



Isn't that clear from what you just quoted?

Have someone with a greater acuity than you have, explain that to you.

Any third grader will do.


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a very convincing argument as such.  Can you supply a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You'll just deny it like libs always do.
Click to expand...

Not a very convincing rational.  You'd almost think you don't have any source except your butt.  

I have plenty of evidence that you're wrong, I'm just not going to tell you what it is.  So there.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that clear from what you just quoted?
> 
> Have someone with a greater acuity than you have, explain that to you.
> 
> Any third grader will do.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you will explain.  If God created the light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day, what was the source of the light?


----------



## Weatherman2020

This all humans are. Why does it stare at sunsets?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that clear from what you just quoted?
> 
> Have someone with a greater acuity than you have, explain that to you.
> 
> Any third grader will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm hoping you will explain.  If God created the light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day, what was the source of the light?
Click to expand...

Stars, dufus.
And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious and outlandish lie.  Every child is forced to learn that BS is public school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem providing a link to a textbook or a school district's curriculum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dufus needs proof the Big Bang theory is taught in schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big bang was an accident?  News to me, I never heard that, can you provide a link?
Click to expand...




alang1216 said:


> The big bang was an accident? News to me, I never heard that, can you provide a link?



Ah, so dufus is trying to play both games and claim the universe was created by design while denying a creator exists.
Total moron.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God created the light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day, what was the source of the light?
> 
> 
> 
> Stars, dufus.
> And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight.
Click to expand...

You mean the stars that were created on the 4th day?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang was an accident? News to me, I never heard that, can you provide a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so dufus is trying to play both games and claim the universe was created by design while denying a creator exists.
> Total moron.
Click to expand...

Accident is not the word I'd use but it has a wide variety of definitions.  So how are crystals created, accident or design?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang was an accident? News to me, I never heard that, can you provide a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so dufus is trying to play both games and claim the universe was created by design while denying a creator exists.
> Total moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accident is not the word I'd use but it has a wide variety of definitions.  So how are crystals created, accident or design?
Click to expand...

Design, dufus.
Only an unscientific denier can attempt to claim you are an accidental byproduct of an explosion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that clear from what you just quoted?
> 
> Have someone with a greater acuity than you have, explain that to you.
> 
> Any third grader will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm hoping you will explain.  If God created the light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day, what was the source of the light?
Click to expand...




Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.

Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.                         Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
There are numerous chemical reaction that produce light...
*Exothermic* chemical *reactions* also occur in living things. Some of these *reactions release* energy as heat, and others *release* energy as *light*. Fireflies *light* up due to a*reaction* that takes place between oxygen and a chemical called luciferin. This is a type of *exothermic reaction*.
*Exothermic Reactions - ClassZone*
www.classzone.com/vpg_ebooks/ml_sci_gr8/accessibility/ml_sci.../page_290.pdf
4. Beyond that, your understanding of the idea, the meaning of "God" suffers from shortsightedness.
The concept entails the ability to do anything....including separating 'the sun' and 'light.'


----------



## Weatherman2020

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that clear from what you just quoted?
> 
> Have someone with a greater acuity than you have, explain that to you.
> 
> Any third grader will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm hoping you will explain.  If God created the light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day, what was the source of the light?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.                         Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 3. Beyond that, your understanding of the idea, the meaning of "God" suffers from shortsightedness.
> The concept entails the ability to do anything....including separating 'the sun' and 'light.'
Click to expand...

Plenty of light from the stars. Lots and lots and lots......


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Only an unscientific denier can attempt to claim you are an accidental byproduct of an explosion.


Science can provide theories that use natural laws that could reasonably lead from the big bang to poetry.  

Creationists can provide no mechanisms for anything: how did God create the heavens and earth?  Everything they say about their creator comes from their creator.  He says he is timeless, he says he is omniscient, he says he created everything.  Yet he has never offered any proof of his existence or capabilities.  And you have the gall to call me unscientific.  Sorry, I'm not convinced.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> 4. Beyond that, your understanding of the idea, the meaning of "God" suffers from shortsightedness.
> The concept entails the ability to do anything....including separating 'the sun' and 'light.'


Please don't hurt yourself doing the contortions needed to read Genesis literally.

My idea of "God" is based on the same knowledge as yours.  You just accept as fact the fantastic power attributed to "God" whereas I demand some kind of evidence.  Maybe God is lying or just ignorant?  Maybe there are other, even more powerful gods that our God is unaware of or doesn't believe in?  Maybe our God is evil but tells us he is the definition of good.  Plenty of evil things have been done in his name.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, light and the day and night cycle formed on day one and vegetation formed on day three BEFORE the sun was formed on day four.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
Click to expand...

What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who believe we are an accident believe that a tornado can blow through a wrecking yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
> 
> 
> 
> People who write statements like this really don't understand what they are talking about.  No one has ever said we are an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they have.
Click to expand...

Well you and they have been corrected, so don't say it again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Beyond that, your understanding of the idea, the meaning of "God" suffers from shortsightedness.
> The concept entails the ability to do anything....including separating 'the sun' and 'light.'
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't hurt yourself doing the contortions needed to read Genesis literally.
> 
> My idea of "God" is based on the same knowledge as yours.  You just accept as fact the fantastic power attributed to "God" whereas I demand some kind of evidence.  Maybe God is lying or just ignorant?  Maybe there are other, even more powerful gods that our God is unaware of or doesn't believe in?  Maybe our God is evil but tells us he is the definition of good.  Plenty of evil things have been done in his name.
Click to expand...



"You just accept as fact the fantastic power attributed to "God" whereas I demand some kind of evidence."

That's because you're a dunce.

You've just documented that you don't understand "God."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!
> 
> Let's go over the events:
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: *and God divided the light from the darkness*.
> 
> 
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
Click to expand...


In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.

In your case it is both specific, and eternal.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."


I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does seem problematic, but it fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how this fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event?
Click to expand...


Because the sun and moon and stars would exist prior to the thick cloud cover that cause a ten year volcanic winter and left a 15 inch layer of ash across the globe.  The humans would have witnessed the return of light, it condensing into day and night periods, the resurgence of sea life, the growth of plants and then the return of animals up the food chain.

This is fairly close to the first chapter account in Genesis.

The second chapter is more metaphorical and has no time sequence to it.



alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main point is that the Bible narrative is not scientific text. The events of that verse are not necessarily even meant to be interpreted as  sequential.
> 
> 
> 
> On this we can agree.  It is a collection of theology meant to impart the values of the Jewish people.  Same with the NT so taking either literally does each a disservice.
Click to expand...


they should be taken literally for moral teachings and events local to the time. I also think the miracles were literal.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Some of the ancients may have known the world was round but almost all believed the Earth was the center of the universe.  This is obvious in Genesis.


The Bible is a book of moral instruction whose target audience is humanity.  And so the perspective given is Earth-centric.

Since we know that all motion is relative, saying that the Earth is the center of the universe is no more wrong than any other statement of relative motion.

Its just that the mathematics are much simpler with a sun centric solar system model.

And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.

The fetus is human without a doubt.  It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> This is fairly close to the first chapter account in Genesis.



Interesting theory but I'm not sure the story would survive 70,000+ years of retelling.



JimBowie1958 said:


> they should be taken literally for moral teachings and events local to the time. I also think the miracles were literal.


I'm not sure the OT moral teachings should be emulated but I have no doubt they reflect the morality of the period.

I'd guess the local events  in both the OT and NT have some basis in history but they have been put through the wringer of theology so a bit of caution is warranted.

As to miracles, I have my doubts if they were literal.  I think they are meant to show that God is on the side of the doer and to impress pagans with God's power.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.
> 
> In your case it is both specific, and eternal.
Click to expand...

You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking  affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.
> 
> The fetus is human without a doubt.  It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/


Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry.  Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system.  Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.
> 
> In your case it is both specific, and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking  affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.
Click to expand...

Many consider your belief that carbon atoms post on USMB to be a magical belief.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.
> The fetus is human without a doubt.  It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/
> 
> 
> 
> Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry.
Click to expand...


Sure it does, but you are obfuscating a philosophical question that involves the value of human life with the biological.

It is simply biological fact that a separate new life begins at conception.  Whether that equates to 'ensoulment' or not is not a scientific question, but it is the one you are addressing and science cannot address that.



alang1216 said:


> Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system.



Dont, they are different, but both are still human.



alang1216 said:


> Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.



True science cannot tell us that, but it can tell us that it is human life.

I think all independent human life is endowed with rights no matter how intelligent or wealthy they may be.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.
> 
> The fetus is human without a doubt.  It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/
> 
> 
> 
> Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry.  Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system.  Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.
Click to expand...

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age. 

So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
> So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.



I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.

But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.

But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.


----------



## Weatherman2020

JimBowie1958 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
> So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.
> 
> But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.
> 
> But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.
Click to expand...

Pretty sick society when you go to prison for murder if you kill a wanted fetus but if mom’s mood swings and she wants it dead she’s a hero for murdering it.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
> So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.
> 
> But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.
> 
> But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.
Click to expand...

If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end?  A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors.  Is removing his life support murder?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
> So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.
> 
> But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.
> 
> But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end?  A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors.  Is removing his life support murder?
Click to expand...

I’m for that standard. 
Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.


Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end?  A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors.  Is removing his life support murder?




People have come back from 'brain dead' status to live normal lives.  They pull the plug for financial reasons mostly. Health care is an industry and the notion that they regard human life as sacred is minority at best and ridiculous at worst.

IMO if there is no discernable breathing, heart pumping, or brain activity then they are dead after about a thirty second flat line status.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
Click to expand...

I would say 12 weeks, but the point is you can get an abortion in this country up to the moment of delivery and that is abysmal.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
Click to expand...

Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
Click to expand...

What complicates the abortion question is the difference between personal morality one lives by personally vrs the morality that one wants to impose through civil law.

I want to go to church and I think everyone should, but I oppose any laws via the government that make it compulsory.

I think that ensoulment occurs at conception, but I dont think I can justify with secular reasoning (that does not depend on revelation) any restrictions prior to the first trimester.

Others see no point to splitting such hairs and are 100% on one side or the other.

But a compromise policy is doable.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
Click to expand...

I never said I knew when a human life begins.  I only know that it is somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth.


----------



## Weatherman2020

JimBowie1958 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What complicates the abortion question is the difference between personal morality one lives by personally vrs the morality that one wants to impose through civil law.
> 
> I want to go to church and I think everyone should, but I oppose any laws via the government that make it compulsory.
> 
> I think that ensoulment occurs at conception, but I dont think I can justify with secular reasoning (that does not depend on revelation) any restrictions prior to the first trimester.
> 
> Others see no point to splitting such hairs and are 100% on one side or the other.
> 
> But a compromise policy is doable.
Click to expand...

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> But a compromise policy is doable.


OMG.  This has to be a first for USMB!!!!!!


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said I knew when a human life begins.  I only know that it is somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you’re fine with killing a child with normal brain waves and a beating heart.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.


Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said I knew when a human life begins.  I only know that it is somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you’re fine with killing a child with normal brain waves and a beating heart.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you that abortion before 6 weeks was not murder.  I don't know when normal brain waves and a beating heart occurs, only that is certainly before birth.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the pro-choice side.  We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for validating my point.  Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said I knew when a human life begins.  I only know that it is somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you’re fine with killing a child with normal brain waves and a beating heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed with you that abortion before 6 weeks was not murder.  I don't know when normal brain waves and a beating heart occurs, only that is certainly before birth.
Click to expand...

Science knows. 
6 weeks.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
Click to expand...

The fact is the left even oppose making an ultrasound of the baby before abortion. 

You know why?

Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.


Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.
Click to expand...

Dude, I’m personally involved in such matters. It’s like 90%. 

And that is why the left hate it. They want that baby dead.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I’m personally involved in such matters. It’s like 90%.
> 
> And that is why the left hate it. They want that baby dead.
Click to expand...

Research indicates that some women seeking an abortion change their mind after having an ultrasound. But, while one anti-abortion organization claims a figure of nearly 90 percent for its ultrasound program among a certain group of women, there is no solid evidence to back Campos-Duffy’s sweeping claim.

 We rate her statement False.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.
Click to expand...

Then why do pro-abortion supporters so ardently oppose pre-abortion ultra sounds?


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I’m personally involved in such matters. It’s like 90%.
> 
> And that is why the left hate it. They want that baby dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Research indicates that some women seeking an abortion change their mind after having an ultrasound. But, while one anti-abortion organization claims a figure of nearly 90 percent for its ultrasound program among a certain group of women, there is no solid evidence to back Campos-Duffy’s sweeping claim.
> 
> We rate her statement False.
Click to expand...

linky no worky


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> linky no worky


curious, worked for me?

More than 90% of women change their minds about having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, Rachel Campos-Duffy says


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a compromise policy is doable.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  This has to be a first for USMB!!!!!!
Click to expand...

The compromise I am speaking of is to define the beginning of life under our secular laws as the same as the end of life.

The cessation of the heart, brain and lungs define the end of life.

Why cant the formation of the brain, lungs and heart not be sufficient to define its beginning?


----------



## JimBowie1958




----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most moms change their mind upon seeing their child.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  Only 1.6% of women, and only those unsure to begin with, change their mind.  Hardly 'most'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do pro-abortion supporters so ardently oppose pre-abortion ultra sounds?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, ultrasounds are always done before an abortion but less than 1/2 of women care to see it.  Seems like a basic right.

Why do conservatives always complain about big government overreach or gov't infringing on their 2nd amendment rights by gun control measures?


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> linky no worky
> 
> 
> 
> curious, worked for me?
> 
> More than 90% of women change their minds about having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, Rachel Campos-Duffy says
Click to expand...


It is not surprising that viewing ultrasounds under the care and direction of pro-life supporters would result in a much higher reversal rate than ultra sounds administered by abortion mill doctors.

And of course a liberal site like politifact is going to ignore the context.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a compromise policy is doable.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  This has to be a first for USMB!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The compromise I am speaking of is to define the beginning of life under our secular laws as the same as the end of life.
> 
> The cessation of the heart, brain and lungs define the end of life.
> 
> Why cant the formation of the brain, lungs and heart not be sufficient to define its beginning?
Click to expand...

The heat beats at 3 weeks but the heart and lungs don't fully develop until a few weeks before birth.  Probably not the compromise you're looking for.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Why do conservatives always complain about big government overreach or gov't infringing on their 2nd amendment rights by gun control measures?



I dont know, but I would guess that the track record for governments over the last century does not encourage anyone to trust the government.

Why do leftists always try to redefine what makes one truly human so that they can rationalize slaughtering their target populations, like Jews, Kulaks and unborn babies?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> linky no worky
> 
> 
> 
> curious, worked for me?
> 
> More than 90% of women change their minds about having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, Rachel Campos-Duffy says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not surprising that viewing ultrasounds under the care and direction of pro-life supporters would result in a much higher reversal rate than ultra sounds administered by abortion mill doctors.
> 
> And of course a liberal site like politifact is going to ignore the context.
Click to expand...

How about this: before you can buy a gun you have to look at pictures of victims of gun violence and talk to the parents of a child killed by guns.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> The heat beats at 3 weeks but the heart and lungs don't fully develop until a few weeks before birth.  Probably not the compromise you're looking for.


Define 'fully developed'.

And why would that take precedence over simply having the organs at a functioning level at all?

Do we let people die if they have damaged and not fully functional hearts, lungs or brains?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> Why do leftists always try to redefine what makes one truly human so that they can rationalize slaughtering their target populations, like Jews, Kulaks and unborn babies?


I wish it was only leftists.  Unfortunately it is everyone.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> How about this: before you can buy a gun you have to look at pictures of victims of gun violence and talk to the parents of a child killed by guns.


I would be OK with that as a part of a CCW training class.

But the civil law part was what scared me into being reluctant to use my gun, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do leftists always try to redefine what makes one truly human so that they can rationalize slaughtering their target populations, like Jews, Kulaks and unborn babies?
> 
> 
> 
> I wish it was only leftists.  Unfortunately it is everyone.
Click to expand...

No, not everyone.

Only those who replace traditional morality with made up nonsense.

At least under the Inquisition you still had a few rights the prosecutors had to respect.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> Do we let people die if they have damaged and not fully functional [...] brains?


Yes.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we let people die if they have damaged and not fully functional [...] brains?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

No, we do not, Gawd forbid.


----------



## danielpalos

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


AnCap theory could claim that Capitalism will happen, given enough time and enough, open interest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.
> 
> In your case it is both specific, and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking  affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many consider your belief that carbon atoms post on USMB to be a magical belief.
Click to expand...

Well whoever thinks that is obviously a delusional idiot, as here we are, two sacks of chemicals, posting on a message board. I think you should work on articulating yourself a bit more well


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> No, not everyone.
> 
> Only those who replace traditional morality with made up nonsense.
> 
> At least under the Inquisition you still had a few rights the prosecutors had to respect.


Whose tradition?  I'm sure having rights was a relief to those being burned at the stake.

signing off


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end?  A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors.  Is removing his life support murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have come back from 'brain dead' status to live normal lives.  They pull the plug for financial reasons mostly. Health care is an industry and the notion that they regard human life as sacred is minority at best and ridiculous at worst.
> 
> IMO if there is no discernable breathing, heart pumping, or brain activity then they are dead after about a thirty second flat line status.
Click to expand...

"People have come back from 'brain dead' status to live normal lives."

False.. In  any case where that was implied, brain death was misdiagnosed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.
Click to expand...


" I think I understand God just fine,"

Actually....we've proven that you don't.

The *attributes of God* are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.



*Contents*
  [1Classification

2Enumeration
2.1Aseity
2.2Eternity
2.3Goodness
2.4Graciousness
2.5Holiness
2.6Immanence
2.7Immutability
2.8Impassibility
2.9Impeccability
2.10Incomprehensibility
2.11Incorporeality
2.12Infinity
2.13Jealousy
2.14Love
2.15Mission
2.16Mystery
2.17Omnipotence
2.18Omnipresence
2.19Omniscience
2.20Oneness
2.21Providence
2.22Righteousness
2.23Simplicity
2.24Sovereignty
2.25Transcendence
2.26Trinity
2.27Veracity
2.28Wrath

Attributes of God in Christianity - Wikipedia


Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.

Now...as far as 
" I think I understand God just fine,".....
* "Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?*



What is it that God cannot do?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?
> 
> I've got the new symbol for your party right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.
> 
> In your case it is both specific, and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking  affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.
Click to expand...




How many times must you be proven to be a low-level dunce?

Shouldn't once be sufficient?


Let's review:
The events and the order of those events as outlined in the book of Genesis mirror the very same event and order of events posited by modern evolutionary biologists.


This:
1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

 That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science. 


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone.
> 
> Only those who replace traditional morality with made up nonsense.
> 
> At least under the Inquisition you still had a few rights the prosecutors had to respect.
> 
> 
> 
> Whose tradition?  I'm sure having rights was a relief to those being burned at the stake.
> 
> signing off
Click to expand...



Lol, only a few thousand were burned at the stake and they had various rights from appealing to the Pope to criminal procedures through the local secular government.

Compared to the atheistic-secular regimes of the last centuries that was nothing.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I think I understand God just fine,"
> 
> Actually....we've proven that you don't.
> 
> The *attributes of God* are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.
> 
> Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.
> 
> Now...as far as
> " I think I understand God just fine,".....
> * "Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?*
> 
> What is it that God cannot do?
Click to expand...

Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.

As for what God cannot do: laugh.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone.
> 
> Only those who replace traditional morality with made up nonsense.
> 
> At least under the Inquisition you still had a few rights the prosecutors had to respect.
> 
> 
> 
> Whose tradition?  I'm sure having rights was a relief to those being burned at the stake.
> 
> signing off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, only a few thousand were burned at the stake and they had various rights from appealing to the Pope to criminal procedures through the local secular government.
> 
> Compared to the atheistic-secular regimes of the last centuries that was nothing.
Click to expand...

A difference of degree but not of kind.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the atheistic-secular regimes of the last centuries that was nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> A difference of degree but not of kind.
Click to expand...

One is a religious organization that existed for over a thousand years and has had a body of ecclesiastical law that everyone has to abide by, even the Pope.

The others are made up ideological bullshit that dehumanized huge swaths of the human race and put them to death.

No, I am not groking the similarity in kind, not at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.



I wouldnt say that Christians know more than you do, but I would say that the accumulated wisdom of the church is more impressive, steady and helpful than any person as an individual.



alang1216 said:


> As for what God cannot do: laugh.



oh, I dont know about that......

he made Starkey


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I think I understand God just fine,"
> 
> Actually....we've proven that you don't.
> 
> The *attributes of God* are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.
> 
> Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.
> 
> Now...as far as
> " I think I understand God just fine,".....
> * "Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?*
> 
> What is it that God cannot do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.
> 
> As for what God cannot do: laugh.
Click to expand...




Because you're not entitled to make up your own definitions for commonly accepted terms.

Even a dunce like you should understand that.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the atheistic-secular regimes of the last centuries that was nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> A difference of degree but not of kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One is a religious organization that existed for over a thousand years and has had a body of ecclesiastical law that everyone has to abide by, even the Pope.
> 
> The others are made up ideological bullshit that dehumanized huge swaths of the human race and put them to death.
> 
> No, I am not groking the similarity in kind, not at all.
Click to expand...

A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.


Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt say that Christians know more than you do, but I would say that the accumulated wisdom of the church is more impressive, steady and helpful than any person as an individual.
Click to expand...

All that knowledge purportedly came from a single individual (God) yet is rife with contradictions.  I'd like to see some independent verification.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.
> 
> Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.
Click to expand...

again a difference of degree not of kind


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I think I understand God just fine,"
> 
> Actually....we've proven that you don't.
> 
> The *attributes of God* are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.
> 
> Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.
> 
> Now...as far as
> " I think I understand God just fine,".....
> * "Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?*
> 
> What is it that God cannot do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.
> 
> As for what God cannot do: laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're not entitled to make up your own definitions for commonly accepted terms.
> 
> Even a dunce like you should understand that.
Click to expand...

What I do understand is this semantic loop you're in.  God is great because he says he is great so therefore he is great.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just documented that you don't understand "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God.  Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right.  It means I prefer rationality to faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I think I understand God just fine,"
> 
> Actually....we've proven that you don't.
> 
> The *attributes of God* are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.
> 
> Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.
> 
> Now...as far as
> " I think I understand God just fine,".....
> * "Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?*
> 
> What is it that God cannot do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do?  Saying you do is not convincing at all.
> 
> As for what God cannot do: laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're not entitled to make up your own definitions for commonly accepted terms.
> 
> Even a dunce like you should understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do understand is this semantic loop you're in.  God is great because he says he is great so therefore he is great.
Click to expand...



I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.

Of course, I won't allow it.

The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.

I gave the only correct answer.

And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.


Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?

You need not respond.


----------



## rightwinger

All it takes is a jump from chemistry to biochemistry


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.
> 
> Of course, I won't allow it.
> 
> The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.
> 
> I gave the only correct answer.
> 
> And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.
> 
> 
> Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?
> 
> You need not respond.


Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.
> 
> Of course, I won't allow it.
> 
> The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.
> 
> I gave the only correct answer.
> 
> And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.
> 
> 
> Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?
> 
> You need not respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.
Click to expand...




Why are you back?

I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.

*You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.   


Now....why are you back?*


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Why are you back?
> 
> I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.
> 
> *You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.
> 
> 
> Now....why are you back?*


Like the concept of God, saying I'm a buffoon does not make me a buffoon and you obviously think way more of your intellect than I do.  Every time you feel the  need to insult me I feel I've had a little victory.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.
> 
> *You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.
> 
> 
> Now....why are you back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Like the concept of God, saying I'm a buffoon does not make me a buffoon and you obviously think way more of your intellect than I do.  Every time you feel the  need to insult me I feel I've had a little victory.
Click to expand...



I didn't just SAY you're a buffoon.....we worked together to PROVE you to be a buffoon.

I gave the accepted definition of God....and you've continued to claim the right to make up a pretend definition.
Both five year olds, and mental five year olds claim that 'right.'

QED....you're a buffoon.

Any questions?




Oh....and don't forget....Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.
> 
> Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.
Click to expand...




I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.


a. Before the Russian Revolution, the number of execution by the czarist government came to seventeen (17) per year, according to Solzhenitsyn. He pointed out that, in comparison, *the Spanish Inquisition, at its height, destroyed 10 people per month.*

But, during the revolutionary years 1918-1919, Lenin's Cheka executed, without trial, more than one thousand (1,000) people a month.
At the height of Stalin's terror, 1937-1938, tens of thousands of people were shot per month. Solzhenitsyn, "Warning To The West."


b. From Solzhenitsyn's "Warning To The West,"... "Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1 ,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy ofthe world — England, France, the United States, Canada, and other small countries — from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is this to be explained? How can we understand it? " Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Oh....and don't forget....Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.


Thank you, I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed middle school.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.


I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
Click to expand...



What???

You demand yet another lesson????

Well....as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal....OK>

"rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement."

Astounding how many errors a buffoon like you can squeeze into a single sentence.





1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.

a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
Challenge me on that.

b. As an example...
Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
 Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'




2. *Liberals, Socialists, Communists....and Nazis *are peas in the same pod.

a. "*Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian*
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

*1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.*

*2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

*

b. "American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, *“leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, *even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."
*Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?*


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.
> 
> 
> 
> again a difference of degree not of kind
Click to expand...

You see mo difference between a legal process that actually cleared many accused in Spain, vrs a bunch of show trials and most of the starv3ed were never charged. They were simply refused food till they died.

You see no difference?

Methinks your anti-Catholic bigotry is eating you up, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
Click to expand...

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.


Of course every religion can define theological terms to suit their own theology.

Why is this a point of contention?


----------



## ScienceRocks

This is a joke thread?

Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well. How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.
> 
> 
> 
> again a difference of degree not of kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see mo difference between a legal process that actually cleared many accused in Spain, vrs a bunch of show trials and most of the starv3ed were never charged. They were simply refused food till they died.
> 
> You see no difference?
> 
> Methinks your anti-Catholic bigotry is eating you up, dude.
Click to expand...

If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal.  Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD.  The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
Click to expand...




Pretty clear to me....


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> It is a simple issue.  Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.


Evidently, they do

We are all made up of atoms


----------



## ScienceRocks

PoliticalChic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
Click to expand...



I bet you religious fuckers would love to silence any talk of science. Fucking liars.

We're the ones that use real evidence...So don't be surprised when your dumb belief that is based on nothing is called out.

What a dumb bitch.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Dumb religious idiots,,,

I aint silencing you but you have NO evidence for your belief. I have mountains of evidence for physics and chemistry. lol

Its a joke.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I'll say it right now that I now reject the god of idiocy. Seems to be the same god of radical islam!

Fuck em.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> *Stars*, dufus.
> And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight


Yeah, the Daystar, AKA the Sun, but it was not created until the 4th day.


----------



## ScienceRocks

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stars*, dufus.
> And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Daystar, AKA the Sun, but it was not created until the 4th day.
Click to expand...


The galaxy's and the stars that make up them were around 3 times as long as our stupid little planet. 

Our planet isn't important and there's probably billions like it.


----------



## cnm

_Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Sentience - Wikipedia_​
Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.


----------



## jillian

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
Click to expand...


the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ScienceRocks said:


> This is a joke thread?
> 
> Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well.



Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis.  There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.



ScienceRocks said:


> How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??



You have it backwards.

Space/time came out of the Creator.


----------



## Weatherman2020

jillian said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.
Click to expand...

Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.


----------



## JimBowie1958

PoliticalChic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
Click to expand...


I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.


----------



## G.T.

jillian said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.
Click to expand...

its good comedy, though


----------



## cnm

JimBowie1958 said:


> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.


Science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. Once again for the scientific illiterates.


----------



## G.T.

Weatherman2020 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.
Click to expand...

carbon atoms dont talk

youre welcome


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal.  Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD.  The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.



Well there is part of your problem, you dont understand why these people were put to death.

Plenty of Jews lived in Europe with no problem with the church.

You should unlearn what you think you have learned on this topic if you want to grasp the Truth of the matter.

You do subscribe to the notion of Objective Truth, do you not?

BTW, I am not trying to offend you or put you off with cheap shots or whatever.  And I am not trying to convert you to anything, as I do not ever want that responsibility again anyway.

I simply want to reason with you and come to an accurate mutual understanding.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ScienceRocks said:


> I bet you religious fuckers would love to silence any talk of science. Fucking liars.



Modern science began as the effort of Christians to apply the scientific method to various bodies of knowledge.

Thus Astrology became Astronomy, Alchemy became Chemistry, etc.

So why did we invent something to only silence it later when it still serves our purpose?



ScienceRocks said:


> We're the ones that use real evidence...



Lol, you mean like Piltdown Man or Bokop Man?

That kind of real evidence?  lolol



ScienceRocks said:


> So don't be surprised when your dumb belief that is based on nothing is called out.



Religious belief is not based on nothing, Sherlock.

Have you found that list of Scientific axioms yet, genius?



ScienceRocks said:


> What a dumb bitch.



She is easily twice as smart as you are, child.


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.
> 
> 
> 
> carbon atoms dont talk
Click to expand...


No shit


----------



## JimBowie1958

G.T. said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.
> 
> 
> 
> its good comedy, though
Click to expand...

Sure is, between you, jilian and ScienceRocks the whole thread is a gut busting orgy of laughter.


----------



## jillian

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.
> 
> 
> 
> its good comedy, though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is, between you, jilian and ScienceRocks the whole thread is a gut busting orgy of laughter.
Click to expand...


sub literate science denying trumptards wouldn't know what's funny if it bit them.

gotta love the juxtaposition of the cross and the cross-hairs of a scope in your avi.... seems you confuse religion and guns.

thanks for playing though.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Biblical recounting of evolution.  the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders.  they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round.  Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was.  No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.
> 
> In your case it is both specific, and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking  affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must you be proven to be a low-level dunce?
> 
> Shouldn't once be sufficient?
> 
> 
> Let's review:
> The events and the order of those events as outlined in the book of Genesis mirror the very same event and order of events posited by modern evolutionary biologists.
> 
> 
> This:
> 1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> 
> a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4:  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness _was_ upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that _it was_ good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which _were_ under the firmament from the waters which _were_ above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry_land_ appear: and it was so. And God called the dry _land_ Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.  What a coincidence….or confluence.
> 
> 
> Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.
> 
> 
> a. Genesis 1: 11-12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
> 
> 
> b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on;  in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of *autotrophs,* or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion-  the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 
> Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’
> 
> 
> Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it?  But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.
> 
> a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect
> 
> 
> b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . .  I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
> 
> ....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.
> 
> How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
> 
> That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?
> 
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.
> 
> 
> a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing-  but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.
> 
> 
> b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.
> 
> 
> 6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?
> 
> Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
> 
> 
> The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
> 
> 
> Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!
> 
> 
> The alternative explanation is divine intervention.
Click to expand...

All made-to-fit nonsense.  How convenient and easy for you.  I imagine i could pull the same trick with any religious text.  And I'm sure that goes for more than just evolution. But it would be boring, and a waste of time. Peddle that nonsense to someone else.


----------



## rightwinger

The periodic table has not changed
The basic hydrocarbons that make life have not changed

What does it take to create life?  
The right climate and the correct alignment of molecules

Is life being created today?
It very well may be. We may have new single cell organisms being created all the time and not realize it


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke thread?
> 
> Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis.  There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.
> 
> Space/time came out of the Creator.
Click to expand...

"Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven."

 Physics and chemistry (we can just say physics) _can _explain abiogenesis.  Whether not not these _hypotheses_ become _scientific theories _depends on the theoretical and empirical support they get.

Also, you set an absurd standard.  You are not being rational.  You would not demand the replication of the formation of Earth in the lab in order to know the truth that it has an iron core, nor would you demand that we watch a lump of an isotope for 2 million years to know the isotope has a half-life of 2 million years.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
Click to expand...

I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.
Click to expand...

You are not sentient


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not sentient
Click to expand...

Is that you're way of admitting that you're a creationist?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> Is that you're way of admitting that you're a creationist?


That is his way of saying that you keep posting over his head.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.



Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity.  The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.

It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Correct, there is debate as to *when we become a person. Bible says in the womb*, but not a specific age.


Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.

Adam represents mankind in the bible, otherwise original sin and mankind's need for redemption would be meaningless.

Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.*


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> 2.17Omnipotence


*Even God cannot change the past.*

*- Agathon*


----------



## edthecynic

cnm said:


> _Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
> Sentience - Wikipedia_​Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.


It can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!


----------



## cnm

edthecynic said:


> It can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!


Go to it.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.
> 
> a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
> Challenge me on that.
> 
> b. As an example...
> Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'
> 
> 
> 
> We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know.  I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election.
> 
> Just don't try to use ObamaCare as an example since it uses private insurance companies, hospitals, & doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course every religion can define theological terms to suit their own theology.
> 
> Why is this a point of contention?
Click to expand...

Agreed but *PoliticalChic* seemed to think that her Christian definition was the only valid definition.  I was just trying in my own bumbling way to say what you said.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JimBowie1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
Click to expand...




Point of Order!!!


Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.

Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.

*How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
*by Jim Peron*

Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.

*[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”

Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”

Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
*[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
Click to expand...

Off topic Frau Braun


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
Click to expand...

I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal.  Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD.  The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is part of your problem, you dont understand why these people were put to death.
> 
> Plenty of Jews lived in Europe with no problem with the church.
> 
> You should unlearn what you think you have learned on this topic if you want to grasp the Truth of the matter.
Click to expand...


I'm no historian but my understanding is that the Inquisition was the judicial arm of the Catholic Church run by local Church officials.  As such there was large variation as to how the edicts of the Pope were carried out.  In Spain, the monarchy persecuted and expelled Jews and forced their conversion. 

"The history of the Jews [after 1492] in Spain is that of the conversos, whose numbers, as has been shown, had been increased by no less than 50,000 during the period of expulsion to a total of maybe 300,000. For three centuries after expulsion, Spanish Conversos were subject to suspicion by the Spanish Inquisition which executed over 3000 people in the 1570-1700 period on charges of heresy (including Judaism among other). They were also subject to more general discriminatory laws of known as "limpieza de sangre" which required Spaniards to demonstrate "old Christian" background in order to access certain positions of authority."



JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do subscribe to the notion of Objective Truth, do you not?
> 
> BTW, I am not trying to offend you or put you off with cheap shots or whatever.  And I am not trying to convert you to anything, as I do not ever want that responsibility again anyway.
> 
> I simply want to reason with you and come to an accurate mutual understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in 'Objective Truth' but I call it science.
> 
> I do appreciate conversing with an adult, there are too few on USMB.
> 
> My goal is to make one person think critically about what they believe and why they believe it.
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
Click to expand...



That, of course has no meaning with respect to the powers attributed to God in the Judeo-Christian understanding.


Not only can God change the past, but your god, Communism, thrived on exactly that.



The first defector, Victor Kravchenko revealed that the Communists did in reality what Winston Smith did in "1984,"....
*
"*_*Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.* 

It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed. The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot. _

_a. . *The new history" became possible.* To brand the shame more deeply on our minds, "study" of the new version was made obligatory for all responsible Party people. History classes met nearly every night in this period and lecturers from Sverdlovsk came to our town to help hammer home the lies, while most of us fumed inwardly. Whatever human dignity remained in our character was humiliated.. *But even the most gigantic lie, by dint of infinite repetition, takes root; Stalin knew this before Hitler discovered it. *As I looked on I could see terrible falsehoods, at first accepted under pressure, become established as unquestioned "facts," particularly among younger people without personal experience to the contrary to bother them."_
Text collection


Bulletin: Stalin never gave up communism, international socialism.

It lives on in his creation, the United Nations.




Now, can we agree that you are simply an uneducated dunce, the fodder of Liberalism?


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.
> 
> a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
> Challenge me on that.
> 
> b. As an example...
> Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'
> 
> 
> 
> We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know.  I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election.
> 
> Just don't try to use ObamaCare as an example since it uses private insurance companies, hospitals, & doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



"We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election."


Let's check.


How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.


Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:

......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce



Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"*Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof*

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.*Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917*(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.


They didn't call it ObamaCare....or 'single payer'....but it was.




*....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University*


President Barack *Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism,* claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.”
Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism [VIDEO]






_Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?_


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
Click to expand...




Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?

She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.




Call me Betsy Ross.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party...
> 
> _Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?_



Not hardly since your case is very weak.  

ObamaCare is not government healthcare.  The VA is and is very popular with the GOP.  Are they commies?

Increased cap gains and inheritance tax are supported by Warren Buffet.  Is he a commie?

How can anyone object to President Barack Obama suggesting we “just choose from what works.”  Is that communism or just common sense?  Or are you so much an ideologue that results don't matter?  Are you a commie?

(Thanks for not trying to insult me this time.)


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party...
> 
> _Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly since your case is very weak.
> 
> ObamaCare is not government healthcare.  The VA is and is very popular with the GOP.  Are they commies?
> 
> Increased cap gains and inheritance tax are supported by Warren Buffet.  Is he a commie?
> 
> How can anyone object to President Barack Obama suggesting we “just choose from what works.”  Is that communism or just common sense?  Or are you so much an ideologue that results don't matter?  Are you a commie?
> 
> (Thanks for not trying to insult me this time.)
Click to expand...



You said this:

"We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election."


And I proved the very opposite is the case, here:

Let's check.


How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.


Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:

......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce



Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"*Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof*

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.*Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917*(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.


They didn't call it ObamaCare....or 'single payer'....but it was.




*....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University*


President Barack *Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism,* claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.”
Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism



And now you're running from it like your tail is on fire.


I won, huh?

.....and you're really embarrassed at having been co-opted into supporting communism.


----------



## fncceo

Has this topic strayed seriously off course?


----------



## alang1216

fncceo said:


> Has this topic strayed seriously off course?


My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...
Click to expand...


Conservatives backed the king during the revolution
Our founders were the greatest liberals of the day and some of the greatest liberals in history. All men are created equal was quite a concept......a concept that conservatives of the day despised


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?
> 
> She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
> Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me Betsy Ross.
Click to expand...


Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives backed the king during the revolution
> Our founders were the greatest liberals of the day and some of the greatest liberals in history. All men are created equal was quite a concept......a concept that conservatives of the day despised
Click to expand...



Simple enough to prove that you post is as honest as your avi.

Which of these six embrace the values on which our country was founded:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government?

These?
Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism or Progressivism.


Right....none.


How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?
> 
> She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
> Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me Betsy Ross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
Click to expand...



Stalin was the Nazi sympathizer
Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer

 If a = b and b = c, then a = c


So...you failed math as well as honesty?



Don't forget....either Betsy Ross, or Princess.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.
> 
> Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.
> 
> Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?
> 
> She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
> Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me Betsy Ross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was the Nazi sympathizer
> Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer
> 
> If a = b and b = c, then a = c
> 
> 
> So...you failed math as well as honesty?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget....either Betsy Ross, or Princess.
Click to expand...


Both opposed Hitler
You do not Frau Braun


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity.  The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.
> 
> It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.
Click to expand...

None of which are life.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point of Order!!!
> 
> 
> Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
> 
> Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.
> 
> *How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels*
> *by Jim Peron*
> 
> Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
> The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
> Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
> 
> *[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.*
> In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book _Individualism Old and New_ argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
> But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
> 
> Peter Witonski, in his essay _The Historical Roots of American Planning_ said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
> The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book _Liberalism and Social Action,_ Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
> 
> Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
> *[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic Frau Braun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?
> 
> She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
> Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me Betsy Ross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was the Nazi sympathizer
> Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer
> 
> If a = b and b = c, then a = c
> 
> 
> So...you failed math as well as honesty?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget....either Betsy Ross, or Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both opposed Hitler
> You do not Frau Braun
Click to expand...




No, you dunce....Both Nazism and Communism come from the same source, and lead to the same conclusion.


Stalin taught Hitler and supported Hitler.

1. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan." Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin –materials to be provided in later economic agreements.

a. "1939- At the same time,* Stalin helps supply the German war effort, providing the Nazi regime with oil, wood, copper, manganese ore, rubber, grain, and other resources* under a trade agreement between the two nations. Stalin views the war against Germany as a conflict "between two groups of capitalist countries", saying there is "nothing wrong in their having a good fight and weakening each other." Georgy Zhukov hero file @ moreorless.net.au



3. September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.



And Roosevelt yearned to be part of the 'dictator's club.'

Must have been a tough decision for FDR on June 21, 1941 when he two buddies had a falling out, huh?

How did you decide which to support????


Halloween's a-comin'....
OK....so, I'm Betsy Ross, and you can be Joseph Stalin?


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity.  The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.
> 
> It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.
Click to expand...

But that is still far far away from even a simple virus.

I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.


----------



## Weatherman2020

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to *when we become a person. Bible says in the womb*, but not a specific age.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.
> 
> Adam represents mankind in the bible, otherwise original sin and mankind's need for redemption would be meaningless.
> 
> Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.*
Click to expand...

Why do all Christian haters think they are Bible scholars?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
Click to expand...

He has no need to.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.
Click to expand...

So again, atoms are sentient?


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
> Sentience - Wikipedia_​Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to *when we become a person. Bible says in the womb*, but not a specific age.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.
> 
> Adam represents mankind in the bible, otherwise original sin and mankind's need for redemption would be meaningless.
> 
> Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.*
Click to expand...

He was priming the pump with His first human being.

That does not prove a rule, dude, but good point.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.
Click to expand...

Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> So again, atoms are sentient?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again, atoms are sentient?
Click to expand...

Basic question why you believe a carbon atom is interested in writing poetry.

The fact you have no answer for your belief is an answer in itself.


----------



## fncceo

Not a building ...







But that of which buildings are made ...


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Not a building ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that of which buildings are made ...


For the 40th time, tell us which atoms talk to each other in what combination that make them want to watch funny cat videos.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.



Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.

To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades.  Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.
> 
> To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades.  Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.
Click to expand...

Amino acid is not life.
Again, which atoms and in what combination are posting on USMB right now and why?
Why did evolution just start life at one single point in time? Why are we not seeing new life forms emerge from the mud today?


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal.  Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD.  The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is part of your problem, you dont understand why these people were put to death.
> 
> Plenty of Jews lived in Europe with no problem with the church.
> 
> You should unlearn what you think you have learned on this topic if you want to grasp the Truth of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm no historian but my understanding is that the Inquisition was the judicial arm of the Catholic Church run by local Church officials.  As such there was large variation as to how the edicts of the Pope were carried out.  In Spain, the monarchy persecuted and expelled Jews and forced their conversion.
> 
> "The history of the Jews [after 1492] in Spain is that of the conversos, whose numbers, as has been shown, had been increased by no less than 50,000 during the period of expulsion to a total of maybe 300,000. For three centuries after expulsion, Spanish Conversos were subject to suspicion by the Spanish Inquisition which executed over 3000 people in the 1570-1700 period on charges of heresy (including Judaism among other). They were also subject to more general discriminatory laws of known as "limpieza de sangre" which required Spaniards to demonstrate "old Christian" background in order to access certain positions of authority."
Click to expand...


The people were executed by civil authorities for violations of civil law, which at that time were not very tolerant.

Spain was a problem more because the civil government rulers sere strident 'Triumphalists' who believed that they were serving God by purging Spain of all nonChristians, to include expelling Muslims as well as Jews. The Inquisition was brought in to determine if the convert had 'relapsed' and returned to their prior faith in secret. But it was the secular government that executed them.

And I think the execution of 3000 over more than a century demonstrates a clear substantial difference between Spain and Stalins reign in which as many as 30 to 50 million were slaughtered or starved to death.

When you have logarithmic difference in scale that always points to a difference in quality/substance and not merely quantity.



alang1216 said:


> My goal is to make one person think critically about what they believe and why they believe it.



I have no goals really than to make people aware of the disruptive effects of the coming Robotics Revolution. Mostly I just want to have some good conversations about interesting topics.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why did evolution just start life at one single point in time? Why are we not seeing new life forms emerge from the mud today?



Are you being serious?  Did you sleep through twelve semesters of science classes?


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.
> 
> To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades.  Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.
Click to expand...


I think one day science will discover a process to replicate abiogenesis, as I think the Creator used natural processes to do everything He has done.

But I do not think the OP's point can or will ever be replicated and that is the creation of sentient life through random processes.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So again, atoms are sentient?
Click to expand...

You're trying to make a point that is too stupid for me to bother refuting.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.
> 
> To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades.  Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amino acid is not life.
> Again, which atoms and in what combination are posting on USMB right now and why?
> Why did evolution just start life at one single point in time? Why are we not seeing new life forms emerge from the mud today?
> View attachment 152655
Click to expand...

There very well may be new forms of life emerging every day

Single cell life
Life that may only survive for a short period of time
Life that merges with existing forms of life

We have not catalogued every single cell organism that exists. There may very well be new life forms that have emerged over the last million years


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> But I do not think the OP's point can or will ever be replicated and that is the creation of sentient life through random processes.



The OP is very confused about the nature of atoms and molecules and can't quite grip onto the fact that one is built upon the other.

Abiogenesis is the spontaneous creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements and it's been amply demonstrated that it occurs spontaneously under very primitive conditions.

Creation of life isn't random, it's the nature of some elements like carbon and silicon to bond naturally with other elements and that bonding leads to organic molecules.  Repeated bondings create more and more complex molecules and those molecules perform functions based on their chemistry.

What put this chain of causality in motion could easily be called G-d as it is something that is outside of our three-dimensional space-time.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.
Click to expand...

I always appreciate being told what I believe in.  Especially when it is completely wrong.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did evolution just start life at one single point in time? Why are we not seeing new life forms emerge from the mud today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being serious?  Did you sleep through twelve semesters of science classes?
Click to expand...

Yes, I must have been sleeping. So educate me on which atoms like watching sunsets and why life only started at one single point in time.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always appreciate being told what I believe in.  Especially when it is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

So you believe there is something beyond matter which is life?


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> The people were executed by civil authorities for violations of civil law, which at that time were not very tolerant.



Just to be clear.  Are you arguing in favour of the Spanish Inquisition and the expelling and forced conversions of a million Jews from Spain?


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> The OP is very confused about the nature of atoms and molecules and can't quite grip onto the fact that one is built upon the other.



He is using a humorous phrasing to illustrate the limits of materialistic causes and effects.



fncceo said:


> Abiogenesis is the spontaneous creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements and it's been amply demonstrated that it occurs spontaneously under very primitive conditions.



And yet not even a virus has been shown to have been brewed in any of these primitive broths.



fncceo said:


> Creation of life isn't random, it's the nature of some elements like carbon and silicon to bond naturally with other elements and that bonding leads to organic molecules.  Repeated bondings create more and more complex molecules and those molecules perform functions based on their chemistry.



Yes, CREATION of life is not random but the circumstances that give rise to it are.  If there is a magic formula to create a virus, and I think there is, then the circumstances by which that formula came into effect was obviously random, but not the formula itself.



fncceo said:


> What put this chain of causality in motion could easily be called G-d as it is something that is outside of our three-dimensional space-time.



Well, true, but the Big Bang kind of makes the formation of a virus kids play by comparison, dont you think?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I do not think the OP's point can or will ever be replicated and that is the creation of sentient life through random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is very confused about the nature of atoms and molecules and can't quite grip onto the fact that one is built upon the other.
> 
> Abiogenesis is the spontaneous creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements and it's been amply demonstrated that it occurs spontaneously under very primitive conditions.
> 
> Creation of life isn't random, it's the nature of some elements like carbon and silicon to bond naturally with other elements and that bonding leads to organic molecules.  Repeated bondings create more and more complex molecules and those molecules perform functions based on their chemistry.
> 
> What put this chain of causality in motion could easily be called G-d as it is something that is outside of our three-dimensional space-time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we already know what molecules are in our bodies.
So which ones like funny cat videos?


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Well, true, but the Big Bang kind of makes the formation of a virus kids play by comparison, dont you think?



The Big Bang explains the development of our Universe.  But doesn't attempt to explain the conditions that created a universal singularity.  

It's very safe to assume there is some very 'next-level' stuff going on that clearly defies our current understanding of physics.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again, atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basic question why you believe a carbon atom is interested in writing poetry.
> 
> The fact you have no answer for your belief is an answer in itself.
Click to expand...



Of course, you've hit the nail on the head.

Science, currently, is used as a weapon by the atheistic Left.
Not only has science never done anything but the most pedestrian work...joining elements in an Ehrenmeyer Flask to form amino acids.....

...not life by any stretch...

...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.

It isn't.

 "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." 
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, true, but the Big Bang kind of makes the formation of a virus kids play by comparison, dont you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang explains the development of our Universe.  But doesn't attempt to explain the conditions that created a universal singularity.
> 
> It's very safe to assume there is some very 'next-level' stuff going on that clearly defies our current understanding of physics.
Click to expand...

I just want to know why you think the debris from this explosion likes to listen to Beethoven.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> He is using a humorous phrasing to illustrate the limits of materialistic causes and effects.



I think you're wrong about that.  A single posting, or ever a couple, about sentient atoms might have been meant as a joke.  But, his repeated parroting of the idea indicates he really believes he is making a point.  It's not a point at all, it's a spurious argument that is divorced from all logic.

It's kind of like watching a dog chew on a rubber bone.  Just won't believe it's not real.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> joining elements in an Ehrenmeyer Flask to form amino acids.....



Not an Erlenmeyer flask,







This is an Erlenmeyer flask


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> I just want to know why you think the debris from this explosion likes to listen to Beethoven.



Because, you, I, and Beethoven ... are all debris from that explosion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to know why you think the debris from this explosion likes to listen to Beethoven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you, I, and Beethoven ... are all debris from that explosion.
Click to expand...

And yet all we are are an assembly of atoms.
Which means atoms like Beethoven. At least most atoms.
Why?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> And yet all we are are an assembly of atoms.
> Which means atoms like Beethoven. At least most atoms.
> Why?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> So you believe there is something beyond matter which is life?


Seems obvious there is something called life.    All life is based on matter but not all matter is alive, again obvious.

I've never encountered life that was not composed of matter, have you?


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet all we are are an assembly of atoms.
> Which means atoms like Beethoven. At least most atoms.
> Why?
Click to expand...

Nice picture of a bunch of atoms.
Atoms that will exist long after we die. 
Atoms have nothing in the game.  A carbon atom does not care if it is in my nose or on my desk.  It will be around a thousand years from now.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe there is something beyond matter which is life?
> 
> 
> 
> Seems obvious there is something called life.    All life is based on matter but not all matter is alive, again obvious.
> 
> I've never encountered life that was not composed of matter, have you?
Click to expand...

Ah, now are getting somewhere. 
Yes, there is something that is not matter that is life, but uses matter.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet all we are are an assembly of atoms.
> Which means atoms like Beethoven. At least most atoms.
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice picture of a bunch of atoms.
> Atoms that will exist long after we die.
> Atoms have nothing in the game.  A carbon atom does not care if it is in my nose or on my desk.  It will be around a thousand years from now.
Click to expand...


Matter cannot be created or destroyed
Life can


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.


Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet all we are are an assembly of atoms.
> Which means atoms like Beethoven. At least most atoms.
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice picture of a bunch of atoms.
> Atoms that will exist long after we die.
> Atoms have nothing in the game.  A carbon atom does not care if it is in my nose or on my desk.  It will be around a thousand years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> Life can
Click to expand...

Can life be destroyed?
Life is not matter.
Unless of course you think atoms play the harmonica.


----------



## fncceo

Are you circuitously trying to talk about Jung's Theory of Anima and Animus?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?
Click to expand...

Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists? 
Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Are you circuitously trying to talk about Jung's Theory of Anima and Animus?


I have no idea, maybe I am as smart as Jung, because I have no idea who he is.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ah, now are getting somewhere.
> Yes, there is something that is not matter that is life, but uses matter.


Life is inseparable from matter.  Although many here might not agree, if you are a Democrat you are a human being even if not all human beings are Democrats.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now are getting somewhere.
> Yes, there is something that is not matter that is life, but uses matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Life is inseparable from matter.  Although many here might not agree, if you are a Democrat you are a human being even if not all human beings are Democrats.
Click to expand...

How do you know life is inseparable from matter?  There are so many cases of life after death experiences where people describe events around their bodies that many emergency rooms now have markers in the room in the hopes one of these events the person can identify the marker.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists?
> Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.


Because you have it backwards.  Evolutionists don't claim that life begin at only one single point in time, they claim that all living things we see today and just about every fossil we've ever found can be traced back to the same ancestral population.  Life man have begun many times but it appears there was only one winner.  Possibly a fusion of multiple early life forms.

It is not impossible for new life to emerge from the mud today, just highly unlikely.  Conditions are vastly different and there are hungry plants and animals already here.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists?
> Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have it backwards.  Evolutionists don't claim that life begin at only one single point in time, they claim that all living things we see today and just about every fossil we've ever found can be traced back to the same ancestral population.  Life man have begun many times but it appears there was only one winner.  Possibly a fusion of multiple early life forms.
> 
> It is not impossible for new life to emerge from the mud today, just highly unlikely.  Conditions are vastly different and there are hungry plants and animals already here.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this? 
What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> How do you know life is inseparable from matter?


There is no mechanism or theory for it and I have never experienced anything supernatural.  No evidence = no belief but that is just me.


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> if you are a Democrat you are a human being



Don't jump to conclusions.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this?
> What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?


Nothing I wrote contradicts the tree you posted or said anyone was wrong.


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this?
> What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I wrote contradicts the tree you posted or said anyone was wrong.
Click to expand...


He's being deliberately obtuse.  If I didn't know better, I think he's confused obtuse with clever.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this?
> What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I wrote contradicts the tree you posted or said anyone was wrong.
Click to expand...

Evolution says life only began at one single point of time.
Like Genesis said.


----------



## alang1216

fncceo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are a Democrat you are a human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Never met one who wasn't.  Have to admit the same is true for Republicans.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this?
> What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I wrote contradicts the tree you posted or said anyone was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's being deliberately obtuse.  If I didn't know better, I think he's confused obtuse with clever.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about you guys. You claim atoms can become sentient and yet you have no clue as to what motives the atoms have.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Evolution says life only began at one single point of time.
> Like Genesis said.


You're right about Genesis but nothing in evolution theory says life can only began at one single point of time.  You should reread my post:

"_Evolutionists don't claim that life begin at only one single point in time, they claim that all living things we see today and just about every fossil we've ever found can be traced back to the same ancestral population. Life man have begun many times but it appears there was only one winner._"

If you think I'm wrong please feel free to cite.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists?
> Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.
> View attachment 152675
Click to expand...


Who says new life has not formed over the last billion years?
Nobody says life only formed once and all life evolved from that one life form  That is a creationist fantasy

Man has only been around for a hundred thousand years. We have only had the ability to study microscopic life in the last hundred years....a mere blink of the eye in evolutionary terms

There may very well have been new forms of life created in the last hundred years....but it would be singe cell life....not unicorns


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists?
> Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.
> View attachment 152675
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says new life has not formed over the last billion years?
> Nobody says life only formed once and all life evolved from that one life form  That is a creationist fantasy
> 
> Man has only been around for a hundred thousand years. We have only had the ability to study microscopic life in the last hundred years....a mere blink of the eye in evolutionary terms
> 
> There may very well have been new forms of life created in the last hundred years....but it would be singe cell life....not unicorns
Click to expand...

Show me a evolution tree that does not show life beginning at a single point in time and I will drop the issue.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that every evolution tree is wrong?  That new life is emerging in mud as you read this?
> What's your evidence that everyone is wrong but you?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I wrote contradicts the tree you posted or said anyone was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's being deliberately obtuse.  If I didn't know better, I think he's confused obtuse with clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel the same about you guys. You claim atoms can become sentient and yet you have no clue as to what motives the atoms have.
Click to expand...


I'm going to regret this but I'll make one last stab.  No one is saying atoms are sentient or have any motivation apart from Hydrogen bonding.  

Atoms don't equate to life any more than a brick equals a cathedral.  

Atoms can, and it has been well established that they do, spontaneously create organic molecules under the right conditions and those organic molecules will combine to make more complex organic organism.  

Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness.  

The individual constituent atoms are no more conscious than the rivets in the Saturn V Rocket planned a trip to the moon.

You're trying to argue a case for divine intervention in creation and I get that.  But your argument is silly and frankly, beneath you.  Come up with a better argument, one that demonstrates a rudimentary  understanding of science and we can discuss that.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is debate as to *when we become a person. Bible says in the womb*, but not a specific age.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.
> 
> Adam represents mankind in the bible, otherwise original sin and mankind's need for redemption would be meaningless.
> 
> Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do all Christian haters think they are Bible scholars?
> 
> "Before I formed you in the womb *I knew* you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
> Jeremiah 1:5
Click to expand...

That verse has nothing to do with the beginning of life, but the claim that God is ALL-KNOWING! 
If that verse was related to the beginning of life, then "Before I formed you in the womb" would mean that life begins BEFORE conception!!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has no need to.
Click to expand...

It had no need to create man either!!!
So God is STILL impotent when it comes to changing the past.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did life begin at only one single point in time according to evolutionists?
> Why are we not seeing new life emerging from the mud today? You can't blame time, your beginning of life happened long ago, and time keeps on ticking.
> View attachment 152675
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says new life has not formed over the last billion years?
> Nobody says life only formed once and all life evolved from that one life form  That is a creationist fantasy
> 
> Man has only been around for a hundred thousand years. We have only had the ability to study microscopic life in the last hundred years....a mere blink of the eye in evolutionary terms
> 
> There may very well have been new forms of life created in the last hundred years....but it would be singe cell life....not unicorns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a evolution tree that does not show life beginning at a single point in time and I will drop the issue.
Click to expand...


That tree shows how life evolves from Point A to Point Z

It does not claim that new Point A's are not being formed


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> joining elements in an Ehrenmeyer Flask to form amino acids.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an Erlenmeyer flask,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an Erlenmeyer flask
Click to expand...




So everything else I wrote is true.

Excellent.



BTW.....everything was transferred into an Erlenmeyer for analysis.


----------



## K9Buck

fncceo said:


> Atoms can, and it has been well established that they do, spontaneously create organic molecules under the right conditions and those organic molecules will combine to make more complex organic organism.
> Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness.



Has this been replicated in a lab?


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
Click to expand...


"Albert, *stop telling God what to do with his dice"*.

Neils Bohr


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Show me a evolution tree that does not show life beginning at a single point in time and I will drop the issue.


Your chart shows a single ancestor because that is the only lineage that has survived.  It can't show others that didn't survive since that evidence is long gone.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yes, there is *something* that is not matter that is life, but uses matter.


What THING is God?


----------



## fncceo

K9Buck said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms can, and it has been well established that they do, spontaneously create organic molecules under the right conditions and those organic molecules will combine to make more complex organic organism.
> Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has this been replicated in a lab?
Click to expand...


Yes. Several hundred times.  The MU Experiment is very well documented.


----------



## edthecynic

Weatherman2020 said:


> Can life be destroyed?


59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
Click to expand...


I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.


----------



## edthecynic

fncceo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
Click to expand...

He needs to PROVE that!


----------



## fncceo

edthecynic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
Click to expand...


He can present it as a belief.  No one is obligated to accept it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming.  We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?
Click to expand...


"Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."

What evidence?

No species has ever been show to have changed into another.




Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.



I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
And, it isn't.
While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't....yet the Liberal education industry teaches dunces like you that it is.


1. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation. How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Disabled forum

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.





3. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

4. " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China.  Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature Research: science journals, jobs, information and services.)



When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times



Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.


----------



## K9Buck

edthecynic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
Click to expand...


Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Albert, *stop telling God what to do with his dice"*.
> 
> Neils Bohr
Click to expand...



Thomas Hardy, as well, thought life was random...

If but some vengeful god would call to me 
From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing, 
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy, 
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!” 

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die, 
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited; 
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I 
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed. 

But not so.   How arrives it joy lies slain, 
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown? 
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain, 
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . . 
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown 
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> "Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> No species has ever been show to have changed into another.
> 
> Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.
> 
> I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
> And, it isn't.
> While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't...
> 
> Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.


You should consider reading your cut and pasted snippets, you might learn something new:
 Me: Evolution is a fact
You: While evolution may be a fact

It is impressive that you can agree with me and still insult me.  Nice work, keep it up.


----------



## PoliticalChic

K9Buck said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
Click to expand...



"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God..."

But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.

Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atoms can, and it has been well established that they do, spontaneously create organic molecules under the right conditions and those organic molecules will combine to make more complex organic organism.
> Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has this been replicated in a lab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Several hundred times.  The MU Experiment is very well documented.
Click to expand...



"Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness."

Nonsense.


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.


I don't think that is true, at least not for me.  I know you cannot prove or disprove God.  What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> No species has ever been show to have changed into another.
> 
> Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.
> 
> I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
> And, it isn't.
> While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't...
> 
> Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.
> 
> 
> 
> You should consider reading your cut and pasted snippets, you might learn something new:
> Me: Evolution is a fact
> You: While evolution may be a fact
> 
> It is impressive that you can agree with me and still insult me.  Nice work, keep it up.
Click to expand...




I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

He admitted the test for same, here:
Darwin wrote in his _Origin_,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"*To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . *. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great_."_
 Charles Darwin, _The Origin of Species,_ chapter Ten: _On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata._pp. 164




_"Charles *Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution* is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes_



Getting to feel like a buffoon, huh?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.
> 
> Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.


Only if evil or good were absolutes would they support a "God".  Since they are relative to each culture they don't support a "God".


----------



## fncceo

The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma.  Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet.  The origin of life wasn't well understood in the late 19th Century.  

But, we know for a fact that evolution does affect the development of species and can create entire new species from common ancestors.  The theory of the evolution of  life from organic molecules (unlike the theory of gravity) isn't something that can be definitively tested in the lab because the experiments take millions of years and more to achieve results.  But, the theory of natural selection does explain a great deal of how life developed on this planet and in cases where is doesn't, if enough evidence can be collected, the theory can be amended.

That's the beauty of science.  When we find that it's wrong, there is no harm in correcting it.



PoliticalChic said:


> Nonsense



And yet .. here we are.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.
> 
> Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if evil or good were absolutes would they support a "God".  Since they are relative to each culture they don't support a "God".
Click to expand...


Consider the following as ....indirect.....evidence for both.

1. Those who have accepted Liberalism, postmodernism, Progressivism, mock the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, and compare same to Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.
*And, they must.*
Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that *Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist* as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.




_2. Compare Ronald Reagan's response to the what he named 'the evil empire' to _Obama, who embraced and supported evil early on in his political career.

And, this is no surprise, as Barack Obama's mentor was Saul Alinsky, proud of his affiliation with the personification of evil:

"Alinsky dedicated his book to none other than the fallen angel Lucifer, yes _that_ Lucifer, whom he describes as "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment (that would be God) and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom." Webutante: The Late Saul Alinsky, Obama's Radical Community Organizer Inspirer-in-Chief




If the true animator of Leftism was revealed....the American people would never support any of its iterations:
Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism or Fascism.
Never.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma.  Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet.  The origin of life wasn't well understood in the late 19th Century.
> 
> But, we know for a fact that evolution does affect the development of species and can create entire new species from common ancestors.  The theory of the evolution of  life from organic molecules (unlike the theory of gravity) isn't something that can be definitively tested in the lab because the experiments take millions of years and more to achieve results.  But, the theory of natural selection does explain a great deal of how life developed on this planet and in cases where is doesn't, if enough evidence can be collected, the theory can be amended.
> 
> That's the beauty of science.  When we find that it's wrong, there is no harm in correcting it.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet .. here we are.
Click to expand...




"The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma. Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet."

The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
That's why Darwin is taught as fact.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
> That's why Darwin is taught as fact.



It's not political, it's simplistic.  At the Junior High and HIgh School level, it's true that teachers often quote textbook facts as if they were reading from scripture.  Not out of political indoctrination, but out of sheer laziness.

However, at the University level, where teachers are better paid, have more time on their hands, and arguably more interested students, I've engaged in many a spirited debate over how life evolved on this planet.  There is at least some evidence that life evolved off this planet and could have been introduced here by impact from comets or meteors.

As a religious Jew, I'm in no doubt of the existence of G-d.  I also don't believe it's beyond G-d capabilities to use the tools available to him, such as natural selection, to create an infinitely diverse selection of lifeforms in the Universe.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.


Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity.  The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.
> 
> It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is still far far away from even a simple virus.
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
Click to expand...

"I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes."

An absurd standard, by any measure.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.
Click to expand...

" You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief."

This is dumb.  Of course we can.  Humans are sentient, and humans are made up of atoms.  therefore, a collection of atoms can be sentient.  Argument over.


----------



## fncceo

JimBowie1958 said:


> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.



It's not accurate.  Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements.  This has been recreated many times under laboratory conditions using multiple different techniques, all simulating that which occurs randomly in nature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.
> 
> To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades.  Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think one day science will discover a process to replicate abiogenesis, as I think the Creator used natural processes to do everything He has done.
> 
> But I do not think the OP's point can or will ever be replicated and that is the creation of sentient life through random processes.
Click to expand...

"that is the creation of sentient life through random processes."

Selection is not random.  You keep repeating this same error.


----------



## K9Buck

alang1216 said:


> What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.



The universe.  Your existence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
Click to expand...

"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."

I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god.  Dude, you just made that up.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life be destroyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."
> 
> I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god.  Dude, you just made that up.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you didn't read what I quoted.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe.  Your existence.
Click to expand...

"The universe. Your existence."

not evidence, as it can be explained other ways.


K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He needs to PROVE that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."
> 
> I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god.  Dude, you just made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you didn't read what I quoted.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't... "non-corporeal anima exists" was the claim.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Consider the following as ....indirect.....evidence for both.


Please don't cut & paste these rants and then ask why someone would not discuss an issue.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss *the existence of evil.*


We do not deny the existence of the pure evil of CON$ervoFascism. Nor do we deny that if evil exists then God is the creator of evil.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that *Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist* as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.


Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwin is taught as fact.


There is no such science course called "Darwin."


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe.  Your existence.
Click to expand...

Since we don't know how the universe began a creator is possible but nothing points to a God of the Bible.  Certainly not me.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not accurate.  Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements.  This has been recreated many times under laboratory conditions using multiple different techniques, all simulating that which occurs randomly in nature.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. It is not just organic compounds that have to arise, but life itself to be abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

*Abiogenesis* (British English: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs, -ˌbaɪə-/, /-ˌbiːoʊ-, -ˌbiːə-/[3][4][5][6]), *biopoiesis*,[7] or informally the *origin of life*,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[8][9][11][12] Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, chemistry, and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.​
Organic compounds have been found in places that do not have life such as Venus and Titan that have methane in their atmospheres. So organic compounds, in and of themselves, do not prove life or even the next step from generating life.

Methane - Wikipedia


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe.  Your existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since we don't know how the universe began a creator is possible but nothing points to a God of the Bible.  Certainly not me.
Click to expand...

We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.

And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
> That's why Darwin is taught as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not political, it's simplistic.  At the Junior High and HIgh School level, it's true that teachers often quote textbook facts as if they were reading from scripture.  Not out of political indoctrination, but out of sheer laziness.
> 
> However, at the University level, where teachers are better paid, have more time on their hands, and arguably more interested students, I've engaged in many a spirited debate over how life evolved on this planet.  There is at least some evidence that life evolved off this planet and could have been introduced here by impact from comets or meteors.
> 
> As a religious Jew, I'm in no doubt of the existence of G-d.  I also don't believe it's beyond G-d capabilities to use the tools available to him, such as natural selection, to create an infinitely diverse selection of lifeforms in the Universe.
Click to expand...


I ask my Creationist friends whether it is more impressive for God to shoot a billion billiard balls into their pockets one at a time or to do it with the break.

At the Big Bang God did everything He needed to do to bring the universe to the material state He wanted it to be in for mankind to flourish.

There is no need for angels to push the stars and planets around.

But some things defy materialism, IMO, and the soul is likely one of them.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.



Was that the beginning or just the start of the most recent cycle?



JimBowie1958 said:


> And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.


Soul-less machines can do a much better job but thanks for saying I'm God-like.


----------



## JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has no need to.
Click to expand...




edthecynic said:


> It had no need to create man either!!!
> So God is STILL impotent when it comes to changing the past.



Of course God had a 'need' to create man.  God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the beginning or just the start of the most recent cycle?
Click to expand...


I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.

We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.



alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> Soul-less machines can do a much better job but thanks for saying I'm God-like.
Click to expand...


Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.

Well, most of us anyway.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.17Omnipotence
> 
> 
> 
> *Even God cannot change the past.*
> 
> *- Agathon*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has no need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no need to create man either!!!
> So God is STILL impotent when it comes to changing the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course God had a 'need' to create man.  God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
Click to expand...

Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course God had a 'need' to create man.  God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!
Click to expand...

God is not 'needy' in the human sense of the word, but He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

God will not lose some attribute or suffer if He cannot create.  He does not choose to create.

He constantly Creates.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course God had a 'need' to create man.  God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not 'needy' in the human sense of the word, but He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.
> 
> God will not lose some attribute or suffer if He cannot create.  He does not choose to create.
> 
> He constantly Creates.
Click to expand...

So your God is a SLAVE to your perception of his NEED to create. It is helpless to stop creating or as the bible says resting on the seventh day.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> So your God is a SLAVE _to your perception_ of his NEED to create. It is helpless to stop creating or as the bible says resting on the seventh day.



No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus He CANNOT change.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus *He CANNOT change.*


Thank you for admitting that your God is not omnipotent.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus *He CANNOT change.*
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your God is not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with omnipotence.

There is no amount of power that can make God unholy, thus omnipotence is irrelevant, and my observation affecting nothing in the regard to His omnipotence.


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> The Big Bang explains the development of our Universe.  But doesn't attempt to explain the conditions that created a universal singularity.
> It's very safe to assume there is some very 'next-level' stuff going on that clearly defies our current understanding of physics.


It could be that the Brane theory explains why the Big Bang happened in a material way, but that is merely kicking the can down the road a bit more.

The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves that the flow of time itself cannot be infinite. It must have a beginning point.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.
> 
> We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.


I'm not aware of any physical evidence of a pre-existing universe?  At any rate, I predict we'll learn that the very structure of space gave rise to our universe when the conditions were right.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.
> 
> Well, most of us anyway.


It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages.  Any idea why that would be?


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus *He CANNOT change.*
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your God is not omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with omnipotence.
> 
> There is no amount of power that can make God unholy, thus omnipotence is irrelevant, and my observation affecting nothing in the regard to His omnipotence.
Click to expand...

So now changing is unholy. 
So that makes Jesus unholy when he was persuaded by Mary to change his refusal to create wine from water.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.


So he is not all-powerful?


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> So now changing is unholy.



For God to change from Holy would be by definition unholy, dude.

BTW, your reading comprehension blows big chunks, roflmao



edthecynic said:


> So that makes Jesus unholy when he was persuaded by Mary to change his refusal to create wine from water.



roflmao, no it does not as I am referring to God outside the flow of time, aka the Father.  Jesus is a manifestation by the Father into the flow of time, His conceptualization of what He was going to create.  As God has always constantly Creates, and Jesus is the Logos of each of them, Jesus is also of infinite duration, but exists within time.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.
> 
> 
> 
> So he is not all-powerful?
Click to expand...

What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.
> 
> 
> 
> So he is not all-powerful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?
Click to expand...

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.
> 
> We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of any physical evidence of a pre-existing universe?  At any rate, I predict we'll learn that the very structure of space gave rise to our universe when the conditions were right.
Click to expand...


Yes, this article is old, but I cant find anything else at the moment.

Space Circles Are Proof of a Pre-Big Bang Universe?




alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.
> 
> Well, most of us anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages.  Any idea why that would be?
Click to expand...

What changed?


----------



## Weatherman2020

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years. 

Yet no new life.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.


As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.

it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.

At least this is  my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.
> 
> 
> 
> So he is not all-powerful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.
Click to expand...

Intellectual dishonesty is a trademark leftist tactic.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.



You are doing it all wrong

You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing it all wrong
> 
> You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course
Click to expand...

OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing it all wrong
> 
> You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.
Click to expand...


Who says new life forms are not being formed?
Any new life would be single cell....man has only been able to see things that small for about a hundred years
A hundred years vs the billion years of evolution is a mere blink of the eye


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
Click to expand...



"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


 "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing it all wrong
> 
> You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says new life forms are not being formed?
> Any new life would be single cell....man has only been able to see things that small for about a hundred years
> A hundred years vs the billion years of evolution is a mere blink of the eye
Click to expand...

Nope, everything is linked back to a single point. 

DNA.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the following as ....indirect.....evidence for both.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't cut & paste these rants and then ask why someone would not discuss an issue.
Click to expand...



I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.

It isn't.

1. If there were not a cogent, well constructed thesis that destroys your Liberal worldview, you would not have come slithering out from under your rock.

2. The phrase 'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative reference to a well supported post buttressed with quotes, links and sources.

3. Let's see what real authority has to say:

a. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)
Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

b. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(LibGuides: Critically Analyzing Information Sources: Critical Appraisal and Analysis)

c. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml
websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf

Wasn't that masterful????


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss *the existence of evil.*
> 
> 
> 
> We do not deny the existence of the pure evil of CON$ervoFascism. Nor do we deny that if evil exists then God is the creator of evil.
Click to expand...



Pure evil?

Watch: Leftism....
Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...

...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.

Conservatism.....endorsing individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government....

...is responsible for liberty and freedom.


There is no disputing that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that *Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist* as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.
Click to expand...



1. You don't know my religion.

2. America's basis, Judeo-Christian doctrine is based on free will.
Hence, if some are evil it is there choice, just as being stupid is your choice.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
Click to expand...

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Weatherman2020 said:


> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.


----------



## Weatherman2020

PoliticalChic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
Click to expand...

Exactly it. We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present.


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
Click to expand...


what are you calling  "normal"   brain activity?     Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram?      Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child.    There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but   SO????    Why would there not
be?  ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
Click to expand...


*BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Weatherman2020 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly it. We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present.
Click to expand...






The great virtue of Darwin’s theory, Richard Dawkins claims, is that it has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Yet, Dawkins’ position has not been widely accepted.
“Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.
Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure.

It is clear that the Left cannot defend its position, so their attempt is ....pro forma....to shut down debate.                               
 '*Eugenie C. Scott is *a physical anthropologist, and *executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc*: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”                                                                                                    Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. *Discussing the issue was out of the question.*

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
Click to expand...



Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...


simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what are you calling  "normal"   brain activity?     Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram?      Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
> like that of a 12 year old human child.    There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
> tracing paper -------but   SO????    Why would there not
> be?  ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know
Click to expand...

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten. 

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.
> 
> As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
Click to expand...



"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what are you calling  "normal"   brain activity?     Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram?      Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
> like that of a 12 year old human child.    There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
> tracing paper -------but   SO????    Why would there not
> be?  ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
Click to expand...


wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in.   The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. 

Crick explains...
*Directed Panspermia - *postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly *another planet*; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, p.141


According to Crick, *this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which,* "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144




Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by *Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.*These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, *were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. *Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109



Why is Darwin taught as fact....and not these sterling examples of 'science'????


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what are you calling  "normal"   brain activity?     Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram?      Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
> like that of a 12 year old human child.    There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
> tracing paper -------but   SO????    Why would there not
> be?  ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in.   The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.
Click to expand...

Sentient life should always be respected. 

Especially when it’s children.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.
> 
> His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.  His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved".  So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
Click to expand...


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what are you calling  "normal"   brain activity?     Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram?      Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
> like that of a 12 year old human child.    There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
> tracing paper -------but   SO????    Why would there not
> be?  ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in.   The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentient life should always be respected.
> 
> Especially when it’s children.
Click to expand...


EEG activity does not equal  SENTIENT.   ----yer sciatic nerve produces a WAVE------you ever had a conversation
with your sciatic nerve other than a LOUD CURSE when it twinges?


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus. 

A hamster would be nice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> 1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a *species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."* Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
> 
> 
> 2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, _Marrella_, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed _Opabinia_ and spiny slug-like _Wiwaxia_ were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, _Wonderful Life_,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....
> 
> ...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.* Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms."        *                                                                                    The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton
> Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie
> 
> 
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You seem to have ignored this:
"Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages.  Any idea why that would be?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
Click to expand...

The OT God was a god of the Jews, the NT God is a god of individuals.  Just one example but the difference is striking that Gnostics believed they could not be the same god


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.
> 
> 
> 
> As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.
> 
> it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.
> 
> At least this is  my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.
Click to expand...

I never understood the whole trinity myself.  If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness.  A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
Click to expand...

\

do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
your little friend    HIV
For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM


----------



## irosie91

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.
> 
> 
> 
> As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.
> 
> it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.
> 
> At least this is  my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never understood the whole trinity myself.  If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness.  A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.
Click to expand...


Fret not------the IRON MAIDENS  have been retired


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
Click to expand...

I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have ignored this:
> "Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"
Click to expand...


the basic mechanism occurs in Petri dishes all the time-----
that's how sensitivity to this or that antibiotic is determined


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
Click to expand...



Let's cut to the chase: there has never been any proof of speciation.

1.  In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and *“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”* 
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”  
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” _American Scientist_ 85 (1997): 516-518.


2. "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. If it _has _been observed, then evolution is true and the Bible is false. Speciation is the crossing of one species into another species. *The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."*
speciation definition


3. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_ simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation | Causes, Process, & Types




What is the explanation if.....if......all of diversity is the myriad of organisms that....each and every one.....arrived like Topsy, fully formed and distinct.

Seems to me there is only one explanation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have ignored this:
> "Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the basic mechanism occurs in Petri dishes all the time-----
> that's how sensitivity to this or that antibiotic is determined
Click to expand...



...and nowhere else?

Then it doesn't hold as explanation for diversity on the planet.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man.
> 
> Crick explains...
> *Directed Panspermia - *postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly *another planet*; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, p.141
> 
> 
> According to Crick, *this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which,* "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
> Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by *Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.*These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, *were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. *Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
> Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin taught as fact....and not these sterling examples of 'science'????



"sterling" ?    manufactured gene complexes?   phage
tossed into the cosmos like CONFETTI?  ------why?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.
> 
> 
> 
> As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.
> 
> it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.
> 
> At least this is  my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never understood the whole trinity myself.  If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness.  A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.
Click to expand...

The Trinity is difficult to grasp for everyone because it goes well beyond our ability to reconcile it with what we see and thus know.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro
Click to expand...




That is FUNNY!!!

Remember when the Liberal were running around claiming HIV was going to be a hetero disease?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages.  Any idea why that would be?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OT God was a god of the Jews, the NT God is a god of individuals.  Just one example but the difference is striking that Gnostics believed they could not be the same god
Click to expand...

Not quite correct. OT is about the establishment of a people so that all mankind may be redeemed. The NT is the fulfillment of that plan.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have ignored this:
> "Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the basic mechanism occurs in Petri dishes all the time-----
> that's how sensitivity to this or that antibiotic is determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and nowhere else?
> 
> Then it doesn't hold as explanation for diversity on the planet.
Click to expand...


everywhere else-------a petri dish is simply  a PLACE  ----new strains of  TUBERCULOSIS  arise all the time-----RIFAMPIN
resistant  TB------APPEARED in my life-time


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man.
> 
> Crick explains...
> *Directed Panspermia - *postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly *another planet*; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, p.141
> 
> 
> According to Crick, *this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which,* "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
> Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by *Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.*These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, *were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. *Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
> Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin taught as fact....and not these sterling examples of 'science'????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "sterling" ?    manufactured gene complexes?   phage
> tossed into the cosmos like CONFETTI?  ------why?
Click to expand...



1. adjective
Sterling means very good in quality; used to describe someone's work or character.
Sterling definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I just provided two sterling examples of their explanations for diverse species....yet you've ignored them as well.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> The OT God was a god of the Jews, the NT God is a god of individuals.  Just one example but the difference is striking that Gnostics believed they could not be the same god


I dont think God changed so much as humanity matured a bit more to be capable of grasping the changes in what would be revealed about God and morality.

And certainly nothing has changed about God's relationship with the sons of Israel.


----------



## Weatherman2020

PoliticalChic said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is FUNNY!!!
> 
> Remember when the Liberal were running around claiming HIV was going to be a hetero disease?
Click to expand...

Hetro HIV epidemic. On their long list of just around the corner doomsday rants.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have ignored this:
> "Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the basic mechanism occurs in Petri dishes all the time-----
> that's how sensitivity to this or that antibiotic is determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and nowhere else?
> 
> Then it doesn't hold as explanation for diversity on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everywhere else-------a petri dish is simply  a PLACE  ----new strains of  TUBERCULOSIS  arise all the time-----RIFAMPIN
> resistant  TB------APPEARED in my life-time
Click to expand...



You appear not to understand what an explanation for evolution requires.

I provided this:

2. "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. If it _has _been observed, then evolution is true and the Bible is false. Speciation is the crossing of one species into another species. *The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."*
speciation definition


3. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_ simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation | Causes, Process, & Types


----------



## irosie91

yeah-----it happened


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> I never understood the whole trinity myself.  If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness.



Most Christians dont either, and I am not sure I have the whole grasp of it.

It's complicated to discuss something so beyond our own experiences and environment as an Eternal Creator, but I think He has revealed enough of Himself to convey what He thinks is necessary for our spiritual edification.



alang1216 said:


> A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.



Actually, no, not a Catholic priest anyway, as you were not raised a Catholic, right?

I think only a Catholic that leaves the church can be a heretic from the churches perspective.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Weatherman2020 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is FUNNY!!!
> 
> Remember when the Liberal were running around claiming HIV was going to be a hetero disease?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hetro HIV epidemic. On their long list of just around the corner doomsday rants.
Click to expand...



How does that old saw go, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Is there a saying for ‘fool me a dozen times’?

1. Heterosexual Aids “A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.” Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits - Health News, Health & Families - The Independent

2. Killer African Bees “Killer bees” are nothing more than a hyped-up scam foisted on the public to milk federal research dollars, a group of southern Arizona” Beesource Beekeeping » Some Beekeepers Believe “Killer Bees” are Fraud

3. Swine Flu? “Richard Schabas, Ontario's former chief medical officer of health, said in an interview yesterday that the first wave of the virus this spring was not as dire as expected, and the number of people infected in the Southern Hemisphere, now in the middle of its regular flu season, is nowhere as bad as feared.” H5N1: Canadian health expert: Swine flu panic overblown 

4. Mad Cow Disease [Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)] “However, a fair review of the evidence from Britain and France indicates that the threat to human health from BSE in the United States is minimal.” â€œMad Cowâ€: Is the Media Milking an Overblown Threat? | CEI

5. Bird Flu was about to ‘jump’ from chickens to humans. “Doomsday predictions about bird flu seem to be spreading faster than the virus itself. But a small group of skeptics say the bird flu hype is overblown and ultimately harmful to the public’s health. There’s no guarantee bird flu will become a pandemic, and if it does there’s no guarantee it will kill millions of people.” Skeptics warn bird flu fears are overblown - Bird Flu- msnbc.com

6. "SARS is a media circus more than a medical crisis." Letter From Hong Kong - SARS Threat Overblown - NAM

7. “Silicone gel implants were taken off the market in 1992 amidst fears that they could be linked to cancer, autoimmune and connective tissue disorders (such as lupus). But since the FDA approved their use again in 2006 many women and their surgeons have opted to use them rather than the implants filled with saline (salt water)." Silicone breast implants: Are they safe? - Your Health 

8. “Y2K taught us lessons that will always be applicable: Dont believe everything the experts tell you, and be especially skeptical of worst-case predictions for technology” . Some Perspective 5 Years After Y2K - Security from eWeek 

9. “… during the early 1990s a massive cholera outbreak in Latin America caused 10,000 deaths as a result of countries refusing to use chlorine to disinfect water supplies because of the labeling of chlorine as a carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” Milloy SJ. Junk Science Judo - Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams. The Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001, p. 1.

10.”… in 1975 research showed a cancer-causing effect of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in rats. The ensuing panic led to the 1976 federal law banning their production. In 1999, the same researcher found no association with human cancer. But the federal law remains in force.” Junk Science Judo by Steven J. Milloy

11. “According to Marjorie Mazel Hecht and [San Jose State University] professor J. Gordon Edwards at 21st Century Home Page, DDT is safe and indeed saved and can save human lives, and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is full of lies. According to them, the banning of DDT was politically motivated and went against the majority of scientific opinion…. No one has conclusively proved that DDT can give you cancer.” The Straight Dope: Was Rachel Carson a fraud and is DDT actually safe for humans?

12. Global Warming…"the sky is falling" with a political twist.



As H. L. Menken said, 
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.


----------



## irosie91

I was an accident.......my mom tried to "get rid of me"------she even went to a back alley abortionist------but he probably detected some reluctance on her part and refused to do it


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> yeah-----it happened




No it hasn't.

 "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."

_This has nothing to do with evolution_. 

Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
Observed Instances of Speciation


----------



## Weatherman2020

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
Click to expand...

I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
Click to expand...


such an experiment CAN result in speciation if the NEW VEGGIE  can reproduce itself---------and finds a niche-----and
GOES BALLISTIC------


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such an experiment CAN result in speciation if the NEW VEGGIE  can reproduce itself---------and finds a niche-----and
> GOES BALLISTIC------
Click to expand...



Don't be silly.


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.
Click to expand...


just existing does not make it--------the new ones have to both be able to REPRODUCE themselves and DO SO --copiously-------like da bible says-----MULTIPLY and be
FROOOOTFUL


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such an experiment CAN result in speciation if the NEW VEGGIE  can reproduce itself---------and finds a niche-----and
> GOES BALLISTIC------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.
Click to expand...


I have to try------the vodka has run out


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just existing does not make it--------the new ones have to both be able to REPRODUCE themselves and DO SO --copiously-------like da bible says-----MULTIPLY and be
> FROOOOTFUL
Click to expand...

I’ll send you the seeds next summer.


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just existing does not make it--------the new ones have to both be able to REPRODUCE themselves and DO SO --copiously-------like da bible says-----MULTIPLY and be
> FROOOOTFUL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll send you the seeds next summer.
Click to expand...


I need both top soil and compost.    -----lots.


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah-----it happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just existing does not make it--------the new ones have to both be able to REPRODUCE themselves and DO SO --copiously-------like da bible says-----MULTIPLY and be
> FROOOOTFUL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll send you the seeds next summer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need both top soil and compost.    -----lots.
Click to expand...

I’ll send you lots of young compost too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> I was an accident.......my mom tried to "get rid of me"------she even went to a back alley abortionist------but he probably detected some reluctance on her part and refused to do it




If that's a joke, it's not funny.

If you are serious, all of us are blessed in it not happening.


----------



## irosie91

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence."
> 
> _This has nothing to do with evolution_.
> 
> Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." _There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable_. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple."
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> I have trees that are genetic crosses between plums and peaches, plums and apricots. All that proves is we can cross the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just existing does not make it--------the new ones have to both be able to REPRODUCE themselves and DO SO --copiously-------like da bible says-----MULTIPLY and be
> FROOOOTFUL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll send you the seeds next summer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need both top soil and compost.    -----lots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll send you lots of young compost too.
Click to expand...


uhm------could you not------let it mature a bit???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe.  Your existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since we don't know how the universe began a creator is possible but nothing points to a God of the Bible.  Certainly not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.
> 
> And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.
Click to expand...

"And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul."

Ridiculous. In fact, we know free will, as you are obviously thinking of it, does not exist. You make your choices before you are aware you have made them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.


"So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"

....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing it all wrong
> 
> You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.
Click to expand...

"OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years?"

What is this nonsense? Plenty of species have emerged in the last 500 million years.

As far as new types of life, ut's a simple answer....the biomass already existent on this planet dominates.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly it. We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present.
Click to expand...

"We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present."

. It doesnt matter what atoms are present, it matters how they are arranged.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection"  thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "many mechanisms of evolution"
> 
> Really?
> 
> Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE
> 
> simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<<   evolution in the tube,   in the peoples,  in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
> evolution.   ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
> (cancer cells is another "good"  example)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.
> 
> A hamster would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
> your little friend    HIV
> For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
> changeable  MYCOBACTERIUM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro
Click to expand...

"I will never get HIV. I’m a faithful hetro."

Dang this is stupid. When was the last time you said ANYTHING even remotely intelligent or factual about any scientific topic? HIV affects mostly heterosexuals in the world. You should feel embarrassed of yourself.


----------



## Mac1958

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.

Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> God outside the flow of time


Your God is trapped within the flow of time which is why it can't change the past.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God outside the flow of time
> 
> 
> 
> Your God is trapped within the flow of time which is why it can't change the past.
Click to expand...

Who are you to tell me who my God is?


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God outside the flow of time
> 
> 
> 
> Your God is trapped within the flow of time which is why it can't change the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you to tell me who my God is?
Click to expand...

God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God outside the flow of time
> 
> 
> 
> Your God is trapped within the flow of time which is why it can't change the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you to tell me who my God is?
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to tell scientists they are wrong?


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that *Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist* as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't know my religion.
> 
> 2. America's basis, Judeo-Christian doctrine is based on free will.
> Hence, if some are evil it is there choice, just as being stupid is your choice.
Click to expand...

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and *create evil: I the LORD do all these things.*


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .



How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?
Click to expand...

He obviously meant it's egotistical to think he did it just to create you.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He obviously meant it's egotistical to think he did it just to create you.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He obviously meant it's egotistical to think he did it just to create you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so.
Click to expand...

I do think that is what is meant.  It is pretty egotistical to think you're that special, and to think that you deserve to live forever.  It's natural, too.  But then again, so is pooping in the nearest shallow hole.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God outside the flow of time
> 
> 
> 
> Your God is trapped within the flow of time which is why it can't change the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you to tell me who my God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God.
Click to expand...

Lol, you are the 'god' of the absurd perhaps, but little more than that.


----------



## K9Buck

edthecynic said:


> Your God...



He's your creator too, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your God...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's your creator too, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

No, infidel, that would be Zoroaster.  Get your goofy voodoo out of here, this is a place of truth.


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years..
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?
Click to expand...

It's egotistical to believe that you and your personal religion have The Answer to The Question, and that everyone else -- including every other religion -- is wrong, when the fact is that no one can know.

Faith is fine - but it isn't fact, it's faith.  Let's not confuse the two.
.


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.
> 
> a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
> Challenge me on that.
> 
> b. As an example...
> Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'
> 
> 
> 
> We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know.  I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election.
> 
> Just don't try to use ObamaCare as an example since it uses private insurance companies, hospitals, & doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election."
> 
> 
> Let's check.
> 
> 
> How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:
> 
> ......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....
> 
> 1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
> 
> 2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
> 
> 3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
> 
> 4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
> 
> 
> 5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
> 
> 6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
> 
> 7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
> 
> 8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
> 
> 9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
> 
> 10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
> 
> 
> 11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
> 
> 12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
> 
> 13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce
> 
> 
> 
> Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?
> 
> I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
> 
> The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
> The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
> 
> 
> 
> You might take a look at this one, too.
> 10 planks of Communist manifesto
> Communist Manifesto 10 Planks
> 
> 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
> 
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
> 
> 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
> 
> 
> 
> "*Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
> Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof*
> 
> And this:
> 
> "Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.*Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917*(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> 
> They didn't call it ObamaCare....or 'single payer'....but it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University*
> 
> 
> President Barack *Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism,* claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.”
> Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism [VIDEO]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?_
Click to expand...

Fucking dumb bitch, get back on topic. What an asshole you are.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.


Except evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists as proven true:
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, *the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.* However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

You are being disingenuous, ignorant, or just plain lying to talk about Darwin's other theories in the context of my quote above.  I'll let you decide why you bear false witness.  Also, people like you are destroying this country by making every issue a matter of left or right.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.
> 
> It isn't.


If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there.  Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination.  I think we're making progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?
> 
> That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.
Click to expand...

I do support a ban on abortions after a certain number of weeks, I'm just not sure what that number should be.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.


The same can be said of almost any animal and we can kill any animal (we own) at any stage in their lives  Why should human beings be granted special rights?  How are humans different from other animals?


----------



## alang1216

irosie91 said:


> Fret not------the IRON MAIDENS  have been retired


Not on the USMB


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ever notice that when Propagandachick posts it's just mindless propoganda? We all have.

Anyways we live in the Milky Way galaxy which is amazing in itself, and at the heart of our galaxy is likely: Massive black hole discovered near heart of the Milky Way


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Not quite correct. OT is about the establishment of a people so that all mankind may be redeemed. The NT is the fulfillment of that plan.


The OT God had no issues killing the innocent to punish the guilty.  The NT God, not so much.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OT God was a god of the Jews, the NT God is a god of individuals.  Just one example but the difference is striking that Gnostics believed they could not be the same god
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think God changed so much as humanity matured a bit more to be capable of grasping the changes in what would be revealed about God and morality.
> 
> And certainly nothing has changed about God's relationship with the sons of Israel.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the OT had a heaven or hell, they are an invention of the NT God and a major change in man's relationship with God.


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> Why should human beings be granted special rights? How are humans different from other animals?



From a legal point of view, it's not a capital crime to kill an animal, and it is a human.

From a moral point of view, the unlawful killing of a person is universally regarded much  more heinous than the unlawful killing of an animal.

If you're really making a case that the killing of a human and an animal are morally equal then you could make a very strong case for cannibalism.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> I don't believe the OT had a heaven or hell, they are an invention of the NT God and a major change in man's relationship with God.


The OT is silent, mostly on the after life.  David mentions Sheol and some other mentions occur, but not much description. Job describes Satan petitioning God in Heaven in the midst of the Angels to put Job into a series of trials.

Heaven and hell did not spring into being with the NT, they just got more air time because humanity was more able to handle the ideas.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite correct. OT is about the establishment of a people so that all mankind may be redeemed. The NT is the fulfillment of that plan.
> 
> 
> 
> The OT God had no issues killing the innocent to punish the guilty.  The NT God, not so much.
Click to expand...

God did not Himself kill anyone, hardly.  It was always the criminal acts of other people or natural disasters.

At most one could claim that God removed blocking cause, but that is not theologically feasible as not every bad thing is blocked by God.


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> Faith is fine - but it isn't fact, it's faith.  Let's not confuse the two.



Who here is saying otherwise?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Get your goofy voodoo out of here, this is a place of truth.



It's "goofy voodoo" to believe that the universe created itself and that life came from lightning striking a puddle of water containing minerals.  LMAO!


----------



## alang1216

fncceo said:


> From a moral point of view, the unlawful killing of a person is universally regarded much  more heinous than the unlawful killing of an animal.


Why?


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> Why?



Sentience and self-awareness is a big reason.  

Another reason might be that humans taste god-awful.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the OT had a heaven or hell, they are an invention of the NT God and a major change in man's relationship with God.
> 
> 
> 
> The OT is silent, mostly on the after life.  David mentions Sheol and some other mentions occur, but not much description. Job describes Satan petitioning God in Heaven in the midst of the Angels to put Job into a series of trials.
> 
> Heaven and hell did not spring into being with the NT, they just got more air time because humanity was more able to handle the ideas.
Click to expand...

So before Jesus, God would send people (Jews?  Non-Jews?) to hell but didn't think to let them know about it?  Quite a nasty surprise for them.


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> God would send people (Jews? Non-Jews?) to hell



We don't actually have a Hell.  Not in the eternal damnation sense.


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sentience and self-awareness is a big reason.
> 
> Another reason might be that humans taste god-awful.
Click to expand...


Taste like chicken!


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite correct. OT is about the establishment of a people so that all mankind may be redeemed. The NT is the fulfillment of that plan.
> 
> 
> 
> The OT God had no issues killing the innocent to punish the guilty.  The NT God, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not Himself kill anyone, hardly.  It was always the criminal acts of other people or natural disasters.
> 
> At most one could claim that God removed blocking cause, but that is not theologically feasible as not every bad thing is blocked by God.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that God sent a flood to kill almost everything, everything meaning animals & babies.  He told the Israelis to kill everyone in Jericho and their animals too.  He sent a plague to kill 70,000 Israelis because David took a census.  Sounds like a serial killer to me yet there is nothing like it in the NT.


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> Taste like chicken!



It REALLY doesn't.


----------



## alang1216

fncceo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Sentience and self-awareness is a big reason.
Click to expand...

Seems like a good stage of development to ban abortions.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.
Click to expand...



Being that you are both a liar and a fool, the numbers will not be instructive to you....

...but, ever the optimist I, here you go:

"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left




1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

*I BACKGROUND*
2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

*II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS*
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime under Chiang Kai-shek

*III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS*
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military 
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges 
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing 
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

*IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS*
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER




Now....why are you so fearful of reality?????


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that *Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist* as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't know my religion.
> 
> 2. America's basis, Judeo-Christian doctrine is based on free will.
> Hence, if some are evil it is there choice, just as being stupid is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and *create evil: I the LORD do all these things.*
Click to expand...




Good to see you've backed down from trying to refute the omnipotence of God.


----------



## K9Buck

alang1216 said:


> I seem to recall that God sent a flood to kill...babies.



Just pretend they were all aborted and then you won't care.


----------



## fncceo

alang1216 said:


> Seems like a good stage of development to ban abortions.



The case could be made, yes.

The real issue with legal abortion is that it's considered homicide in 38 states to unlawfully kill a fetus and not to perform an abortion.

If you don't categorize a fetus as a living person then that has to invalidate fetal homicide as a crime.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists as proven true:
> Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, *the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.* However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
> 
> You are being disingenuous, ignorant, or just plain lying to talk about Darwin's other theories in the context of my quote above.  I'll let you decide why you bear false witness.  Also, people like you are destroying this country by making every issue a matter of left or right.
Click to expand...




alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "
> 
> Only by buffoons.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.
> 
> Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists as proven true:
> Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, *the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.* However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
> 
> You are being disingenuous, ignorant, or just plain lying to talk about Darwin's other theories in the context of my quote above.  I'll let you decide why you bear false witness.  Also, people like you are destroying this country by making every issue a matter of left or right.
Click to expand...




".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."

Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.

Raise your paw.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there.  Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.
Click to expand...



I link, source and document everything I post.

Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you are both a liar and a fool, the numbers will not be instructive to you....
> 
> ...but, ever the optimist I, here you go:
> 
> "Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
> The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.
> 
> a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
> 
> *I BACKGROUND*
> 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
> 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
> 
> *II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS*
> 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
> 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
> 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
> 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime under Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> *III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS*
> 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
> 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
> 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
> 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
> 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
> 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
> 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
> 
> *IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS*
> 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
> 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
> 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
> 
> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....why are you so fearful of reality?????
Click to expand...

I wonder if you have truly connected cause and effect?  None of these events happened in English-speaking places, maybe that is the cause?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I link, source and document everything I post.
> 
> Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.


An entire sentence in your own words with no cut & paste.  I knew you could do it.  And a gratuitous insult to boot.  Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you are both a liar and a fool, the numbers will not be instructive to you....
> 
> ...but, ever the optimist I, here you go:
> 
> "Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
> The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.
> 
> a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
> 
> *I BACKGROUND*
> 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
> 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
> 
> *II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS*
> 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
> 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
> 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
> 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime under Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> *III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS*
> 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
> 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
> 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
> 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
> 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
> 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
> 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
> 
> *IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS*
> 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
> 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
> 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
> 
> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....why are you so fearful of reality?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder if you have truly connected cause and effect?  None of these events happened in English-speaking places, maybe that is the cause?
Click to expand...



"None of these events happened in English-speaking places, maybe that is the cause?"


Over 100 million men, women and children were slaughtered under the auspices of Leftists.

Leftists: communists, Nazis, Fascists, Liberals, Progressives, and socialists.



Only a buffoon would attribute the slaughter to the language spoken by the murderers.

As you don't read, perhaps this award winning documentary would inform you:

Livingscoop.com

Livingscoop.com


*"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.*

 "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." 
Telling the Soviet story


1. The film opens showing the method used to kill millions of civilians...hands tied behind their backs, an expertly aimed shot to the back of the head, the fall into a mass grave. Not the Nazis....Stalin's Soviets....and this went on for years, well before FDR embraced the USSR.

2. Lenin believed in* Utopia, a harmony reached only after certain groups of people are killed:* the 'War of Classes'.  'Initially, wherever communists come to power, Russia, Cuba, Poland, Nicaragua, China, it doesn't matter- they destroy about 10% of the people. They are not enemies...best intellectuals, best workers, best engineers...doesn't matter. It is to restructure the fabric of society, a form of social engineering." 
Vladimir Bukovsky.

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917. 


Liberalism, America's version of Communism, needs to account for this past.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.


I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I link, source and document everything I post.
> 
> Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> An entire sentence in your own words with no cut & paste.  I knew you could do it.  And a gratuitous insult to boot.  Thanks.
Click to expand...



_You are far t_oo flagitious an individual to deserve any but the most condign contumely.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you are both a liar and a fool, the numbers will not be instructive to you....
> 
> ...but, ever the optimist I, here you go:
> 
> "Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
> The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.
> 
> a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
> 
> *I BACKGROUND*
> 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
> 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
> 
> *II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS*
> 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
> 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
> 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
> 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime under Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> *III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS*
> 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
> 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
> 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
> 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
> 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
> 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
> 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
> 
> *IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS*
> 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
> 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
> 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
> 
> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....why are you so fearful of reality?????
Click to expand...


Poor Political Chic

Unable to stay on topic


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> "None of these events happened in English-speaking places, maybe that is the cause?"
> 
> Over 100 million men, women and children were slaughtered under the auspices of Leftists.



Non-English speaking Leftists!  You have not proven language is NOT the cause.

Since there is no universal 'Leftist' manifesto, I'll ask you about the Communist Manifesto.  Where in it does it call for the anyone's slaughter?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> _You are far t_oo flagitious an individual to deserve any but the most condign contumely.


But at least I learned two new words today.  What have you learned today?


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall that God sent a flood to kill...babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just pretend they were all aborted and then you won't care.
Click to expand...

Are you morally superior to God?


----------



## JimBowie1958

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taste like chicken!
> 
> 
> 
> It REALLY doesn't.
Click to expand...

Wont ask how you know that.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> I seem to recall that God sent a flood to kill almost everything, everything meaning animals & babies.  He told the Israelis to kill everyone in Jericho and their animals too.  He sent a plague to kill 70,000 Israelis because David took a census.  Sounds like a serial killer to me yet there is nothing like it in the NT.



This is a complicated issue, but let me try with an analogy first.

Suppose a person was engaging in extra marital sex at a high frequency and got herpes.

From a cause and effect perspective, his own behavior was what got him infected, but from a moral perspective it is consistent to say that he was tested and judged by God, though not literally.

The plague 'sent by God' was described as an angel that David stopped at the place the temple was later built, but this is obviously metaphor as plagues are not angels of death roaming the Earth.  That is simply the understanding of a pastoral people three thousand years ago. To the mind of the Biblical writer that is what it was and so the Spirit of God led him to write what he did as best the author understood it.

When God orders the mass slaughter of an entire community, to include those we think innocent, it is not comparable to the guilt we would have were we to do such a thing under our own volition. God can see the future and he knows what the descendants of Jericho or the Amalekites would do if left alive and He knows it perfectly. So God has the moral authority to condemn a community of people such as the inhabitants of Jericho, Sodom Gomorrah, or the Amalekites because He alone can prevent much worse violence.  The Amalekites for example were allowed to live by KingSaul and they returned to being a plague to Israel that cause more suffering for them for centuries if they indeed became ancestors of some of the Arab tribes.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> The plague 'sent by God' was described as an angel that David stopped at the place the temple was later built, but this is obviously metaphor as plagues are not angels of death roaming the Earth.  That is simply the understanding of a pastoral people three thousand years ago. To the mind of the Biblical writer that is what it was and so the Spirit of God led him to write what he did as best the author understood it.



An atheist might say there was a plague after the census so the pastoral people connected the two.

A theist said:
_God gave David a choice of three punishments for his sin—three years of famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies, or three days of plague. David chose the third, and the Lord then punished Israel with a plague that killed 70,000 men from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. As for why God punished the whole nation for the sin of the king, that is exactly the question David asks in 2 Samuel 24:17. Why, when he was the one who had sinned, did the people have to suffer? He even requested that God’s hand be against him and his family only, and that God would spare the people. But, as with the account of Job, God chose not to give a reason for His actions. Perhaps it was because of Israel’s multiplied sins and rebellion against God throughout the centuries. Perhaps it was a lesson to the people (and to us as well) that the people suffer when their leaders go astray. The reality is that God didn’t justify His actions with a reason, nor does He have to.
_
Either way it sounds like a literal plague to me.



JimBowie1958 said:


> When God orders the mass slaughter of an entire community, to include those we think innocent, it is not comparable to the guilt we would have were we to do such a thing under our own volition. God can see the future and he knows what the descendants of Jericho or the Amalekites would do if left alive and He knows it perfectly. So God has the moral authority to condemn a community of people such as the inhabitants of Jericho, Sodom Gomorrah, or the Amalekites because He alone can prevent much worse violence.  The Amalekites for example were allowed to live by KingSaul and they returned to being a plague to Israel that cause more suffering for them for centuries if they indeed became ancestors of some of the Arab tribes.


I'm sure you'd agree that since God created the people of Jericho he could have found a way to save them.  Where was Jesus when they needed him?


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plague 'sent by God' was described as an angel that David stopped at the place the temple was later built, but this is obviously metaphor as plagues are not angels of death roaming the Earth.  That is simply the understanding of a pastoral people three thousand years ago. To the mind of the Biblical writer that is what it was and so the Spirit of God led him to write what he did as best the author understood it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist might say there was a plague after the census so the pastoral people connected the two.
> 
> A theist said:
> _God gave David a choice of three punishments for his sin—three years of famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies, or three days of plague. David chose the third, and the Lord then punished Israel with a plague that killed 70,000 men from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. As for why God punished the whole nation for the sin of the king, that is exactly the question David asks in 2 Samuel 24:17. Why, when he was the one who had sinned, did the people have to suffer? He even requested that God’s hand be against him and his family only, and that God would spare the people. But, as with the account of Job, God chose not to give a reason for His actions. Perhaps it was because of Israel’s multiplied sins and rebellion against God throughout the centuries. Perhaps it was a lesson to the people (and to us as well) that the people suffer when their leaders go astray. The reality is that God didn’t justify His actions with a reason, nor does He have to.
> _
> Either way it sounds like a literal plague to me.
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When God orders the mass slaughter of an entire community, to include those we think innocent, it is not comparable to the guilt we would have were we to do such a thing under our own volition. God can see the future and he knows what the descendants of Jericho or the Amalekites would do if left alive and He knows it perfectly. So God has the moral authority to condemn a community of people such as the inhabitants of Jericho, Sodom Gomorrah, or the Amalekites because He alone can prevent much worse violence.  The Amalekites for example were allowed to live by KingSaul and they returned to being a plague to Israel that cause more suffering for them for centuries if they indeed became ancestors of some of the Arab tribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you'd agree that since God created the people of Jericho he could have found a way to save them.  Where was Jesus when they needed him?
Click to expand...


The plague was literal, but it being the punishment from God for the census is not necessarily literal. That is a moral statement that has no objective way to be confirmed scientifically or historically.

Not all problems have solutions, and since God ordered them all to be killed I think it confirms that there was no way.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You are far t_oo flagitious an individual to deserve any but the most condign contumely.
> 
> 
> 
> But at least I learned two new words today.  What have you learned today?
Click to expand...



That you're a buffoon?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...
> 
> ...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you are both a liar and a fool, the numbers will not be instructive to you....
> 
> ...but, ever the optimist I, here you go:
> 
> "Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
> The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.
> 
> a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
> 
> *I BACKGROUND*
> 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
> 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
> 
> *II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS*
> 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
> 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
> 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
> 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime under Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> *III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS*
> 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
> 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
> 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
> 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
> 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
> 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
> 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
> 
> *IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS*
> 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
> 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
> 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
> 
> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....why are you so fearful of reality?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Political Chic
> 
> Unable to stay on topic
Click to expand...




I'm not a Liberal....I don't take orders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get your goofy voodoo out of here, this is a place of truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "goofy voodoo" to believe that the universe created itself and that life came from lightning striking a puddle of water containing minerals.  LMAO!
Click to expand...

"It's "goofy voodoo" to believe that the universe created itself and that life came from lightning striking a puddle of water containing minerals. "

No it's not, what an odd thing to say.  I know you desperately want to drag all scientific questions and knowledge down into the murky slime where faith-based ideas reside (since you cannot elevate your faith-based ideas to the status of science), but you will always fail.  Always.

You're just today's version of the religious naysayer that has been squawking for millenia.  500 years ago, you would have been squawking about the earth revolving around the Sun.  200 years ago, you would have been cackling at the idea that pathogens cause disease.  100 years ago, you would have been doing the same little dance regarding the idea that there is more than one galaxy in the universe.  Same shit, different day,  Did I mention you will always fail?  Always.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You are far t_oo flagitious an individual to deserve any but the most condign contumely.
> 
> 
> 
> But at least I learned two new words today.  What have you learned today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you're a buffoon?
Click to expand...

No, you called me that yesterday.  Try again.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> The plague was literal, but it being the punishment from God for the census is not necessarily literal. That is a moral statement that has no objective way to be confirmed scientifically or historically.
> 
> Not all problems have solutions, and since God ordered them all to be killed I think it confirms that there was no way.


The Bible makes the connection.  Is the OT fake news?

I guess God isn't as powerful as I thought.


----------



## JimBowie1958

alang1216 said:


> The Bible makes the connection.  Is the OT fake news?



The Bible is a spiritual document and makes connections that a secular perspective would not make.

That is not fake news, that is simply a different perspective.



alang1216 said:


> I guess God isn't as powerful as I thought.



How much power allows one to find an answer to the unanswerable question?

How many BTUs would allow you to make a four sided triangle?

Not everything can be accomplished by simply increasing the power applied, hence it is not a facet of omnipotence to say they cannot be achieved.


----------



## alang1216

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible makes the connection.  Is the OT fake news?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a spiritual document and makes connections that a secular perspective would not make.
> 
> That is not fake news, that is simply a different perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess God isn't as powerful as I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much power allows one to find an answer to the unanswerable question?
> 
> How many BTUs would allow you to make a four sided triangle?
> 
> Not everything can be accomplished by simply increasing the power applied, hence it is not a facet of omnipotence to say they cannot be achieved.
Click to expand...

I guess this 'natural' selection has worked since God has not felt the need to sanction genocide in a very long time.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Mac1958 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.
> 
> Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .
Click to expand...

Origin of life aside, why would anyone have a belief carbon atoms care about what color goes with your pants?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
Click to expand...

I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing it all wrong
> 
> You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years?"
> 
> What is this nonsense? Plenty of species have emerged in the last 500 million years.
> 
> As far as new types of life, ut's a simple answer....the biomass already existent on this planet dominates.
Click to expand...

If it’s so simple and so many new life forms have emerged from the mud in the past 500 million years, then you should have no trouble listing three of them.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of almost any animal and we can kill any animal (we own) at any stage in their lives  Why should human beings be granted special rights?  How are humans different from other animals?
Click to expand...

Because only humans are created in the image of God. 

Since 1962 school kids could no longer be told they were each created equally in the image of God. This was replaced with telling kids they are no more important than a tree. 

We are bearing the fruits of that change now with the rapid escalation of mass murder in our society.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
Click to expand...

You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?
Click to expand...

You can not arrange them into a human, despite your goofy lie to the contrary. The corpse is not moving because it is no lomger sustaining the chemical reactions required.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not arrange them into a human, despite your goofy lie to the contrary. The corpse is not moving because it is no lomger sustaining the chemical reactions required.
Click to expand...

All the same exact atoms are there. 

Why does oxygen paint murals on walls?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of almost any animal and we can kill any animal (we own) at any stage in their lives  Why should human beings be granted special rights?  How are humans different from other animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only humans are created in the image of God.
> 
> Since 1962 school kids could no longer be told they were each created equally in the image of God. This was replaced with telling kids they are no more important than a tree.
> 
> We are bearing the fruits of that change now with the rapid escalation of mass murder in our society.
Click to expand...

You certainly are fond of making magical, authoritative declarations. Then you say things about science that are ridiculously wrong. Have you considered just sticking to topics comcerming only magical nonsense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not arrange them into a human, despite your goofy lie to the contrary. The corpse is not moving because it is no lomger sustaining the chemical reactions required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the same exact atoms are there.
> 
> Why does oxygen paint murals on walls?
Click to expand...


Yes, same answer as the other eleventy times you asked. They are no longer arranged correctly. Ask again? Same answer. Oxygen doesnt paint murals, what a stupid thing to say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
Click to expand...

That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
Click to expand...

What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.

You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.

The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?
> 
> Time needed?  No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.
> 
> Yet no new life.
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not arrange them into a human, despite your goofy lie to the contrary. The corpse is not moving because it is no lomger sustaining the chemical reactions required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the same exact atoms are there.
> 
> Why does oxygen paint murals on walls?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, same answer as the other eleventy times you asked. They are no longer arranged correctly. Ask again? Same answer. Oxygen doesnt paint murals, what a stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...

OK, you are correct. Oxygen alone does not paint murals. It takes team work.
A number of different elements paint the mural.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.
> 
> You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.
> 
> The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.
Click to expand...

You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... accepted by the vast majority of scientists...."
> 
> Only a buffoon imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that science is based on consensus or the raising of hands.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.
> 
> You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.
> 
> The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.
Click to expand...

"90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?"
> 
> ....as if you have done this. Ever seen a pile of "elements" just like a human that didn't move? I have. It's called a corpse.
> 
> 
> 
> I can buy all the elements of a human on amazon. But why is your corpse not moving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not arrange them into a human, despite your goofy lie to the contrary. The corpse is not moving because it is no lomger sustaining the chemical reactions required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the same exact atoms are there.
> 
> Why does oxygen paint murals on walls?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, same answer as the other eleventy times you asked. They are no longer arranged correctly. Ask again? Same answer. Oxygen doesnt paint murals, what a stupid thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you are correct. Oxygen alone does not paint murals. It takes team work.
> A number of different elements paint the mural.
> View attachment 152887
Click to expand...

Correct! And they discover their own constituents and make pretty little charts for you to misunderstand.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> A number of different elements paint the mural.



Not the same things ...


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of different elements paint the mural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same things ...
Click to expand...

Sure they are.  All the same when you look close enough.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of different elements paint the mural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same things ...
Click to expand...

And that was nice of you to show how intelligent design works, thanks.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Sure they are. All the same when you look close enough.



Glad I don't live in your house ...


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they are. All the same when you look close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad I don't live in your house ...
Click to expand...

I like to look out.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of different elements paint the mural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same things ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was nice of you to show how intelligent design works, thanks.
Click to expand...


And that's good.  If you acknowledge that constituent elements of a sentient being have to be combined in specific ways to create life and sentience then we're making progress.  It matters not to me how you believe those constituent elements became combined.  

That is a completely different conversation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> 
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.
> 
> You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.
> 
> The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"
Click to expand...

I see. So now, "a scientist" has become "90% of scientists". I would accuse you of the charlatan's tactic of "bait and switch", but we both know you are not that clever and have no idea of the dumb thing you just did.

Btw, it's more than 90%. And no, that's not why I accept the conaensus view. You see, scientists go to great lengths to create charts and articles for nonscientists to understand their work. Admittedly, one must still be somewhat educated and have some science knowledge to understand them. So they're not for you.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Since 1962 school kids could no longer be told they were each created equally in the image of God. This was replaced with telling kids they are no more important than a tree.


Only those educated by the public school system you mean.  This is really your goal then, a theocracy.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a science question and find that the vast majority of scientists accept one answer, based on science, while a large number of non-scientists accept a non-science answer.  Which answer do I go with?
> 
> 
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
Click to expand...

If you were Catholic, would you accept your religious instruction from me or would you insist on a priest who actually knows what he is talking about?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement.  They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.
> 
> You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.
> 
> The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. So now, "a scientist" has become "90% of scientists". I would accuse you of the charlatan's tactic of "bait and switch", but we both know you are not that clever and have no idea of the dumb thing you just did.
> 
> Btw, it's more than 90%. And no, that's not why I accept the conaensus view. You see, scientists go to great lengths to create charts and articles for nonscientists to understand their work. Admittedly, one must still be somewhat educated and have some science knowledge to understand them. So they're not for you.
Click to expand...

Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.


What are you saying?  That only God can create sentient atoms?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process.  Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, you had just stated so.  You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.
> 
> You see it all of the time here on USMB.  It must be true, scientists say so BS.
> 
> The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them.  The left are bobblehead dolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. So now, "a scientist" has become "90% of scientists". I would accuse you of the charlatan's tactic of "bait and switch", but we both know you are not that clever and have no idea of the dumb thing you just did.
> 
> Btw, it's more than 90%. And no, that's not why I accept the conaensus view. You see, scientists go to great lengths to create charts and articles for nonscientists to understand their work. Admittedly, one must still be somewhat educated and have some science knowledge to understand them. So they're not for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.
Click to expand...

I don't think you inderstand the term "straw man". Also, you are proof that a collection of molecules can be sentient. There's not much more anyone can tell you.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.



This mantis shrimp (_Gonodactylus smithii_) might have a much more elaborate brain than previously thought. That’s the conclusion of the first study to peer into the head of more than 200 crustaceans, including crabs, shrimp, and lobsters. Researchers discovered that the brain of mantis shrimp contains memory and learning centers, called mushroom bodies, which so far have been seen only in insects. The team also found similar structures in close relatives of these sea creatures: cleaner shrimp, pistol shrimp, and hermit crabs. This may not be a coincidence, the researchers say, because mantis shrimp and their brethren are the only crustaceans that hunt over long distances and might have to remember where to get food. But the finding, reported in _eLife_, is likely to stir debate: Scientists agree that mushroom bodies evolved after the insect lineage split off from the crustacean lineage about 480 million years ago; finding these learning centers in mantis shrimp means that either mushroom bodies are much more ancient than scientists realized and were lost in all crustaceans but mantis shrimp, or that these structures are similar to their counterparts in insects but have evolved independently.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...emory-and-learning-centers-found-only-insects


----------



## Old Rocks

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taste like chicken!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It REALLY doesn't.
Click to expand...

Don't really know. The only part of a human I have tasted was rather fishy tasting.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Also, you are proof that a collection of molecules can be sentient.



I wouldn't rush to judgement on something like that until all the facts are in.


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there.  Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I link, source and document everything I post.
> 
> Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. And I well understand from that experience just how full of shit you truly are. A consensus among scientists simply means that the experts in that discipline accept that as the best model, at present, for what we see in nature. And that model is based on facts, evidence, and observations. Whereas almost everything you have ever presented is based on your skewed political and religious views of this world.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.
> 
> At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of almost any animal and we can kill any animal (we own) at any stage in their lives  Why should human beings be granted special rights?  How are humans different from other animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only humans are created in the image of God.
> 
> Since 1962 school kids could no longer be told they were each created equally in the image of God. This was replaced with telling kids they are no more important than a tree.
> 
> We are bearing the fruits of that change now with the rapid escalation of mass murder in our society.
Click to expand...

Well, that is your opinion. I much prefer the Native American image of a deity, a spirit imbued in all things in the Universe. Personally, I don't think that if there is a Deity, that it gives a flying fuck about any of us. The universe that brought forth life by the laws of the universe, has granted us self awareness. Now what happens to our species is entirely up to us, provided the universe does not accidentally kill us off like it did the dinosaurs.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence.  Yet.  Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?
Click to expand...

It's certainly egotistical to believe that some kind of vertebrate with testicles created the universe.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there.  Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I link, source and document everything I post.
> 
> Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been there, done that. And I well understand from that experience just how full of shit you truly are. A consensus among scientists simply means that the experts in that discipline accept that as the best model, at present, for what we see in nature. And that model is based on facts, evidence, and observations. Whereas almost everything you have ever presented is based on your skewed political and religious views of this world.
Click to expand...



I mean a real college,not the Barnum & Baily Clown College that you attended.

And,,,,too bad your upbringing never included what language is appropriate outside of the boys bathroom.



But, I never mind educating the ignorant....you.
Take notes:

"The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected *it must be functionally complete*. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is *nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme,* let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence. 

Such irreducibly complex systems are of *no selective value unless they are complete*." Alan H. Linton is emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. Scant search for the Maker | Biological sciences | Times Higher Education



 One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. 
Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines,_  p. 475


----------



## PoliticalChic

"If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and* how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance,* just consider the cell's nucleus. 

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly_4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell._ 

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous. 

DNA is so complex that within the tiniest-known and simplest living organism (bacteria called _mycoplasma genitalium_), 111 of the roughly 300 protein-coding genes essential to the little organism's existence were of unknown function as of this writing. 

Yes, more than one third of the DNA—of just this one organelle—is so complex its function is unknown. 

In fact, it is said that a "simple" bacterium contains over 100 billion bits of data stored in the DNA's genes and chromosomes. 

* In other words, what experts "don't want you to know" is the fact that the "simplest organism" is not, as they mislead folks to believe, "simple." 

It is the antithesis of simple. *

Its astonishing complexity easily dwarfs any technology created by the human mind. 

Stanford University's Dr. Lubert Stryer noted that the DNA from a single human cell contains roughly 2.9 billion base pairs. This means to record the human genome it would require roughly 3,000 books of 1,000,000 characters each (assuming each base pair was recorded as a character). 

And yet, this incredible technology is most efficiently packaged. Experts tell us that if one could extract the DNA coils (~3 meters in length) from every cell of your body (~2-5 trillion) and unravel them—placed end to end the distance would span _more than 5 billion miles. _Yet the genetic information for reproduction of the entire human population would fit comfortably inside a thimble. 

Quite plainly, experts don't come close to understanding—much less reconstructing or synthesizing—the simplest organisms on earth. And some of them are finally realizing this is not going to happen, that *life will never be reproduced by any scientist from scratch." *
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org



Simple organisms formed as a result of an 'accident'???

Hardly.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> "The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected *it must be functionally complete*. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is *nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme,* let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.
> 
> Such irreducibly complex systems are of *no selective value unless they are complete*."


Outside of the creationist fringe, I don't believe the scientific community accepts irreducibly complexity.  It seems to me to be just another version of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Since you like a good cut and paste:
The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of _Of Pandas and People_.[4]In his 1996 book _Darwin's Black Box_ he called this _irreducible complexity_ and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4]Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_ trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1]


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> "If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and* how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance,* just consider the cell's nucleus...


Strawman alert!  No scientist seriously believes cells just spontaneously formed by chance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected *it must be functionally complete*. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is *nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme,* let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.
> 
> Such irreducibly complex systems are of *no selective value unless they are complete*."
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of the creationist fringe, I don't believe the scientific community accepts irreducibly complexity.  It seems to me to be just another version of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
> 
> Since you like a good cut and paste:
> The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of _Of Pandas and People_.[4]In his 1996 book _Darwin's Black Box_ he called this _irreducible complexity_ and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4]Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]
> 
> In the 2005 _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_ trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1]
Click to expand...



Science, real science, is based on the scientific method....the results of experiments that are reproducible....not conjecture....

...sooooo....can you provide proof of the creation of life....or even of any new species?

Of course you can't.




Even the most noted of atheistic Marxists, such ass Gould, admit same.

_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit *no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; *morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

 2. *Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” *(Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Sudden appearance....fully formed.....as though they were place on earth....

By Whom?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Science, real science, is based on the scientific method....the results of experiments that are reproducible....not conjecture....
> 
> ...sooooo....can you provide proof of the creation of life....or even of any new species?
> 
> Of course you can't.


Science has been studying the fossil record for over a century and have found trillions of fossils.  They all support evolution.  If there is a creator he is trying hard to trick us.


----------



## SeaGal

Weatherman2020 said:


> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.



That's an interesting concept - science can break a blade of grass down to it's molecular level, put all the components together in a beaker, shake it well, yet cannot make it grow again.  

God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.  I think bangers have even shakier ground to stand on - positing that life came from non life.  Believers at least have empirical evidence...the incredible complexity, beauty and order of life.  Explosions create chaos, not order.


----------



## alang1216

SeaGal said:


> God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.


The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding.  Why would God create an expanding universe?


----------



## SeaGal

alang1216 said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding.  Why would God create an expanding universe?
Click to expand...

 
Why would He not?

I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.

In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.

I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere.  The harmony in the cycle of life. 

But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.


----------



## alang1216

SeaGal said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding.  Why would God create an expanding universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would He not?
Click to expand...

Is he a trickster or just trying to hide?  He made galaxies so far away that their light took billions of years to reach us and then told us the world was created in six days.

You say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.  If we are unique why did God make so many other galaxies that we've never even been able to see until recently?  If we're unique why so many others?  A trick?

Why does faith always have to be blind?


----------



## SeaGal

alang1216 said:


> Why does faith always have to be blind?



An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know what ratio of elements we are.
> Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting concept - science can break a blade of grass down to it's molecular level, put all the components together in a beaker, shake it well, yet cannot make it grow again.
Click to expand...


Because we can't do it now doesn't mean we can't do it in the future.  Man couldn't fly until just over a hundred years ago.  For thousands of years we lacked the ability to fly.   But eventually we learned how to do it.  All you proved is that our scientific knowledge isn't complete.



SeaGal said:


> God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.  I think bangers have even shakier ground to stand on - positing that life came from non life.  Believers at least have empirical evidence...the incredible complexity, beauty and order of life.  Explosions create chaos, not order.



The Big Bang has fare more evidence to support it than the creation myth in the Bible.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding.  Why would God create an expanding universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would He not?
> 
> I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.
> 
> In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.
> 
> I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere.  The harmony in the cycle of life.
> 
> But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.
Click to expand...


The fact that we don't know all there is to know about the universe doesn't allow you to wave the magic wand and propose some magical gaseous vertebrate with a penis as the cause.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SeaGal said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding.  Why would God create an expanding universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would He not?
> 
> I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.
> 
> In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.
> 
> I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere.  The harmony in the cycle of life.
> 
> But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.
Click to expand...

"I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case."

So? It does not attempt to explain such a thing. And an easy explanation for that would be that the universe is very big. That's why we have found no other life "so far".


----------



## SeaGal

bripat9643 said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
Click to expand...


A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Being a skeptic doesn't automatically make you a scientist, but no credible scientist is not a skeptic.  Waving a magic wand and postulating some all-powerful gaseous vertebrate with a penis as the answer to every question we can't answer yet is nothing short of absurd.  Saying science doesn't have all the answers isn't an argument in favor of the existence of God.

Are you offended?  Tough.  The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.  

Get over yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.
Click to expand...


Scientists don't "believe" in a theory the way the religious believe in God.  Scientists accept the best theory available only until a better theory comes along.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists don't "believe" in a theory the way the religious believe in God.  Scientists accept the best theory available only until a better theory comes along.
Click to expand...

Correct. But it is still true that scientists will call some theories "facts", once they have been so well supported as to leave no doubt of their truth. For instance, evolution is considered fact.


----------



## SeaGal

bripat9643 said:


> Are you offended?  Tough.  The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
> 
> Get over yourself.



Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine?  Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule?  That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread. 

What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you offended?  Tough.  The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine?  Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule?  That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
> 
> What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

That's not completely accurate.  For one, there is "scientific proof" (evidence, really) that life arose simply through deterministic physical processes.  That proof is that it appears scientific determinism holds always, and there would be no reason to believe it would not hold for such a process.  It is therefore reasonable to believe it almost certain that life arose through a deterministic physical process, and to expect to find knowledge of the process itself, using this assumption.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you offended?  Tough.  The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine?  Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule?  That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
> 
> What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

No, they don't.  However, one thing we know is that creationism has no factual or logical support.  None.   WE also know that at one point in time there was no life.  At a later point in time there was life.  The conclusion is therefore inescapable that life arose from inanimate matter.  The only alternative theory is that magic made it happen, and rational adults don't accept the existence of magic.


----------



## bripat9643

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does faith always have to be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Science doesn't rely on faith.  In fact it relies on skepticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A skeptic does not a scientist make.  Nor theory a fact.  We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not.  Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Nope.  Have I no "faith" in any theory in the sense you use the term.  I'll accept a convincing theory until a better one comes along, and not a second longer.  I find the facts and logic supporting some theories to be fairly conclusive.  Other theories, not so much.  I am not the slightest bit offended when anyone questions a scientific theory.  However, that doesn't mean I won't ridicule arguments that are patently absurd.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?


----------



## K9Buck

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
Click to expand...


And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
Click to expand...


That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.


----------



## fncceo

K9Buck said:


> And who created the guy who created the creator? And who made the guys before him?


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
Click to expand...

Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?

Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.
Click to expand...

That's because of cognitive dissonance. 

Their problem is they think small. They put god inside a box. Assume our universe is gods box. They can't imagine there's anything else outside this box. So basically they've put god in our box too.

And god forbid that god might have other boxes.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you offended?  Tough.  The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine?  Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule?  That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
> 
> What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not completely accurate.  For one, there is "scientific proof" (evidence, really) that life arose simply through deterministic physical processes.  That proof is that it appears scientific determinism holds always, and there would be no reason to believe it would not hold for such a process.  It is therefore reasonable to believe it almost certain that life arose through a deterministic physical process, and to expect to find knowledge of the process itself, using this assumption.
Click to expand...

As far as science can tell a single cell evolved into all the complex life we see now on earth.

Either that or you believe a god waved his hand and suddenly fully formed insects, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds and fish appeared at once


----------



## SeaGal

bripat9643 said:


> No, they don't.  However, one thing we know is that creationism has no factual or logical support.  None.   WE also know that at one point in time there was no life.  At a later point in time there was life.  The conclusion is therefore inescapable that life arose from inanimate matter.  The only alternative theory is that magic made it happen, and rational adults don't accept the existence of magic.



Yes we do know that at one time there was no life, and at a later time there was life.  What was the _catalyst_?  To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_ to believe in magic, and is no more logical than belief in creation.  In fact, it shows a willing blindness to other possibilities.  The only folks here denying other possibilities without proof of their own is you and your ilk.

The title of this thread is - _'The belief that life was the result of an accident is unscientific'_...and until you can connect the dots between non-living and living you got nothing scientific beyond a comfortable theory.  Comfortable only because alternatives are too terrible to bear.  I'm not the zealot here insisting that only my theory can be correct and all others are stupid.

Again I say - until science can show us the bridge between non-life and life, identify the catalyst - all you got are theories that require a degree of faith.  For all any of_ know_ we could be a giant alien child's ant farm.  

Good talk.


----------



## alang1216

SeaGal said:


> To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_ to believe in magic, and is no more logical than belief in creation.


Not true, it displays an understanding of science.  Atoms are perfectly capable of self-organizing, just look at any crystal.  There are plenty of inanimate molecules capable of self-assembly too.  From self-assembly to reproduction seems a logical step and once molecules can reproduce natural selection will govern their continuing evolution.  Science and logic.  There are plenty of other theories but this simple one is my favorite under additional evidence is found.  No faith required.


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
Click to expand...

Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.

Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?


----------



## SeaGal

alang1216 said:


> Not true, it displays an understanding of science.  Atoms are perfectly capable of self-organizing, just look at any crystal.  There are plenty of inanimate molecules capable of self-assembly too.  From self-assembly to reproduction seems a logical step and once molecules can reproduce natural selection will govern their continuing evolution.  Science and logic.  There are plenty of other theories but this simple one is my favorite under additional evidence is found.  No faith required.



We all choose the theory that is our favorite - mine is no less 'logical' than yours.  Logic has not produced the bridge that goes from self assembly of non- life to life.

Belief in an unseen, unobservable and unproven event is the very definition of faith.  Not faith in religion, true - but faith nonetheless.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
Click to expand...

Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
Click to expand...

Oh, so America, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, is just like ISIS?


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so America, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, is just like ISIS?
> 
> View attachment 153393
Click to expand...

Didn't the Jews kill your Messiah?


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
Click to expand...


And who exactly taught him what is relevant?


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so America, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, is just like ISIS?
> 
> View attachment 153393
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't the Jews kill your Messiah?
Click to expand...

Since you parrots can't come up with your magical atoms that write music your off to stupid strawman rants.


----------



## Taz

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.


So you make up an invisible guy who made us?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Taz said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> So you make up an invisible guy who made us?
Click to expand...

Dufus searching for his magical poetry writing atoms gets dumber and dumber.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> 
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so America, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, is just like ISIS?
> 
> View attachment 153393
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't the Jews kill your Messiah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you parrots can't come up with your magical atoms that write music your off to stupid strawman rants.
Click to expand...

So we have to show you an atom that writes music or else that proves an intelligent god did it?  What a dope.


----------



## Taz

Weatherman2020 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> So you make up an invisible guy who made us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dufus searching for his magical poetry writing atoms gets dumber and dumber.
Click to expand...

If you mean that you can't prove your invisible except to a psychiatrist, then you'd be right.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> So you make up an invisible guy who made us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dufus searching for his magical poetry writing atoms gets dumber and dumber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean that you can't prove your invisible except to a psychiatrist, then you'd be right.
Click to expand...


There must be a god creature lurking in the background.  A watch can't make itself so  just like every watch has a watchmaker every universe has a universe maker.

Lets say I buy that argument, which I don't.  But lets say I did.  Now what makes anyone think that when they die they themselves become gods who live for all eternity?

Man people are dumb.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SeaGal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  However, one thing we know is that creationism has no factual or logical support.  None.   WE also know that at one point in time there was no life.  At a later point in time there was life.  The conclusion is therefore inescapable that life arose from inanimate matter.  The only alternative theory is that magic made it happen, and rational adults don't accept the existence of magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know that at one time there was no life, and at a later time there was life.  What was the _catalyst_?  To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_ to believe in magic, and is no more logical than belief in creation.  In fact, it shows a willing blindness to other possibilities.  The only folks here denying other possibilities without proof of their own is you and your ilk.
> 
> The title of this thread is - _'The belief that life was the result of an accident is unscientific'_...and until you can connect the dots between non-living and living you got nothing scientific beyond a comfortable theory.  Comfortable only because alternatives are too terrible to bear.  I'm not the zealot here insisting that only my theory can be correct and all others are stupid.
> 
> Again I say - until science can show us the bridge between non-life and life, identify the catalyst - all you got are theories that require a degree of faith.  For all any of_ know_ we could be a giant alien child's ant farm.
> 
> Good talk.
Click to expand...

"To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_to believe in magic"

100% false. Organisms are just physical systems governed by deterministic physical laws, same as every other physical system in the universe. To believe life formed from anything other than a deterministic physical process is to believe magic.

So, no, you have it completely backwards.


----------



## alang1216

SeaGal said:


> We all choose the theory that is our favorite - mine is no less 'logical' than yours.  Logic has not produced the bridge that goes from self assembly of non- life to life.
> 
> Belief in an unseen, unobservable and unproven event is the very definition of faith.  Not faith in religion, true - but faith nonetheless.


Logic dictates that we more readily accept a theory that supports the evidence we see, using the mechanisms we are familiar with, and therefore doesn't violate the laws of the world we see with our eyes, in favor of a theory that does but comes with no evidence or mechanism.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  However, one thing we know is that creationism has no factual or logical support.  None.   WE also know that at one point in time there was no life.  At a later point in time there was life.  The conclusion is therefore inescapable that life arose from inanimate matter.  The only alternative theory is that magic made it happen, and rational adults don't accept the existence of magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know that at one time there was no life, and at a later time there was life.  What was the _catalyst_?  To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_ to believe in magic, and is no more logical than belief in creation.  In fact, it shows a willing blindness to other possibilities.  The only folks here denying other possibilities without proof of their own is you and your ilk.
> 
> The title of this thread is - _'The belief that life was the result of an accident is unscientific'_...and until you can connect the dots between non-living and living you got nothing scientific beyond a comfortable theory.  Comfortable only because alternatives are too terrible to bear.  I'm not the zealot here insisting that only my theory can be correct and all others are stupid.
> 
> Again I say - until science can show us the bridge between non-life and life, identify the catalyst - all you got are theories that require a degree of faith.  For all any of_ know_ we could be a giant alien child's ant farm.
> 
> Good talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "To believe that life sprang from non-life 'spontaneously'_ is_to believe in magic"
> 
> 100% false. Organisms are just physical systems governed by deterministic physical laws, same as every other physical system in the universe. To believe life formed from anything other than a deterministic physical process is to believe magic.
> 
> So, no, you have it completely backwards.
Click to expand...


He believe God created humans from the soil.  That's not very scientific at all.  Right? 

Actually, WRONG:   

*Science backed up religion back in 2003 in a study that suggested life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach.*
*
CNN.com - Study suggests life sprang from clay - Oct. 25, 2003

materials in clay were key to some of the initial processes in forming life.

Specifically, a clay mixture called montmorillonite not only helps form little bags of fat and liquid but helps cells use genetic material called RNA. That, in turn, is one of the key processes of life.

Isn't science great?  

found clays could catalyze the chemical reactions needed to make RNA from building blocks called nucleotides.

They found the clay sped along the process by which fatty acids formed little bag-like structures called vesicles. The clay also carried RNA into those vesicles. A cell is, in essence, a complex bag of liquidy compounds.

"The formation, growth and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy," the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.

"We are not claiming that this is how life started," Szostak stressed.

"We are saying that we have demonstrated growth and division without any biochemical machinery. Ultimately, if we can demonstrate more natural ways this might have happened, it may begin to give us clues about how life could have actually gotten started on the primitive Earth."



*


----------



## sealybobo

SeaGal said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, it displays an understanding of science.  Atoms are perfectly capable of self-organizing, just look at any crystal.  There are plenty of inanimate molecules capable of self-assembly too.  From self-assembly to reproduction seems a logical step and once molecules can reproduce natural selection will govern their continuing evolution.  Science and logic.  There are plenty of other theories but this simple one is my favorite under additional evidence is found.  No faith required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all choose the theory that is our favorite - mine is no less 'logical' than yours.  Logic has not produced the bridge that goes from self assembly of non- life to life.
> 
> Belief in an unseen, unobservable and unproven event is the very definition of faith.  Not faith in religion, true - but faith nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Except your theory isn't even a theory.  Not a scientific one anyways.  So stop insulting theories by calling your hypothesis a theory.





Stromatolites — like these, found in the World Heritage Area of Shark Bay, Western Australia — may contain cyanobacteria, which were most likely earth's first photosynthetic organisms. Stromatolites have been found that date back to about 3.7 billion years ago.

unseen, unobservable and unproven event?  First of all, we don't believe anything that isn't known.  We admit.  WE DON'T KNOW.  But what we THINK happened is different than what your religion tells you happened matter of fact.  That's why for thousands of years our/your people have remained ignorant.  They don't want to hear about evolution because their holy book contains all the answers.

The person you are talking to is using evidence from science to come to their conclusions.  Like for example it makes sense to science that all life came from the same source.  That a single cell life turned into humans and giraffe and snakes and birds and ants.  All the diverse life we see today.  Do you have another THEORY?  I mean it is plausable that one single cell organism became giraffe and another completely different single cell organism because human and another completely different single cell became birds and another single cell became snakes, etc.  But science has lots of reasons to not think this is the case.  If you believe this, please tell us why you disagree with science?

But the fact is you don't even believe single cell organisms turned into humans.  You believe your god POOFED humans into existence.  There is NOTHING logical about that.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that something outside of this universe got it all started.  Additionally, something or someone had to come first that did NOT need a cause to come into existence.  In other words; he or it has always existed.  I suppose the alternative is to believe that there is no creator and that the universe, which had a beginning and which WILL have an end created itself.  I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have the _faith_.


----------



## K9Buck

In the end, doesn't it really come down to faith?  Faith in a creator or faith that, somehow, the universe came into existence and so did life.  Right?  There is no PROOF of either, is that correct?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> In the end, doesn't it really come down to faith?  Faith in a creator or faith that, somehow, the universe came into existence and so did life.  Right?  There is no PROOF of either, is that correct?


"n the end, doesn't it really come down to faith? Faith in a creator or faith that, somehow, the universe came into existence and so did life. Right? "

No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith, and is just a substitute for things we do not yet know.  Not accepting magic without evidence, while accepting the likelihood purely physical, deterministic processes (as seems to be the case with everything else, as supported by literally all the evidence) would be more of a "default" position, requiring no faith.

Also, one way you can tell is that even if you believe God, both of the above statements about the beginning of our universe and the beginning of life may still be true. We can still point at them both and say, "God did it that way!". When we figured out the Earth revolved around the Sun, did you tell yourself that "God didn't do the sunset, then. ".  I doubt it.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...



Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
Click to expand...

100% Wrong. It's an evidence-based determination on "best odds", like believing your car will start tomorrow morning. That requires no "faith", it is just what you think is most likely to occur.

Believing these things occured through purely physical process (whether or not it was god's design...notice how your layer of magic has literally zero effect on these determinations?) is merely a default view.

And no, one doesnt need "absolute proof" to deem this "not faith", anymore than you require time travel to adopt the belief that your car will start, the next time you get in it.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that something outside of this universe got it all started.
Click to expand...


Something outside the universe started the universe?

You realize that's a contradiction, don't you?



K9Buck said:


> Additionally, something or someone had to come first that did NOT need a cause to come into existence.  In other words; he or it has always existed.  I suppose the alternative is to believe that there is no creator and that the universe, which had a beginning and which WILL have an end created itself.  I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have the _faith_.



If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
Click to expand...

The fact that we don't know how something occured doesn't mean you get to wave the magic wand and claim God did it.  "Magic" is not an argument unless you're a 5-year-old.


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that something outside of this universe got it all started.  Additionally, something or someone had to come first that did NOT need a cause to come into existence.  In other words; he or it has always existed.  I suppose the alternative is to believe that there is no creator and that the universe, which had a beginning and which WILL have an end created itself.  I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have the _faith_.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis is that our universe is but one universe. Universes are separated by the dark matter that's at the edge of our expanding universe. Think lava lamp.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
> View attachment 152348
> 
> Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them.  Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
> View attachment 152347
> 
> No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
> 
> View attachment 152349
> 
> Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way.  Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB.  Atoms just do not care.
> 
> How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called the "first cause" argument.  No believer has ever managed to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that something outside of this universe got it all started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something outside the universe started the universe?
> 
> You realize that's a contradiction, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, something or someone had to come first that did NOT need a cause to come into existence.  In other words; he or it has always existed.  I suppose the alternative is to believe that there is no creator and that the universe, which had a beginning and which WILL have an end created itself.  I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have the _faith_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.
Click to expand...

So he admits there might be something beyond our universe. That's a start. And why wouldn't this creator have trillions of universes?

Religion was offended when cappernicus suggested the earth wasn't the center of the universe. They've been fighting science ever sense


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
Click to expand...

Correct

I have faith in my religion of science. As a matter of fact, my faith is not only better than yours it is larger. You all have no faith in your God at all. You have to deny reality to keep your God. I do not!

How about them apples?

Repent and save your eternal soul!


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct
> 
> I have faith in my religion of science.
> 
> How about them apples?
Click to expand...


It's ok with me.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> The fact that we don't know how something occured doesn't mean you get to wave the magic wand and claim God did it.



Who said otherwise?


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.



I'm saying that something or someone had to come first that did NOT require something or someone else to cause it or him to come into existence.  In other words, it or him has always existed, a concept that does not exist in our realm and which is probably beyond our human understanding.  Do you dispute these beliefs?


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we don't know how something occured doesn't mean you get to wave the magic wand and claim God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said otherwise?
Click to expand...

You did.  You implied that since we don't know how the universe came into being that it's reasonable to assume god waved his magic wand and created it.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> You did.  You implied that since we don't know how the universe came into being that it's reasonable to assume god waved his magic wand and created it.



No, I did not.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that something or someone had to come first that did NOT require something or someone else to cause it or him to come into existence.  In other words, it or him has always existed, a concept that does not exist in our realm and which is probably beyond our human understanding.  Do you dispute these beliefs?
Click to expand...

If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.



It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?  If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?  Who or what caused the universe to come into existence?


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that something or someone had to come first that did NOT require something or someone else to cause it or him to come into existence.  In other words, it or him has always existed, a concept that does not exist in our realm and which is probably beyond our human understanding.  Do you dispute these beliefs?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but when talking about origin, you do not get to use an eternal creator.

Dem's da rules

Until you can answer the Who Begat God question, you got nuthin


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin



So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?


----------



## sealybobo

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct
> 
> I have faith in my religion of science. As a matter of fact, my faith is not only better than yours it is larger. You all have no faith in your God at all. You have to deny reality to keep your God. I do not!
> 
> How about them apples?
> 
> Repent and save your eternal soul!
Click to expand...

I will admit it is rather amazing that the sun is in the right place and the moon is where we need it to be and how the plants give out oxygen and we breathe out carbon monoxide for the plants and the ozone and its all to perfect for it to have just happened by chance.

But then consider life once lived on other planets in our solar system billions of years before life started on earth. Was that life like here on earth? No. The conditions were probably different. Maybe hotter or no moons.

And consider in 10 billion years from no there will be no more life on this planet. If a god made our planet wouldn't our sun burn for us forever? Can't god just change a fuse


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?  If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?  Who or what caused the universe to come into existence?
Click to expand...

If it was God, then who created God?  The first cause argument is a logical contradiction.  If everything needs a cause, then so does God.  If God doesn't need a cause, then neither does the universe.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer his question.  What he believes is beside the point.  

Who or what created God?


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer his question.  What he believes is beside the point.
> 
> Who or what created God?
Click to expand...


My belief is that we have a creator that has always existed, but I certainly cannot prove it.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim that God exists because the universes exists and everything has to have a cause, and then you claim God doesn't need a cause, then you've shot down your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that something or someone had to come first that did NOT require something or someone else to cause it or him to come into existence.  In other words, it or him has always existed, a concept that does not exist in our realm and which is probably beyond our human understanding.  Do you dispute these beliefs?
Click to expand...

Whoa, now hold on thar Hoss, check please!

You do not get to use something outside our universe or that opens up science to the same. We can then talk 11-dimensional manifolds and don't need the Big Bang.


----------



## K9Buck

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?  If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?  Who or what caused the universe to come into existence?
Click to expand...


bripat9643 Would you like to respond to this question?


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
Click to expand...

It's not my job to prove your hypothesis. 

It is yours


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer his question.  What he believes is beside the point.
> 
> Who or what created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My belief is that we have a creator that has always existed, but I certainly cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

You have no logical basis for your belief.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> You do not get to use something outside our universe or that opens up science to the same. We can then talk 11-dimensional manifolds and don't need the Big Bang.



That's fine with me.  I'm just sharing ideas and asking questions.  Whatever you believe is of no issue for me.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> You have no logical basis for your belief.



Ok.  

What do you believe?


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to prove your hypothesis.
> 
> It is yours
Click to expand...


I'll say it again.  Atheists love demanding proof from believers while offering none themselves.


----------



## MarkDuffy

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wrong.  It is  reasonable to believe it likely that the universe itself came into existence from purely physical processes, and the same goes for life.  Adding a magical layer of a magic spirit requires faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can PROVE how the universe and life came into existence, then your BELIEF in those things coming about via a "purely physical processes" is based on FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct
> 
> I have faith in my religion of science. As a matter of fact, my faith is not only better than yours it is larger. You all have no faith in your God at all. You have to deny reality to keep your God. I do not!
> 
> How about them apples?
> 
> Repent and save your eternal soul!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will admit it is rather amazing that the sun is in the right place and the moon is where we need it to be and how the plants give out oxygen and we breathe out carbon monoxide for the plants and the ozone and its all to perfect for it to have just happened by chance.
> 
> But then consider life once lived on other planets in our solar system billions of years before life started on earth. Was that life like here on earth? No. The conditions were probably different. Maybe hotter or no moons.
> 
> And consider in 10 billion years from no there will be no more life on this planet. If a god made our planet wouldn't our sun burn for us forever? Can't god just change a fuse
Click to expand...

I'm sure that if there was a God, trump would fire him for being incompetent (and jealousy). God gets waaay too much press.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?  If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?  Who or what caused the universe to come into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bripat9643 Would you like to respond to this question?
Click to expand...


How the universe came into being is a hotly debated topic in physics right now.  I'm not prepared to go into all the details in this thread.  If you're interested in the subject, read up on "branes" and the "multi-verse."


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer his question.  What he believes is beside the point.
> 
> Who or what created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My belief is that we have a creator that has always existed, but I certainly cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

If you start with God, then creation has already occurred and thus no origin and no God.


----------



## K9Buck

Ok, so you base your belief on a theory just like I do.  But my theory is illogical and yours is logical, right?


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> If you start with God, then creation has already occurred and thus no origin and no God.



We are his creation.  He was never "created" because he has just always been, or so I believe.


----------



## K9Buck

One thing that is apparent is that atheists are committed to keeping a closed mind to the possibility that a living, higher power created us.  They not only do NOT believe in his existence, they don't want him to exist.  They have been deceived and misled.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to prove your hypothesis.
> 
> It is yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll say it again.  Atheists love demanding proof from believers while offering none themselves.
Click to expand...

I am a scientist, so it is impossible to be an atheist. Your team gave me the label of defacto atheist. Why? Cuz your God does not explain the evidence, I have concluded your God to be impossible.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> I am a scientist, so it is impossible to be an atheist... I have concluded your God to be impossible.



Then you're an atheist.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> Ok, so you base your belief on a theory just like I do.  But my theory is illogical and yours is logical, right?


Correct


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you start with God, then creation has already occurred and thus no origin and no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are his creation.  He was never "created" because he has just always been, or so I believe.
Click to expand...

That would be called playing with toys after creation. I'll bet God's lab is really really cool, but not as cool as his creator's.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you base your belief on a theory just like I do.  But my theory is illogical and yours is logical, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
Click to expand...


LOL.  Ok.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can answer the Who begat God question, you got nuthin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know for a fact that there cannot be a higher power that has existed for eternity?  Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to prove your hypothesis.
> 
> It is yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll say it again.  Atheists love demanding proof from believers while offering none themselves.
Click to expand...

Whoops, I forgot the rest after "atheists".

We are science. We don't need all the answers cuz we are still searching for them. It is YOUR team who claims to have all the answers w/o proof.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> One thing that is apparent is that atheists are committed to keeping a closed mind to the possibility that a living, higher power created us.  They not only do NOT believe in his existence, they don't want him to exist.  They have been deceived and misled.


Actually, the problem I have with your God is his failure. He preaches that your life will suck, but it will get better after you die. 

I expect a real God to make both life and after life good. 

He uses a terrible excuse for his failure. He claims that our life sucking is OUR FAULT and not his failure at creation.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> It is YOUR team who claims to have all the answers w/o proof.



That's not true.  For instance, I've already acknowledged that I cannot prove that God exists.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> Actually, the problem I have with your God is his failure. He preaches that your life will suck, but it will get better after you die.
> 
> I expect a real God to make both life and after life good.
> 
> He uses a terrible excuse for his failure. He claims that our life sucking is OUR FAULT and not his failure at creation.



Now you're delving into religious dogma.  That has nothing to do with the subject matter.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a scientist, so it is impossible to be an atheist... I have concluded your God to be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're an atheist.
Click to expand...

I will usually remind folks that I am a reformed southern baptist, VERY REFORMED. 

It is not that I don't believe in a God, just not your God.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is YOUR team who claims to have all the answers w/o proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.  For instance, I've already acknowledged that I cannot prove that God exists.
Click to expand...

That's what the "answers w/o proof" means. You do not even feel you need proof of your side. Nor do you even question your beliefs. Now THAT, my friend, is a closed mind.

We scientists are constantly questioning both ourselves, others and our own dogma.

Did you like the dogma part? Yes we unfortunately also have lots of dogma in science. Not very scientific is it? LOL


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the problem I have with your God is his failure. He preaches that your life will suck, but it will get better after you die.
> 
> I expect a real God to make both life and after life good.
> 
> He uses a terrible excuse for his failure. He claims that our life sucking is OUR FAULT and not his failure at creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're delving into religious dogma.  That has nothing to do with the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Oh? What is the subject matter? The thread title and OP is kinda strange, so I just jumped in here  on page 40-something for the first time and responded.


----------



## Likkmee

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
Click to expand...

Adams ? I know for a fact I was an accident


----------



## K9Buck

That's what the "answers w/o proof" means. You do not even feel you need proof of your side. Nor do you even question your beliefs. Now THAT, my friend, is a closed mind.[/QUOTE]

If I had a "closed mind", I wouldn't be reading your posts, let alone responding to them.  

On another note, what is your scientific area of expertise?


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> Oh? What is the subject matter? The thread title and OP is kinda strange, so I just jumped in here  on page 40-something for the first time and responded.



*The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*


----------



## MarkDuffy

Likkmee said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think atoms are sentient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know sentient beings are made of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adams ? I know for a fact I was an accident
Click to expand...

LOL, most of us are


----------



## MarkDuffy

> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the "answers w/o proof" means. You do not even feel you need proof of your side. Nor do you even question your beliefs. Now THAT, my friend, is a closed mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a "closed mind", I wouldn't be reading your posts, let alone responding to them.
> 
> On another note, what is your scientific area of expertise?
Click to expand...

I am an evolutionary biologist who started in astrophysics.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What is the subject matter? The thread title and OP is kinda strange, so I just jumped in here  on page 40-something for the first time and responded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*
Click to expand...

As I said, that is kinda strange. What does it mean? I figured it was made by a creationist/IDer LOL


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> As I said, that is kinda strange. What does it mean? I figured it was made by a creationist/IDer LOL



I surmise that the OP is referring to the widely held belief among atheists that lightning struck some "primordial soup" of minerals and, like magic, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that is kinda strange. What does it mean? I figured it was made by a creationist/IDer LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I surmise that the OP is referring to the widely held belief among atheists that lightning struck some "primordial soup" of minerals and, like magic, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is pretty much the main line of abiogenesis dogma. However, calling it an accident is unfair. Calling it unscientific is clearly wrong. 

From google

_How many times does lightning strike the Earth every second?
25 million - Average U.S. cloud-to-ground *lightning strikes per* year. 50,000 degrees (F) - Temperature that *lightning* can reach. 1,800 - Average number of thunderstorms on earth at any given moment. 100 - Number of times *lightning* hits earth *per*second.Jul 16, 2015_

You do understand that there is no problem between evolution and creation (more or less), correct?

Evolution occurs AFTER creation.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> You do understand that there is no problem between evolution and creation (more or less), correct?
> 
> Evolution occurs AFTER creation.



I know I exist.  What role evolution played, if any, is irrelevant to me, frankly.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who created the guy who created the creator?  And who made the guys before him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?
> 
> Today I learned the human species will go extinct anywhere between 5000 and 5 million years from now. Nothing lasts forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my job to explain.  We are taught what is relevant - our path to redemption.
> 
> Now has anyone posted the atomic symbol(s) that like funny cat videos yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redemption from what? I am sure ISIS would enjoy your support. For that is where your kind of 'faith' inevitably leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so America, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, is just like ISIS?
> 
> View attachment 153393
Click to expand...

The most influential of the founders were Deists. They did not believe in your concept of a Deity.


----------



## Old Rocks

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that there is no problem between evolution and creation (more or less), correct?
> 
> Evolution occurs AFTER creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I exist.  What role evolution played, if any, is irrelevant to me, frankly.
Click to expand...

Until you need a medicine that has been developed from knowledge of DNA.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was something that came first and didn't need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?  You're right about one thing:  logical contradictions are beyond human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?  If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?  Who or what caused the universe to come into existence?
Click to expand...

"It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not?"

To be accurate, it appears that our observable reality had a beginning. The "universe" may not have.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> One thing that is apparent is that atheists are committed to keeping a closed mind to the possibility that a living, higher power created us.  They not only do NOT believe in his existence, they don't want him to exist.  They have been deceived and misled.


"One thing that is apparent is that atheists are committed to keeping a closed mind to the possibility that a living, higher power created us. "

False.  God may have created all of this.  Evidence-based thinkers, atheists or otherwise (including theists), just object to your effort to wedge magical deities into every gap in our understanding. You are not a new breed, my friend.  Your doppleganger was running around claiming diseases were caused by fallen angels, when we had no understanding of pathogens.  And when we started to gain that understanding, you were running around, trying to spread misinformation and confusion about that understanding.... as if our knowledge of pathogens being incomplete or erroneous lends ANY support to your magical dogma.  It doesn't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What is the subject matter? The thread title and OP is kinda strange, so I just jumped in here  on page 40-something for the first time and responded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific*
Click to expand...

Idiotic title.... selection is not random.


----------



## edthecynic

K9Buck said:


> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not? If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?


Actually it is TIME that had a beginning at the beginning of this expansion cycle.


----------



## K9Buck

edthecynic said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not? If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is TIME that had a beginning at the beginning of this expansion cycle.
Click to expand...


So the universe expands, collapses and then recycles?  What is your evidence?  Or, as an atheist would demand, PROVE it!


----------



## edthecynic

sealybobo said:


> I will admit it is rather amazing that the sun is in the right place and the moon is where we need it to be


It would only be amazing only if the sun and moon were ALWAYS in the same spot. 
Just as they moved over time into this relative position that is favorable to life, so too will they move over time to an unfavorable position for life.


----------



## edthecynic

K9Buck said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the universe had a beginning, right or not? If so, who or what gave the universe its initial push?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is TIME that had a beginning at the beginning of this expansion cycle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe expands, collapses and then recycles?  What is your evidence?  Or, as an atheist would demand, PROVE it!
Click to expand...

Well, time exists only in terms of motion, and the motion of the universe began at the Big Bang point, so Time and not the universe can be proven to have a beginning. As far as the cyclic nature of the universe, while most probable, is yet unproven.


----------

