The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Does an intelligent designer exist?

Does an intelligent designer exist?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All
The following statements could both be true.

-Religions are false

-God exists

At least as far as the big two religions, Christianity and Islam are concerned, I think the first statement is manifestly true. How anyone can seriously believe either the Bible or the koran is the "word of God" escapes me.

I consider the second statement to be undecidable. We shall probably never know. If God exists he / she / it / they is probably nothing like the being described in any human "holy book".

But we do have a conundrum for which there is at present no solution. The probability seems vanishingly small that, by chance alone, a universe can come into being in which the laws of physics are such that chemically based life forms can emerge and evolve. It is smaller than say a single person winning the lottery every week for a year.

The following explanations have been proffered:

-If we understood physics better we would see a life-friendly universe is the only one that could exist. This still leaves unanswered the question of why the laws of physics should be "life-friendly".

-We just got lucky. Maybe but improbable

-An intelligent universe designer, call him "God", set it up this way. Maybe. But there seems to be no way of detecting "God's" presence.

-Ours is just one universe in an infinite ensemble (multiverse) of universes, each with its own physics. Ours is one of the infinitesimal fraction that won the lottery of life.

The multiverse is the current favourite but there is currently no way of detecting other universes. Also it is not clear why there should be a multiverse in the first place.

Another possibility some people take seriously is that we're living in a sim – that our universe is someone's computer science homework. Sometimes I think this is the most likely.

I don’t suppose we shall ever know the answer but I'll be interested to see comments
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 1 August 2009 10:29:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clear a few things up.

I personally doubt the existence of an "intelligent designer". But it is important to remember that the possible existence of an intelligent designer has nothing to do with truth or falsity of any human religion. Even if, as I suspect, every single religion is false, an intelligent designer could still exist.

If an intelligent designer created the universe for a purpose that purpose may have nothing to do with us. We may simply be an unintended consequence – a sort of bug in the program. There does not seem to be any way of ever telling.

On the other hand, given the life friendly nature of the laws of physics I think it probable that, if the universe was created for a purpose, life is a part of that purpose.

If you reject evolution you probably have nothing meaningful to say in this debate.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 1 August 2009 12:36:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. “The probability seems vanishingly small that, by chance alone, a universe can come into being in which the laws of physics ...” -
stevenlmeyer

Would please develop?

Probability is “summed over” in physics. In QM knowledge of the position and time of a fundamental particle concurrently, is unobtainable, yet summing can be used to discern outcomes undiscernible in Euclidian geometry. Computer scientists use these techniques today. Moreover, fine grained outcomes are allowed, even though, coarse grained phenomena underlie the actualised phenomena.

Further, the Anderson-Higgs mechanism is to be soon tested at CERN might prove informative:

“The Anderson-Higgs mechanism may be responsible not only for the non zero masses in the standard model* [*Of time symmetry] but also for small deviations from symmetry under reversal of time in particle physics” and “the mechanism breaks the symmetry of the zero-mass approximation and is responsible for the various different non-zero particle masses” . – Gell-Mann

Whereas 3-D Euclidian space has less explanatory power than 4-D space time, 4-D space time could prove to have less explanatory power, to explain the Creation, than an heterotic superstring with two arrows of time. If the superstring is pan-multiversal, its detectable this-universal vibrations could prove indicative of our unverse’s creation. Watch this space! (ahem)

2. I tend to agree with your remark about say Christianity. Moreover, were Jesus to ascend to heaven that would breach of the second law of thermodynamics; along the lines that Hawking corrected himself about matter “leaving the universe” through a Black Hole being a “no-no”. Else, Einstein was wrong, God does “play dice with the universe”, and, these dice are loaded, one outcome for Jesus and a different outcome for everyone else. Having 70-80kg matter blink out of the 4D space-time continuum is contrary to the Laws said God established.

3. Don’t expect too much of modern non-Newtonian physics in our life time. Our species is at least a million years old and we have only one hundred years experience really "explaining" the Creation. We are just crawling.

4. Interesting discussion topic!
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 1 August 2009 1:54:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Probability has nothing to do with it. Something could have a gazillion to one chance of happening but it is still possible and thats what matters. The chances of me typing uytngr must pretty unlikely but there it is in black and white.

There may have been a "creator" that put in place the structure, laws and physics of the universe in place but they certainly havent been in control nor influenced anything since. Certainly not in the way the godbotherers would have you believe.

Still it is a dangerous opinion for athiests to profess as the godbotherers, in their desperation, will jump on anything to say that they are right and unbelievers are wrong.

Even if there was a "creator" it doesnt answer anything it just brings up the question of who created the creator. Ad infinitum. A pointless exercise in my book and we would be better off forgetting all about it and getting on with making humans lives better.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i dont see..how you can look at your own hand..[and not see the hand of god..in forming it]...i cant see how you can honestly look..at a single flower and see that natural selection..dosnt begin to explain the first flower...let alone the THOUSANDS of types of flowers

yes..there are specialised insects...needed to fertilise certain types of flowers..[but..lets ask for proof which evolved first...and evolved from what>.?..[they are mutually linked..remember..ask your evolutionary god-heads..to explain their godless theories

dont take things on faith...[you faithless generations]..so easilly fooled by generalisations cloaked with science-fictions..[get your replacement god-heads to just make one like it FIRST...before you swallow cold-blooded fish...lol..evolving into warm-blood mammnels

get them[gofheaqd/replascements]..to make a simple living-thing..first...a cell...or even a cell-membrane..or demonstrate one valid evolution..of one GENUS into an other GENUS...not species into species...you mindless..[godless drone/dolts..dont even know the difference]

[nor care..because its easier to follow delusions..than simple truths,..like the clear fact science cant..[nor ever has made life from not life]

your surrounded by miracles..yet are decieved by tricksters,..calling them-selves scientists...to create god-free belief/faith...sheep

watch a tad-pole evolve into a frog..before your eyes...from an egg to a tadpole to the frog..[that lays the egg's]...think eggs cant breed...tadpoles cant breed...how did this god given miracle/frog EVOLVE...into the 1st frog?

or an egg..becomes a catapillar..evolves into a butterfly...but the eggs/grubs CANT breed...so how did the butterfly evolve...or as SEED..a spider..what egg/seed did this evolve...how they survive pre evolving into building their web.or the first SEEd?

your surrounded by proof in nature...but get your evidence from tv...needing you to believe in whiter than white..[or complusory/cures for bird/swine/flue..they soon will inject into you...that will be the direct cause..of the killoff..epidemic..the media been beating up for months...

the spanish flue..ww1..came from compulsory injections..given TO THE TROOPS...the young that wernt killed in war..died from the COMPULSORY CURE..because they too...were trusting science...not god

wake up..your swallowing greater lies/deceptions and missing the truelly amasing proof..god put here for you to find...and you are deneying your OWN greatness...

as jesus said that YE SEE ME DO ..you will do greater
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

The number of coincidences that have to come together to make chemically based life forms possible is mind-boggling.

See for example:

http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm

An excellent book on the topic is "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees. Rees is the astronomer royal and respected figure within the scientific establishment.

It comes down to this. There are certain constants of nature such as the strength of the electromagnetic force or the gravitational force or the ratio of the mass of the electron to the proton that are just right for the emergence of chemical elements and chemically based life. If any of them are just a little bit different from their observed values then, so far as we know, life cannot emerge.

Think of it like this. The "creator" has to set somewhere between 15 and 20 "knobs" to just the right value before igniting the big bang. These knobs set the strengths of the various forces, Planck's constant and even the initial entropy levels in the universe. If any of the knobs are just a little bit out chemical elements don’t get generated through the process called stellar nucleosynthesis and stars don’t last long enough for us to evolve. The odds against all this being just right by chance seem, well, astronomical.

The physicist Paul Davies callsthis the "Goldilocks Enigma." The universe is neither too "hot" or too "cold". It is just right.

Mikk

You are in effect saying it's the multiverse. If there are an infinite number of universes then some small fraction of them will be suitable for life. Does not answer the question of why there should be a multiverse. My guess is we'll never know.

My guess is that if there is a creator he set things in motion and then left the universe(s) to their own devices. I am definitely NOT a "God botherer".

However we need to admit that right now we don’t have any good answers for the Goldilocks Enigma. Pretending we do because we are afraid of the God botherers is not a satisfactory strategy.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,
My number two son would disagree with you...he says he's an intelligent structural designer(Boom boom?) Not what you meant I know.

Sadly I tend to agree that ALL religions are simply mans attempt to describe the unknowable.

While I am a secular Humanist I would add one caveat to the conclusion that all is wrong. I would suggest that by and large it is innate in man to have the need to be able to explain creation....simply put man can't generally cope with the unknown. Part of that is their insecurity. So man has created imperfect explanations to salve their troubled brow. The problem comes when individuals become chauvinistic about 'their' explanation and it becomes a justification for division and war.

As stated elsewhere I have no problem with some shamanistic beliefs in so much they specify living with nature rater than futilely/temporarily trying to conquer it. The end result then tends to be ultimately destructive to both human and nature.

Because of my SH I have real doubts about the rituals...headhunting etc.
But their taboos tend to have real value. The problem with all the above is humans in their pursuit of power, status and passing on 'their' selfish genes.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:51:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concept of Intelligent Design, jumped on as fact, by the very people, (believers in God), who would have you believe that this GOD, got a single family to build an arkt so that he (the intelligent designer) could drown all his creations.

This same GOD states in Genesis 7:1-2 that Noah is the only one who has done what is right. In 2 he instructs Noah to take 7 pairs of ritually clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals.

But Noah who is "right" in Genesis 7:8 takes only "a female and a male of every kind of animal". Noah broke GOD's explicit instruction. This is confirmed in Genesis 7:15.

I know you asked us to forget "the dusty old books" but I'm afraid that is a tough ask. How can a person believes Bible bunkum and present a theory of Intelligent Design?

I think there is a Universal life force that has been hijacked by the religions.

BUT it designs nothing!

Evolution- Finding "Lucy" was an incredible leap. Here we have a female whose Pelvic bone is transforming from the flat open flatter type pelvic bones of the ape who generally walks on all fours to the human cup-like pelvis which allows upright 2 legged movement.

http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/

http://www.allianceforscience.org/Lucy/Jellison_Lucy_Article.html

(Note....Christians again bearing false witness Exodus 20:16)

The big bang caused by a singularity is only theory. WE can't see what is outside our Universe so we can only theorise what our Universe is expanding into.

So at this stage, I think the expanding and then contracting Universe model appears more logical...and yet I could well be wrong.

http://soi.blogspot.com/2005/11/cyclic-theory.html

The Universe may have existed forever or be part of an even bigger series of Universes. The intelligence of the intelligent designer (if one existed) seems to be undermined daily by believers in Creation.

Why would the most intelligent being in the Universe need to model something from clay? It is laughable! Why didn't he model it from hydrogen like happens in space the building block, GOD allegedly chose to build all matter.
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 1 August 2009 6:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been a lot of discussion of Lucy's knee joint..[there simply isnt one...the missing bits compared to the lost bits is pathchy at best

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html

The best I can now determine is that there were 2 knee joints,one found nearby and one far away....and there is no complete knee joint..the actual fragments of ribs are laughable..note picture right top link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(skeleton)

The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata...Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy....but we are allowed to be decieved by the joke...

looking at the reconstructions on your rebutting creationists link..it becomes clearly a joke...also no mention of wear on the joints is made...that some accept as science fact is so much based on selling the deception

Instead,..it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier..put them together..claiming that they were of the same species.

This whole issue is discussed at length in the talk.origins FAQ...Lucy is an example of Australopithecus afarensis,and other examples of this species have been found since then.

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken,..and concluded that the australopithecines..have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever,..and are simply an extinct form of ape(Fossils,Teeth and Sex:New Perspectives on Human Evolution,University of Washington Press,1987).

but believe as you will..you may give hundred percent BELIEF on what is claimed to be 40 percent of...one skeleton..lol..but look at the wiki-picture..do the math visually...as patchy as the rest of the evolution THEORY
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 1 August 2009 10:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If humans did not posess awareness and imagination, could the concept of God exist?

Yes, because God created humans to recognise God?

Or No, because without human awareness God could not exist?

Oh please, let there be light.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 2 August 2009 9:55:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
an excellent series of questions...spin doc]..quote<<..If humans did not posess awareness and imagination,..could the concept of God exist?>>..could is a flexable word..[anything could teqniclly egsist..[or by the same token...be claimed not to egsist]..

.lacking the facts anything is..[could]..be possable...if the will is lacking..the the impossability becomes supreem..to the point of not even looking

and like evidence for evolution..evidence for good must be sought...i funnilly enough in looking for science evidence..found god..others no doudst could make the inverse claim..others simmply could not care either way

i think of it much like sexual-preferance...the first lover was amasing ...thus all was able to be met...without the need..to find other gratifications...or even to the other sex

..hence why science needs to get us as kids..[molestors say/..give me the child before the age of 8...and we have them for life..]...science thus..is convincing enough..[or god]...for those getting their satisfaction unthinkingly..if programed early

sadly..i realised science was decieving and..sought the reality[finding god]..its dependant on what level of prooof/we accept..[or seek..or need

<<..because God created humans..to recognise God?>>>i like to think of god as giving life...and underpinning logic...thus[for me]..yes...

but for others..seeing the logic..[of the laws of gravity/electricity/life etc]...calling the observations and confirmations...limitations../of the affect..[not the cause]will...say science...

and present their..'proof'..ie...laws/limitaions.[of the affect]..[and the likely..or theoretical...cause...as defined within faulsifyables..[that if refuted..would rebut the science..accorded 'cause'...sans faulsifyable's..[its not science]

<<Or No,..because without human awareness God could not exist?>>fortuinatly god loves all its life...not judging good from vile..thus this is inlikely able to be fully proved [or disproved]...

as proof..one way or the other ..would/could remove our freewill to deney the cause of causes...and god dont want mindless adoration...but thinking free-spirits...fully able to decern facts for them selves

<<Oh please,let there be light>>>....but let the light have a clear oppisite...so we can learn the difference..[between the good/vile...dark/light]..

good night means nothing..if we have no day...as all would simply be light..[or simply be eternal night]by having the opposing daRK WORD ON THIS WHITE PAGE YOU ARE ABLE TO READ MY UNSEEN THOUGHT..damm cap loc...were there no darkness you could see no words
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 2 August 2009 10:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that our universe is all part of a computer simulation is quite interesting. Someone once put this idea to me and said it nicely explained the strange behaviour of the quantum world i.e. the subatomic falls below the resolution of the model and it thus produces strange unpredictable effects not evident at larger scales that are adequately resolved. Another idea, slightly off topic is that Jesus was an highly advanced alien. This makes more sense to me than the supernatural. He may have come from a civilization 10,000 years farther down the road than we are. Advanced technology could explain miracles and His moral teachings may be the simple result of experience. His world might have started off much like ours and suffered numerous wars and social catastrophies by following false philosophies. He might have just been telling us what has worked in his world, of course using language and analogies that the people could understand.
Posted by A. Dobrowich, Sunday, 2 August 2009 12:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course one does.

He lives in Parris, & designs awful dresses, that he sells for ridicules prices, to women who have too much money.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 2 August 2009 12:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Hold the phone OUG! Who's selling the deception? Do you want people
to believe man was made from clay, woman was made from a rib and
that every error in the Bible should be ignored?

You manage to ignore the Biblical errors in your replies so is this
hypocrisy?

As for you quoting of Dr Charles Oxnard see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/compose-message-general.asp?discussion=2966

I would think a believer jumping to present an untruth is a problem
especially for that believer.

Try this more detailed analysis http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Or this about the knee joint falsehoods
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

OUG you have disappointed me. When you argue biblical matters you generally back up your arguments with chapter and verse.

BUT on this topic have you gone down the track of misleading the reader? What would your GOD think of someone who makes this fundamental error?

Your Zeal in defending all things Godly is impressive but continually in error.

Is your unsubstantiated belief in a GOD getting in the way of your ability to analyse critically? Afterall, the story of Noah is so obviously flawed! Do you believe it? BUT which bit do you believe the 7 pairs of ritually clean animals or what follows?

That is why belief means nothing! I believe I can run the 100 meters in 10 seconds...but it doesn't mean I can.

BUT it begs the question...Why do you continually try to prove the Bible (an obviously flawed document) right. Why doesn't GOD prove it right?

Why did GOD allow so many errors in his alleged book? AS he apparently knows all things, he must have realised that I using the brain he gave me, would easily pull it to pieces.

Does GOD really need believers who are so easily misled? Does GOD really need believers to defend him on indefensible issues?

Believers make GOD sound really unintelligent...I wonder what GOD thinks of that?

So if GOD is an intelligent designer he sure needs some work on his "selling of the concept" skills!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:00:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think first of all we need to put intelligent design to bed. Intelligent design was a reactionary response to the ascendency of science as a more sensible and effective Earthly paradigm than religion. Religion wants to compete of course in the cosmological stakes. ID is a form of sophistry, a way of keeping God in the picture. But science is a quest beyond God; it has kicked off its training wheels and is looking to see what Man can achieve, withal his/her limitations. Science is an analytic method of computing data that knows not its wherewithal. Is the phenomena we perceive and extrapolate from how things are in themselves, or is our "reality" a construct of our peculiar sensibilities? Our senses and thought are actually filters via which "reality" is "constructed" as an end product. "Reality" is processed. What we perceive is very unlikely to be how things actually are--indeed science has shown us that perceived reality is mostly montage; the brain leaps ahead of the incoming data and says, "this is what you see", or feel or touch etc. And why should the Self (in fact the brain--though controversial) deny what it sees with its own eyes?
Intelligent design is laughable: the idea that "what's out there" is utterly anthropocentric, that it's all there for our benefit, we who live and die and defecate and copulate like all the other indigenous organisms on planet Earth--a ludicrously insignificant speck in the cosmos! Intelligent design is nothing more than public relations. It's just "snow".
But is this the end of ontology?
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two areas require our attention. One is time and the other is summation. We, in our universe, experience time, and, by extrapolation, we perceive causality and odds of things happening (chance). When we go back before* the first Plank Time interval, our common day expressions of change have no meaning:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm?CFID=19303560&CFTOKEN=a7dd8b6caaea6a03-D94D8117-15C5-EE01-B9B26588A6C3CB58

At the first 10-50 second**, there is no time, as a background, from which to compute chance. Yet, there may be probability arising from infinite indetermancy. Summation of across probabilities is sometimes used in quantum mechanics to realise answers from an infinite set. Some physicists have applied this “summing” principle to quantum cosmology, including the Creation of the universe:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

If the universe and quantum phenomena do not have a privileged state and there are an infinite number of states, the question might not be what Created the universe, rather, what is the mechanism which allowed the universe to come into existence? I think there are two answers because there are an infinite numbers states, the subset of an infinite number states is an infinite number of realisable universes. The set of the former infinity is aninfinity larger than the set of the latter infinity. Here we don’t need pre-conceived or orchestrated knobs. All knobs and all settings, “are”. This solution is a “push” solution. The answer is exists because all answers exist. Alternatively, the solution is “called” – i.e., a “pull” solution. How? Observation, as in the Uncertainty Principle or, there two complementary arrows of time, wherein the universe calls itself into existence.

[* Before as we know it, isn’t. ** A nonsense interval.]

Wild speculation: Could it be the universe creates God? What if this universe created the biological process by which there are cells, mammals, great apes, humans, and, thousands of years from know homo sapien-sapien-sapien, with the ability to create a universe using a technology that would make the CERN accelerator seem like a stone axe: A distant ancestor capable of creating a universe? Said ancestor would be an (Godly) agent of reproduction – of children universes from this our universe. And our past parent?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:11:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyers,

Thanks for the Birmingham link. I have read the Goldilocks Enigma, but have read, "Just Six Numbers". I will keep an eye out for it. Thanks.

Squeers,

"Our senses and thought are actually filters via which "reality" is "constructed" as an end product. "Reality" is processed. What we perceive is very unlikely to be how things actually are--indeed science has shown us that perceived reality is mostly montage; the brain leaps ahead of the incoming data and says, "this is what you see", or feel or touch etc. And why should the Self (in fact the brain--though controversial) deny what it sees with its own eyes?" - Squeers.

Once its was the brain telling we have "Phantom Limb Syndrome". Now, "Phantom God Syndrome"? :-)

Religionists,

Why do you see the gods of human cultures performing miracles, in contravention of the Laws it established in nature? Does it not make Jesus or Zeus et al seem like a magician or an illusionist?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
opinionated..[science wants us to believe we..[life]..came from soup[lets face it..neither has the whole truth...some say clay..some say soup..[but only one..claims to be TRUE..via science method...

so no doudt you say soup...GIVE THE RECIPE...then replicate your...lol..SCIENCE...create your ambiogensis soup...if you true to science be...then evolve that first life..into some other life...

science fraud..is what it is...science claims science..via being able to replicate/its statements..via science method.....well replicate the validations of your...lol..science theory

note re your first link...its a blank reply..this is your proof of just what egsactly...i check links bro..your validation of an empty link..is no proof..[except to those decieved by links to nowhere]

as for not putting up links here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0
as you can see[should you read it

i rebutted EVERY so called proof put up by those claiming science method...it links to a few other debates..where people failed to validate their own science delusions

i agree with the expanding/contracting universe[calling them gods breath...bang...god bresathes out..then breaths in...then bang breathes out[as a metaphore like the use of clay...each breath repeating eternally the same stories/events...

thus needing..only a god trusting it to unfold perfectly..the same everytime...we are shown at death/..rebirth..the book of life...then told it is as old as god...and every detail the same..

[but the last is speculation on my part]..but then so too is the science claim of evolution...if science present your science...and i will rebut it..[yet again]...

its only proof..of what it can validate true...if science state the faulsifyables...see previous debates...none are/have been stated ever..[thus evolution isnt a science]...closed minds are afraid to search/accept...the truth of science needs scientificly valid proof]..
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 2 August 2009 3:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At our stage of evolution probably not,since we are not intelligent enough to understand the very nature of our being.

I bag both ends of the spectrum,ie god bothers and athiests since they both miss the point.Memory is the tenuous link that connects to the present and past reality,but science tells us there are other dimensions of reality beyond the concepts of time,space and matter.

Keep your power dry and your mind open.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 2 August 2009 4:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
underonegod.
perhaps you should take a step back, or preferably out of yourself (this comical [no not "cosmical"] self that you subscribe to). There's nothing like critical distance, if you can achieve it. Science is an attempt at just that. Science has no dogma. Science has a set of tools (method) that it applies to phenomena as it perceives it. I think God would approve. The idea is to test hypotheses, to learn from them and formulate new hypotheses. This is a clumsy way of proceeding, like a groping blind-man (or woman) and we look forward to a breakthrough; but, in all humility, scientists cleave to this empirical method in preference to divine foundationalism.
This is not to say that science is myopic (like you), but that it is devoted to its logical method.
Science is, however, not obdurate (like you) and is even now breaking free of its "self-imposed" constraints. There is a universe of hypotheses out there and the anchor may have to be abandoned. But your "faith" is a mean and despicable thing that an omniscient god would surely wash her hands of.
...But we mustn't spoil you with too much attention.

Oliver, nice metaphor! She is like a bit like a phantom limb :-)
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 2 August 2009 4:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
squeer quote<<There's nothing like critical distance,..Science is an attempt at just that...Science has no dogma.>>>mate read dorkins...he postualtes the flat fish...dragged its eye...in the mud...then evolved its eyes to the top...lol...yet..young flatfish ARE CCOMPLETLY NORMAL...he is a fool..only fools could believe

<<Science has a set of tools..(method)..that it applies to phenomena as it perceives it.>>yes its main tool is ...peer revieuw..under the main guidline creationism is not allowable...lol...how close minded yiou want....creation..is not an option[regardless id scieb-nce ever proves god did do it...lol

<<The idea is to test hypotheses,>>ok hypothesis=life comes from life[rebut that...where YOUR first life come from...please check previous rebuttals at previous link before making a further fool of yourself

<<we look forward to a breakthrough;>>first make your first life..then speculate on how it evolved

<<science is devoted to its logical method.>>...ok are you a scientist[or simply a believer having faith in these faulse gods needing[feeding]..you a god free fairy-tale

<<Science is,..breaking free of its "self-imposed" constraints.>>please provide PROOF

<<There is a universe of hypotheses out there>>>no poop shirloc...a hypo-thesis is a theory...not a science proof

<<and the anchor may have to be abandoned.>>>please state this anchor...you may just find out it isnt really anchored to faulsifyable science fact...please put up some proof

<<...But we mustn't spoil you with too much attention...>>.no of course not...lol...i can rebut anything you think you know...please put up facts...and i will rebut every one of them...

you havnt said anything so far...put up your proof...have you ever bred anything?...have you ever checked your science...or simply found a higher..god free belief system...your chosing to put your..faith..into

i suggest you read the previous debates..before looking more foolish...failure to provide proof..will mean i ignore your opinion....opinions are like butttholes..[everyones got at least one]

present your proof...put up..or go away...this is deadly serious stuff...your being decieved..and too stupid to know it
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 2 August 2009 5:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Underonegod (you should try it on top?)
I’m devastated ... but here goes.
As it happens I have read “dorkins” (sic), and S J Gould on the evolution of the eye, and other “impossibilities” that ignorant creationists love to instance. Scientific explanations have the virtue of being plausible. Where is your proof of divine provenance?
Creationism is a demonstrable nonsense and naturally excluded from scientific consideration.
I’m not interested in pursuing chicken and egg games with you. I refer you to my posts in which I made a refrain of the unreliability of human perception, and scientific “theories” and “hypotheses”. You and your miserable ilk are the experts when it comes to spurious “facts”.
I said that I looked forward to a breakthrough that superseded the empirical premises that science was obliged to begin with, and that some form of foundationalism has been so far unavoidable.
I am not a scientist. Though I am well read in some of the sciences, as well as the humanities. How much evolution theory have you actually read? Darwin was deeply troubled by the implications of his revolution btw, but he was an honest man and so accepted the burden of the evidence.

Paul Davies is one of many physicists hypothesising outside empirical constraints, and testing theories of anthropocentrism.

Science hypothesises. If it did offer “proof” or assert “facts” I would be extremely sceptical, as my earlier contributions make clear, since this would require “faith” in the premises. Science humbly looks at the evidence and offers tentative explanations; the peer reviewing process then tests, refines or ditches the explanation. It’s a way of analysing data that hopefully counteracts human bias. “Faith”, on the other hand is non-thinking; it’s “mental starch”; embracing one’s ignorance. Darwin’s theory is one of the most successful in scientific history; 150 years and yet to be "fundamentally" discredited!
Creationism is a joke, even to most Christians.
Take the opportunity to examine your ravings objectively. If that doesn’t work, take a pill.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 2 August 2009 7:40:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the above posts show that the created is certainly without any wisdom compared to the Creator.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 2 August 2009 7:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sqeer rote<<Where is your proof of divine provenance?>>..all arround us...life/the universe/love/logic/light

<<Creationism is a demonstrable nonsense>>..demon-straight then..[dont make mindless..blanket declarations..[either present science proof..[or present creation/..rebuttal]..talk is cheap

<<and naturally excluded>>..yes naturally..[via the science of natural..lol..[as in..'natural/selection...lol...a natural buzzword..definivly stating chance..[placebo/..de-fact-o-theory/lol..science..lol..underpinning sciences deception...yet not a valid''..science'..teqnique...lol

<<from scientific consideration>>...consideration is a process,..give me...YOUR s-CIENCE...lol

<<I said...a breakthrough that superseded the empirical premises>>...words not science...SUBMIT..proof..not words

<<that science was obliged to begin with,>>>..yes obliged to prove its theories..into science fact...by the ability to repliucate scientificly...not just speculate/decieve..on how species did mutate../out of one..genus..into another genus...

ie explain how chicken became snake..[or visa versa...explain how natural...lol..selection....is science/method...lol

<<that some form of foundationalism has been so far unavoidable.>>>..yeah..loll...religions..founded science/education/reading/writing/math/economics...and many other things...the roots of science lay in religious study...by monks like gregor-mendel..studying wrinkled seeds/..making smooth seeds..VIA..mendelism/mendelic inheritance/.,[THAT developed into..the science..of genetical inheritance..[..NOT evolution]..[that isnt now..[nor ever has been]..a true../science]


<<,I am not a scientist.>>..gee couldnt tell...lol...but clearly your an english literary major...skill-fully using word skills..in lue of any fausifyable/science fact

<<..''Though I am well read''>>...lol...in theory...not science...lol..''in some of the sciences''...lol,>>...great you will have read.../darwin's evolution of..THE..SPECIES...

noting its not evolution of..genus...lol..get it genious?..probably not...you dont know the differance do you...lol..

<< Science..looks at the evidence..and offers tentative explanations;>>>lol...science..'LOOKS'..llol..its supposed to actually/test and replicate...if thus..it COULD..be called science...

but it cant replicate MACRO/evolution..[of../genus]...thus sells us micro evolution of/species...which is the equivent to saying..birds fly..[they come from eggs/..thus snakes[from egggs]can fly...naturally../pure nonsense...

but as equal..as to..be saying..species evolution/equates to genus/evolving...lol..insane

<<..“Faith”,..on the other hand is..non-thinking;..it’s “mental starch”;..embracing one’s ignorance.>>..completly agree...any fool can believe mindleesly in either faux science/religion[equally]...thus YOU>MUST<validate/prove..your theory..with facts..[not just..clever use../of words]

<<Darwin’..s..yet to be.."fundamentally" discredited!..>>>..of course darwin's[evolution...of SPECIES]..is beyond theory...IT IS..science/FACT...

species/..do evolve their formwithin/species...BUT NEVER EVOLVE GENUS...as i previously said.."links..[i proved darwin is amasing..[see last debate's...

but..darwins thesus...IS LIMITED TO SPECIE's...not genus..LEARN THE DIFFERENCE

<<Creationism is a joke,...even to most Christians.>>...many/..xtians are simple believing anything...but..just because they../are gullable..[WHAT PROOF IS THAT?]

you..sir are a fool...believing without ability/skill of actual/validation..gullable children believe...your..without even the ability/will/inclination..to test/...or..validate...your own beliefs
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Sorry about the dead link...Here it is http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_oxnard.html

Now I went to your link...and I am sorry but it makes no sense.

As you are a creationist why does the Bible give two accounts of the order of creation?

The BIBLE is wrong!

Genesis 1:11 Plants...created on Day 3, Genesis 1:26-31 Humans...created on day 6.

Genesis 2:7 Humans created Genesis 2:5 states....no plants because there was noone to cultivate the soil.
Genesis 2:8 He/She/It introduces plants.

In 2 chapters of the creationists diary the order is reversed.

Perhaps the intelligent designer should have employed more intelligent writers...ha!

So if it is proof you are wanting why not demand it off your GOD first. The Bible is wrong again!

But if you are a creationist what sort of creationist are you?

Please explain why dinosaurs weren't on the ark?

Do you really believe the world is 6000 years old?

Do you really believe GOD needed a rest on the 7th day?

Do you really believe that GOD would destroy all he had made? On another thread you seemed to waiver on this point and the one on the killing of all the first-born of Egypt.

If GOD knows all things past, present and future, he knew mankind would fail every test put before us. Why the need to drown all the innocent children and unborn babies when he knew we would fail?

Finally, seeing Noah had broken God's instruction to take 7 pairs of each ritually clean animal and 1 pair of each unclean animals and only taken a pair of each animal - In Genesis 8:20 Noah sacrifices one of every kind of ritually clean animal and bird and burns it as an offering to GOD.

This means that there was only one animal of each type left. How did they breed? Were they all asexual?

Genesis 8:20 therefore totally contradicts GOD's instruction in Genesis 7:3 as Noah defies GOD's orders in Genesis 7:3 by only taking 2 of each animal in Genesis 7:8.

Where is YOUR proof that BIBLE/creationism is accurate?
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 3 August 2009 12:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One Under God, what a load of rambling rubbish! I do admire you though for your strength of your convictions despite so many odds.

At the end of the day, none of us will ever find out who or what created the universe as we know it. I find this discussion pointless, and simply one that pitches creationists against evolutionists.

Having said that, I will say that I agree fully with Stevenlmeyers' statement that 'religions are false'.

Books such as the Bible or the Koran, written by humans only a few thousand years ago about our very much older world, can only be guessing about creation as much as we are today.
Having 'faith' in any of these religions is like wishing we could believe in fairy tales!
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 3 August 2009 12:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG
"you..sir are a fool...believing without ability/skill of actual/validation..gullable children believe...your..without even the ability/will/inclination..to test/...or..validate...your own beliefs".

Sir, I have no doubt that I "am" a fool. I am comforted though by Montaigne's assertion that such self-knowledge is the first step to wisdom.

As for my belief; surely my posts illustrate that I have none? I do not believe in belief. Ergo I do not "believe" in evolution--which is not a monolithic belief system anyway, but a diverse theoretical model applied to the natural world, including human society. Evolutionary science is ceaselessly and rigorously tested and contested on all sides.

I left school aged 14, incidentally, which was the best thing I ever did so far as my education is concerned. If my posts seem wordy to you I submit that I merely strive to use the best word as occasion demands. And these pithy exchanges demand such attention if we are not to be misunderstood; indeed, your own posts, and understanding of other people's, would be much more coherent if you consulted a few reference books and put your own "beliefs" to the test.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:54:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey what about IKEA?
Posted by bitey, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:12:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been much discussion attempting to explain the unexplainable.
As an individual i am an observer in this dimension, for instance, i came from somewhere because i am aware of myself at this moment in time, at some point in the future i will be gone from here most probably to the place i came from originally.
I would find it very difficult to dismiss "elegant design" on what i see with my own eyes, and which is far beyond my wildest imagination.
As a species we are evolving, at present we are more concerned with war, murder, rape and pillaging, greed and the almighty dollar, than on spiritual development. But develop we will in time.
What a wonderful mechanism "Thought" is, it is said, as you think so shall you be, now one has to pay attention to the thought process to see how it manifests in one life, and it does.
In conclusion, i consider myself a traveller on the winds of eternity
and may i add so are you all.
Posted by blackwattle, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
still no facts sqeer..so to other posters

o2 quote..<<The BIBLE/..wrong!..>>>...i never declared the bible..anything...i did not translate/write/print/nor collect..stories together...have read many others...combined=what i know

<<Genesis..2:5..states....no plants because..no-one to cultivate..>>..try reading in context of..2;4=[AT THE TIME..*when..god created the heavens and earth...[lol]...its re-affirming..the time...*WHEN...=..giving the timing of..the when..of man..[specificlly]...

ie...WHEN...there was no man...2;6...BUT..streams issued up from the earth...a precise timming...expanding off..from 1;26...when men..'got a makeover..''in our image''...as you evolutionists would say..when man became mensch..

<<what sort of creationist..are you?>>im not saying/..i am creationist...im simply saying evolution..ISNT..science/..scientificly valid,..as either a science..or a a matter of faulsifyable fact

<<why dinosaurs weren't on the ark?>>...allready extinct...reveal where..in the bible../it says the earth/..only 7000 years old...your sustaining fictions...chasing imagry...[fed to..you..as a child]

<<..GOD..?..needed..?..a rest/..the 7th day?>>>..children do..as they see their father/mother do...

sabbath isnt..for/..the masters rest...but the slaves/workers dont get abused/...for fairity...read the full sabbath law...resting the land...returning stolen property to the owner...your quoting extracts...in a missleading/selective/manner..creating your own..error

<<GOD/..destroy's all..?>>..god creates and sustains/life...loves..not hates..GOD*dosnt destroy...nature destroys...there is no confusing*...know gods works..are good/god*...all living/loving/grace mercy/light/logic..no confusion..[if*]..you know..his nature is nurture/love/life/grace/plenty..etc

<<On..another thread..you/waiver..on this point>>..even a beast of the field..knows its*master's..voice...you miss-quote me

<<..he knew mankind would fail..>>>reveal how..'we'..have failed...heaven is full of those who succeeeded..and hell full with those..who never tried

<<Why the need to drown..>>>..back then../..every act of nature...attributed to god..[thus jesus came..to help us know..our masters voice=love*...so we can..sort the tares/from the wheat...sheep from the goats..truth from lies


<<In Genesis 8:20 Noah sacrifices...>>..revealing..even those..supposedly perfect/..can be wrong...let ye without sin..not cast stones

<<..2 of each animal..>>..science has now proven..it was a local flooding..[many such..local..floods have been recorded]..*those who remain write the..[his-try]...*his-story.

<<..YOUR proof that BIBLE/creationism is accurate?..>>..here to rebut..the validity/[faith]...of you decieved,..that..make/faulse claim,..via/science...deceptions as fact



<<what a load of rambling rubbish!>>..usually indicates..your not following the debate

<>none..will ever find out who/what..created..the universe>>...all is revealed..when we die...and all/..get born again..[some in hell..or others in h]

<<Having..'faith'..is like wishing/to..believe in fairy tales!>>..ditto blind/FAITH in science...same/same..suzie
Posted by one under god, Monday, 3 August 2009 11:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God, is not a single entity and has no regard for us, "why" because you are all eternal beings.
Religion may i add is used to control the masses, those that fall for the con, it has been responsible for more wars and conflict on this planet, and it still goes on between christians and muslims today.
I heard it said, "We are spiritual beings having an earthly human experience." and i for one find that sits quite nicely with me.
I would invite readers to get the 5 set DVD's "What the bleep down the rabbit hole," for any meaningful discussion on Phsyics.
In the meantime i will continue with my earthly experience paying attention to what is going on around me.
Let me further add, humour is the elixer of life, so laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone.
Posted by blackwattle, Monday, 3 August 2009 1:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

I appreciate that you are well read on these matters. You also ask some interesting questions which I also appreciate.

So to better understand where you are coming from please list some of the material you read, regarding creationism. Is the basis of that creationist reading matter - the Bible, or other Abrahmic religious texts?

I saw you as a creationist because you stated "needless to say i am only an ignorant 'creationist' but im aware of my own ignorance" on

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

So you want the recipe for the soup which created mankind? "The soup" as you call it is only one of the theories.

BUT creation is only a theory also based on ancient texts.

In Genesis 8:20 Noah sacrifices 1 of every breeding pair on the ark of the ritually clean animals.

For all you creationists who dare to read this - your BIBLE indicates - Noah, destroyed any chance of each and every ritually clean animal & bird from breeding, burning as a sacrifice, the only other animal or bird of that species on the ark!

So what other books and religions teach the creationist myth as fact?

OUG, I agree with you that evolution too is a theory. People often leave out the words "the theory of" evolution. But evolution is often misunderstood also.

But science at least examines, discusses and corrects itself by vigorous and open debate.

Can you show me where a religious organisation has come out and said "THE BIBLE IS WRONG OR MY RELIGIOUS TEXTS ARE WRONG" Noah burnt as an offering to the Lord any hope of ritually clean species multiplying?

World Wide Announcement : Creationists now know & accept Genesis 8:20 disproves our theory! As a result believers know Abrahamic religious texts now proven totally unreliable!

Blackwattle, Glad to see a spiritual free-thinking person join the discussion. There is so much more to what we know and yet so many people because of fixed viewpoints and "the books" can't see the bigger picture.

You are obviously on a journey of realisation and hopefully not restrained by any particular dogma.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 3 August 2009 2:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Thanks.

OUG,

I think we may have been here before. If there are preditors and prey. The ratio prey-to-preditors needs to higher. If two of each animal came off the Ark; after their release, the carnivores would eat all the prey, then starve to death. In a previous thread, I think you said, that the lions on the Ark were vegitarian lions. Yet, the flood would have killed off the vegies too. What did the animals, all vegitarians, eat? Moreover, if the flood level covered the highest mountain, the atmosphere would too rarified for life. If God had ulimate foresight, is it intelligent design to create something only to wipe it out, with knowledge of the same?

I would suggest that tree rings indicate trees older than 6,000 years.

What of the COBE photograph, of the 380,000 year old univeserse, as predicted by physics?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 3 August 2009 3:19:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks opiniated 2.
Having reached out of the four season of life, winter, then one learns to give great thought to the business of life.
So i have learned to live alone without being lonely, in any relationship people seek to gain something from it, and that's fine while it works.
We then arrive at the gateway of what is truth, what do we believe in, what kind of information can you rely on in a world of spin, half truth,
out right lies and deception.
This is not an easy question to answer because its a personel thing which we experience as individuals and where we are at on a consciouse level, very difficult to put into words without making a goose of myself.
For more of a better word let me quote Mahatma Gandhi.
"One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds". unquote
Posted by blackwattle, Monday, 3 August 2009 4:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
seems..no one wants to debate..the THEORY that removes god from the picture...so were going on to..the topic others can..comment on...not one that proves their science..[because..evolution/theory's..full of holes ..

but wish..to talk about the holes..they..can poke into tired/old texts]...when the dsiscusion is re..the DESIGNER EGSISTING...meaning its either god..[or]..evolution..ok lets talk about the bible and other texts..that talk of floods

these are local events...when it is said everyone dies...its meaning the whole nation..dies..[no one cares about their enemy dying..[right]

instead of talking science..lets talk about fables...lol..ok

i have..[at last count ..over 10 years ago 19,000 books in my libary...this was pre my god-stage..of my life...and they mainly were re the sciences,i have maybe arround 500..[uncounted guestimate of many new age type books/bibles/and other holy texts from the koran/bagdavita/to arcania celestia,..and a lot of new age type works as well as bibles..but that is of no relivance to../science or god debait

i dont know how many times/i need to rebut../ask..explain/..WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS 6000 years...its not in the books..im here to rebut those believing science..to replace god...

present your science...im only a novice...[in religion]...ask your priests

dont believe me..[chose as you will]..hear the quote
direct from one of your own...

OPINIONATED 2 quote<<..OUG,I agree with you that evolution..too..is a theory.>>

<<People often leave out the words.."the theory of"..evolution.>>

<<But evolution...is often misunderstood also..>>..yes it is..as previously posted...by..the believers...in/of evolution...[who arnt science inclined..cant tell their species from their genus]...and then think they are so clever rejecting god...lol...saying its science...when thats simply..their FAITH..in a god/free creation...they somehow feel more real..than their faulse images of the TRUE creator.

<<But science..examines,discusses and corrects itself by vigorous and open debate.>>>if true/science/..[by true scientists..yes]..

they..evolve their theories...

BUT the mindless drones..who have their deluded faith's../in evolution..are as FIXED IN THEIR FAITH..[in a theory]..as any religious kook is...fixed in their faith

im only seeing distractions..and closed minds...even the pope is in the same camp..as..the god-free/THEORY..

evolution's/athiests...and the pope...jesus wept...all decieved..putting their blind-faith..in science,...unthinkingly..[unquestionly]..faithfully...

blind leading the blind..and not a faulsifyable fact between them
Posted by one under god, Monday, 3 August 2009 4:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OUG,

The six thousand years age of our liitle blue planet is reportedly "derived" from the Bible:

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/6000yearsofEarthshistory.html

The above is merely an orthodox Christian belief. Of course, many modern Christians would agree with the secularists, that the Earth is more like four billion years old. The universe much older still.

Isn't the COBE photograph remarkable. WE are lucky to live now.

Our sun is a third generation star and our atoms have been the matter of past stars. Moreover,our bodies are composed in part of previous dead matter, more than one thousand years old, including a few atoms from significant people in history (Davies). Including, Jesus
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:26:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One under God.
You cannot remove god from the picture, everything, including the picture is a divine manifestation, you are a divine manifestation.
The very act of saying GOD reduces the divine to a singularity, a division, this dimention consists of opposits, male female, light and dark, hot and cold, its elegant design and the designer is beyond our comprehension.
Allow me to posit a question,where do you think the energy comes from for you to function, as in thinking,heart beat,temperature mobility etc, please dont tell me from your brain.
Everything in the universe is energy, if you had studied your physics you would be away of this,one who pays attention can actually feel that energy.
Remember what Jesus said and i quote, "we live and have our being in God." unquote.
In essence my friend you are not even able to lift your little finger without that divine influence.
Remember Jesus said and i quote," the kingdom of heaven is within." unquote.
Tell me my friend what do those two statements mean to you, should you ignore my remarks its of no consquence, you will arrive at the conclusion one day.?
Posted by blackwattle, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:46:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UOG.

Isn't faith identified by an absolute and durable absence of evidence or reason? Indeed, the less reason the more faith. The realisation that belief is contrary to life elicits mortal challenges such as "How strong is your faith"? Note the proactive separation of atheists in the US army. With respect of limited words per post, may I fast track my explanation to simply note the ultimate risk as a consequence of faith is referenced as Martyrdom. Death for no reason, in the absence of evidence that justifies such a death.

Isn't it amateurish to argue the angle of "worshiping Darwin", "belief in Evolution", "faith in science", "real science" etc. Surely that's been tried? 'Expelled: no intelligence allowed' claims ID is science, yet curiously spends a great deal of time falsely linking 'Darwinism' to the worst social ills [Hitler even regains his sanity - he was just following Darwinian logic] and insisting because no claims are made as to why, or what existed before the Big Bang that this equates to both proof God did it and honest scientific inquiry is left wanting. Ben Stein admits as much in this interview.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/firesnake/stein_sproul.mp3

Continuing thusly, suggests no proper response and like new age scams, exploits scientific notions to create an official sounding bluff. 'Religion as science' today - like Creationism-in-the-classroom, functions primarily by abusing science, using pseudoscience, attacking what we know of our universe and mocking alternatives that aren't supportive of Genesis.

As Bill Maher said on USA TV - humourously, Creationists should pray away the swine flu. May I remind you evolutionary science gives us vaccinations. So, set those eggs up, burn down the thinkeries and pray up a cure with a vaccine. Or... what on Earth then, are you saying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR2O2O27eNc
Posted by Firesnake, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Oliver for some sensible diversion. UOG's levity is contagious. I laughed all the way through his last piece! Between him and Blackwattle some hysterical stuff has been posted. UOG, Blackwattle would no doubt love to check out you're transcendental library--why do you hang onto it btw? Surely one book is sufficient? And Blackwattle, I'm afraid you haven't even scratched the surface, indeed you've added another layer. The more you learn the less you know--this axiom can be positive as well as negative. You've allowed yourself to be seduced, and there's no shame in that. I've been down that path myself; and so has UOG I gather from his hints about his library. What do you actually "know" about anything? And bear in mind that there is no greater deceiver than yourself.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blackwattle<<..where do you think the energy comes from..for you to function,..as in thinking,heart beat,temperature mobility etc,>>its not rocket science..energy cant be created NOR destroyed...thus clearly the energy that animates us all..flows through us

to expand further..i can only to to sumerise my own conclusion's/theories/propisitions..if you will...via revelations and other texts..i hold that god's thone is literally/and figerativly..in our heart...my personal..god energy/reciever unit..[so to speak]

[science reports there is more electrical activity in our hearts than our brain]...heart recipiants report residual dietry/sporting activity/body memory and other sensations...that appear linked to their new heart..as to the source..for me its clearly acorded to god

sensitives confirm..a cord attatched to our belly button[..belly buttonfluff seems attracted to this place specificlly...indicating some electrical inflow/elec-trickle flow...

other levels of seers..have seen the silver-cords..are attatched to specific stars...in the heavens..[for want of a better description]..these stars..[light]collectivly equate to the source/god/good/life/logic..[linked to the god within[emmanual]..within all our heart's...

i can only agree with your other point's..but will expand my theorum..yet further...another..'seer'..[swedenberg]...who was allowed to commune with angels..[and demons]...advises that we each have a minimum of two..[one of each...who between them...become our freewill...both..are equally matched...

and between then..we get our good/bad freewill/inflows...our identity..[id]personum..[me being me/you being you..forms by mediating between the positive..[and negative influxes]..in essence the choices..we chose creates the personal..[i]..we think ourselves to be]...

the residual collective acts..we did chose..[our lifes choices]..in the next realm/..are refined with full affirmations/confirmations/adaptations...allowing..'us'..to enter the next phases of our energy-being/spiritual evolution..via our[soul...animated by emannuel/spirit...housed in our astral body..[after sepperating..from the physical]...

all are yet animated from god within..[emmanuel]/...even if our collective loves decend us..[in our astral body...into the darker lower levels of being]..of course..those of the love/light discard their astral self...revealing/morphing[like a butterfly]..their../new-bodies..of the purest..light]

or something/..like that...my educated guess...ie..my hypothemus in summery...to expound the info..into a thesis would take me the rest of my life...but..i have eternity to refine my theory...

[and if im wrong]..[and there is nothing...after death...so what...i will never know...but science reveals..energy cant be destroyed..so im backing my science..based on my faith..in good/god
Posted by one under god, Monday, 3 August 2009 7:54:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OUG,

The Laws for the Conservation of Energy and for Mass/Energy equivalents apply "after" the universe comes to a stable state.

[Time does really exist before 10 minus forty-third power. The universe then cooled after 380,000 years and stable particles as we experience these outside of the lab and QM craeted our typically observed universe. That is why we see the object, the aftermath of the creation, in COBE photograph.

Scientists have created matter by using LASER beams, basically the opposite to a nuclear explosion, which represents partial conversion of matter to energy. Moreover, matter can be destroyed.

If an electron meets a positron, both are destroyed: Relatedly, all properties of E=mc2 need to be squared, to incorporate antimatter, wherein there are two solutions to the equation. When the products physical products of the two solutions come into contact these are destroyed. Positrons are real and have been used in Computerised Axial Tomography.

Reverting back to the key topic, can you plase explain how, when and why, the universe was created by the assumed Christian god. If you are able can frame in conventional paragraphs. If not, I will uderstand.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If God had been so intelligent, he would have worked out how to prevent socialists and hemorrhoids.

(We all suffer from the former and although I fortunately do not suffer form the latter, from what I hear, there is little difference between the two).
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I try to run Religionist ideas through by mind. To be fair to their ideas I test/exam (null hypotheses) them, but my engine seems to run on a different fuel.

Blackwattle,

"The very act of saying GOD reduces the divine to a singularity, a division, this dimension consists of opposites, male female, light and dark, hot and cold, its elegant design and the designer is beyond our comprehension". -BW

- Are you saying that complementalities rather thn infiniies exist in the divine realm? What present seems Daoist.

All religionists,

In English sentences, subjects have predicates. If god Creates and there is a Created: Does God form a part of the universe, as a commission agent of first cause with the universe of Creator and Created? If god has fore-knowledge of all events, who is first cause of evil? If I knowing build a car will a flaw am I culpable? What if a Creator allows flaws? Why did God create the devil? Is creating the agents of evil intelligent design?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 1:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver quote<<..The Laws..apply "after" the universe comes to a stable state...[Time does really exist before 10 minus forty-third power.>>>/..great..can you prove it for simpltons...maybe first by explaining..what measure of time..were talking about here

clearly measures of minuted/days years or meter's/feet or inches...are irirelivant aqs comparitiver..measure..of anything at this time...what shall we call this unmeasurable time...in words...not/by..making it an mathimatical irrelivance..to us mathimatical illiterates...

im not impressed with knowledge..you cant explain to a 5 year old..or can only be proved..by nonsense abstraction or math..e=mc squared means..mass=enenery times two..[huge numbers]..[e=mc2=energy is mass/times the speed of light.times the speed of light..lol.

its nonsense..when compared to the pre-big/bang..stage..[science says its..the size..of a FULLSTOP..[.]..

thus..to equate the light..[squared]..times the masss of the/a universe..[the size of a [.]...when this theoretical light/speed..dosnt egsist..yet..because the suns dont egsist..[yet]

what of the relivance of e=mc2..when all the mass of all the suns [egsisting inside..[.]..a..[pre big bang..[black hole]...

how relivant is the speed of light..traveling across the distance of [.]..across the distance of a full stop..[pre big-bang]...it's..as absurd as it sounds

black-holes would suck..in the light..[to where?]...im fine/debating any of./the sciences...they all are pretty much using big words..or formulas..that mostly..meet the observed affect...till that one exception..that teaches..the next 'law'

<<The universe then cooled>>...to my thinking big-bang distorts time and space..so much[so]..that/heat isnt really heat..[just as light in a black hole isnt light....its ALL been converted..to mass

<<after 380,000 years>>..thats speculation..[define time]...time is able to be distorted by mass..[planks consatant]..[or some other such buzz word...think of the syn-simpsons episode...i might have the wrong naming...but..mass distorts time..proves time/..is a constant

<<and stable particles>>...particles cannot be stable..anywhere near the big bang...to explain..science decieves us ..in such simple things as pressure in a container....the theory..they say..is molicules are speeding/bumping arround inside the vessel..[causing presure]

my explanation..[never yet rebutted]..is the molivcles orbiting fields are forced to interact..[the more air gets put/in...forcing the bits..orbiting the atom..into lower orbital plains...changing their state...ie air becomes liquid...if this/..in a simple presurised bottle..how much more../in the post big-bang stage?

as for creating matter..they are putting in energy..[mass is potential energy..same/same...not proving they made it from nothing
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 1:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
not sure what you mean by "null hypotheses"?

While I admire your patience in trying to engage rationally with some of the stuff that gets put up, I've come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time when people have fixed ideas that no appeal to reason can shake. Blowed if I know our these people can just make statements about how things are--as if they knew!

Col, I imagine one could feed haemorrhoids more easily than pearls to swine? They'd no doubt gobble them up like truffles!
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:11:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col quote<<..socialists and hemorrhoids....>.socialim...is just another...isn..[all get run by an elite..[who are not subject to the abuses of the m-asses...as for..a-hem-or-ho-ids..thats just..so we can get an idea..what a pain in the butt..we are..to our creator

oliver quote<<..Scientists/created matter/using LASER-beams,>>>not that amasing..[nothing to do with..evolution debate...but im fine debating..the rest of the science/spin

<<basically..the opposite to a nuclear-explosion,>>.basiclly deceptive...

..focused energy..being beamed into containment..[no doudt in those masivlty expensive..hard-on colliders..invertying..mass = energy[times the speed of light squared...

so naturally..put enough light/energy in/you expect mass at the end..[i could easilly have guessed it..for/free..[you think this prooves what?]

we..spend trillions..converting scarce energy..into common mass..[but look arround..the universe/god..has made plenty of it..[gods way...ie for free]

<<which represents...lol..partial conversion..of matter to energy.lol..>>>..realise what your saying..first you say energy to matter..,now its matter to energy..[people dont usuall read what written]...or get careless quoting stuff..they dont comprehend

<<Moreover,..matter can be destroyed.>>yes use circular logic...you began explaining with nuke explosions...all that writing..to your big punch line...matter can be destroyed..[converting it to energy...

but its scatterd/disipitated ..not destroyed...the energy from the nuke disipitates/spread..into the atmosphere..etc ...its not destroyed,..its dispersed[blown to the winds/dust..[making its parts ie heat/light/dust/fallout..+..other radiations

<<<If an electron..meets a positron,[...in a hadron..]..both are destroyed:>>..so why nukes need presise colisions/critical/mass.. at speed..to smash together...its not the meeting..but their being pulverised/togetrher..at huge force..that creates the affect/re-action/blast.

<<antimatter,..wherein..there are two solutions..to the equation>>..anti matter is bull....its a buzz word..to explain why their formulas dont meet their predictions...all that invisable matter/missing/anti-matter..in the universe...lol...means..their math is wrong...its science/fiction

<<When the products..physical products..of the two solutions..only two/which/2..come into contact..these are destroyed>>>..dispersed/transmutated..but..not allways .chemistry is full of usefull combinations....chemestry..is even expert at extracting/refining/filtering out..specifics from compounds..apparently...des-troy-ed..

<<how,when and why,the universe/created by..god.>>..god is beyond any religion...god is cause...religions are side/affects

how..is by sequenbtial/big-bangs and big-collapses..inversion..[pre big bang..is a change of state..reversing the inertia..of the collapse...

god is/was pre all big bang..remains after...why maybe we can find the reason in it soon-ish [eh]...were so clever[collectivly]...and yet the cause of causes..is yet more amasing...

and we can know the cause of causes one to one...WOW
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Are you digging yourself into a deeper hole?...It's a shame because you're a learned person.

You now resort to..."you are misquoting the Bible" line...which of course I am not.

I have demonstrated the Bible is totally unreliable.

Furthermore it seems that you expect "mere humans" to give you the formula of your so-called soup and yet ask nothing of "your creator", who creationists say can make man in an instant. If he/she/it existed the creation of a new species could be instantaneous.

Demand of GOD what you demand of mere humans! Of course you won't because you know GOD can't do it either.

I am pleased to hear that you are not foolish enough to believe the world is 6000 years old.

The fact that you can so simply ignore the science behind "Lucy" and yet believe creationism after I have proven the Bible wrong is amazing.

It seems that you are trying to slot GOD into the equation without any proof.

AS I have shown you...the Bible is not reliable and yet creationists just ignore that. They demand answers from people who are more open to the evolutionary theories.

There is a massive energy that is a part of us all and a part of all matter....This energy however is not GOD....GOD is a human construct that tries to explain this energy.

The dusty old creationist books are just ancient man trying to explain something beyond them.

However, by the time Moses got a hold of things he used his alleged God to commit atrocities and control the people. Moses was an evil man who justified his actions and instructions by saying they were from GOD.

If anyone believes Moses was a righteous man then they don't know their Bibles!

Finally I agree that certain events probably happened and were documented wrongly by mankind...Noah's flood was probably a local flood.

BUT that isn't what Creationists/Believers/Religious institutions teach, is it?...They teach myth as fact!

If they fib about these matters during worship, why believe the falsehoods they teach on any subject?

So much for Christian/religious morality!...They are the deceivers!
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o2 please..feel free to requote the line in question,..and we shall debate this if this is as your require...

lines must be read in context,..your claiming the bible is unreliable,..is a subjective issue,..unreliable compared to what...

the human state is full of human error..[especially peer revieuwed science,..let alone peer translated holy texts]...texts so much depend on who..is saying what..to who..[at which time]...

science claims to have gone beyond this..but via peer/revieuw keeps dragging..origonal discovery/thought..back to the dark ages..[where the/ignorant..judge the wise]

i expect nothing from humans..except fair value/for fair labour...science makes no claim of fairity...it speculates soup...is it not fair..they present its recipe..for validation/rebuttal?

<<GOD can't do it either...>>...your proof is what...miss-translated holy texts?


<<..the science behind.."Lucy"..>>..name her science...artists sculpt a fiction/re-con-struct...earth diggers find fosils...libraians classify pictures...editors craft believable words

<<you are trying to slot GOD..into the equation..without any proof.>>...your willing to cast god out...[for a theory]...science/peers..automaticlly..[unthinkingly]..reject creation,..its their prime rule...see previous debate at link

<<the Bible is not reliable>>>...it dosnt claim spi-ritual infal-ability..[or..if your in dispute..quote the text book/number where it does]

<<creationists..demand answers>>>..so too should science..[one needs wonder..why science..dosnt validate/..their theory,..into science...

and why those..with faith in evolution..dont demand faulsifyable proofs/true answers...[not just theory/speculation/pretty pictures and spin]

<<There is a massive/energy..This energy..is not GOD.....of course its not god..[god is cause..not affect]...the source...not the flow

<<GOD..is a human construct..that tries to explain this energy>>..no god explain's..cause..underpinning life/logic/love/creation...

<<creationist books..are just ancient man..trying to explain something beyond them..>>...just as many science books describe their latest theory...to their believers..same same..

<<that..isn't what Creationists/Believers/Religious institutions teach,is it?...They teach myth as fact>>>..as science teaches theory/myth as fact...

lets face it only one admits were only human...that humans must forgive each others failings...make this your reality!

<<why believe the falsehoods..they teach?>>...its about knowing god is...then...in time..[one to one]..for god is a personal god..to realise god is love/light/life/logic...the root cause/root reason/root cause...

if you dont know a concept..you cant expect to find its truth[or faulsity]

<<They are the deceivers>>...as mere humans..are want to do...ONLY GOD IS PERFECT!
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 12:02:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, evil is the opposit of love, remember everything in this dimention has its opposit.
The greatest gift mankind was given was "choice" the choice to be and think anything you wish, so i will be evil, that's fine but live with its consequences figuratively speaking.
This subject has been debated by some of mankinds finest brains down the centuries, without an answer, it is going round and round on this forum, time for me to leave.
beam me up Scotty.
Posted by blackwattle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blackwattle,
you clearly enjoy your narcissistic little fantasy, but like OUG, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Read some genuine philosophy, or Ecclesiastes, or Khayam's Rubaiyat, or Theravada Buddhism. Any of these would be a good antidote.
"nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and that there is nothing more ignorant nor more wretched than Man"
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
squeer quote....<<..Any of these would be a good antidote.>>...antidoting for what [lue of facts ot science to validate thy beliefs...or redirect the debate from certain science ground into the uncertainty of poets masticating words.meanings into absurdities..?

<<"nothing is certain except that nothing is certain,>>>..if science does not claim certainty..what does it claim?...its latest theory

<<and that there is nothing more ignorant nor more wretched than Man>>...lest we forget science method..infures scientific certainty/predictably...the claim made by these..selfsame..''ignorant/wretched''..faulse gods/..of science/goyam/clay...or simply clay slippe

each..decrying their own version of creationist soup...by failure to replicte their ambiogensis..;first life from non life...ok no science facts to refute here...now were going into pillow-sophey...

well go for it..squeer...im up for rebutting their so called un-solvable quandries...stop dropping names and sprout others opinions/defacts..in lue of thy own...

and just de facts...

u 2 ..OHH too..as well

noting black-what?-tell quote<<..This subject has been debated by some of mankinds finest brains down the centuries,..without an answer>>....preceeeded your philospophy remark...t's queer t's it not

but lets..p-high-low-size../philows-onhise/fello-sophise/..

heck just but up your certainties..[of man]...or parrot their uncertainties...and see..if they are sound or simply sounding off
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 9:21:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sqeers,

I used the term null hypothesis a little loosely. Basically, what I was saying is that one tests for the truth of the proposition you believe “untrue”, before testing the proposition you believe is true. It’s a methodology used in science and often with mathematically based hypotheses. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then, go onto the alternative hypothesis (what is expected).

Relatedly, I feel if one holds a position on something one should every now and then test that position. Regarding this thread and similar olo threads, one should not have untested “faith” in god, religion or atheism. Instead, one examines the facts and takes an empirically-based position, while taking what one does not believe as degraded possibility (not impossibility). It is why I engage religionists here, to test my position.

What I find interesting is Christians accept Jesus without first examining the nature of God. Here, one is naming an entity with fully the addressing the construct “God”, beforehand.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 9:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,"narcissistic" an assumption i would imagine, or do you approuch every public forum with name calling.
If i may be so bold as to advise you,"make not a fool of yourself for all to see".
Posted by blackwattle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, I absolutely applaud that kind of self-critical approach; one should never be complacent about anything. I take your point too about examining “the facts”; my take is that these have empirical foundations and are therefore “qualified” facts. OUG thus misunderstands or misrepresents the scientific position; he keeps asking for facts and accusing us of being faith merchants, when what science offers is rigorous analytical method and provisional determination: a way of analysing data that has so far been extremely productive.
Blackwattle, not an assumption, but an inference. What am I to make of someone who dons the prosaic persona of a sage and makes sweeping statements about God, the universe and everything as though such knowledge had been divinely vouchsafed? This is as accurate an illustration of narcissism as I could ask for. The inference is further justified by your ludicrously inflated, aphoristic and patronising style: “i am an observer in this dimension ...”, “make not a fool of yourself for all to see", “Tell me my friend ...” etc.
What on Earth do you know about any other dimension (indeed what do you know about this one!) that you haven’t drawn from some self-professed guru getting rich by appealing to the vanity and credulousness of the people who buy the books/CD’s?
I don’t want to trade in insults, but nothing that’s been said on the side of reason in this thread seems to have penetrated. I was just trying to get a response. Now that I have, can I urge you to sober up and analyse what you “know” in all humility (indeed use scientific method). Otherwise, I can assure you that narcissism is where you’re heading.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:47:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

The Bible is an unreliable source of information as it so flawed. I have demonstrated it time and again.

That is why I asked the question...where does your creationist model come from. I placed above where you called yourself a creationist!

Creationism comes from the dusty old religious books, written in far less enlightened times, where people tried to make sense of what was happening in the world around them. Man slotted GOD into the equation to fill in the gaps. Man again is slipping GOD into the equation to fill the holes of scientific theories.

That's why man invented GOD! In Moses' case he used GOD to justify all manner of ugly deeds and to introduce all manner of ugly laws.

I'll list them if you like!

My proof that GOD can't create a new species is simple...If he could he would. Why is he allowing us humans to slowly cause the extinction of so many of his wonderful designs? Why doesn't he stop us. His inaction is mindnumbingly dumb!

I agree that some science teachers teach theory as fact... and of course that is wrong. However, most science teachers always started saying "the theory of evolution". I have never heard a creationist say "the theory of creationism"...have you?

Finally how can you say that "only GOD is perfect" I see no evidence whatsoever of his/her/it's perfection.

Squeers you attack on blackwattle was a little harsh. You seem to forget that personal experience is also a valuable scientific tool..the power of observation.

For example I had a near death experience...I can't reproduce scientifically the exact experience, but I know I had one. It was nothing like one that many others have had. Does a scientist know more about my experiences than me?

I have had other experiences as well...they weren't brought about by some overpaid psychic...or some mental illness or some chemical imbalances in my body, they just happened.

Are my experiences or Blackwattle's experiences invalid in your scientific methodology?

Your lack of an experience doesn't mean the experience didn't happen...It just didn't happen to you!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 12:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tell me Squeers, seeing your such an expert and critic on other people,
and their character based on assumptions with no basis or facts.
My comments are my own, i neither seek or ask for your advice, i do not care what your views or opinions are, because your a legend in your own lunch box son.
Had it not been for your insulting behaviour i may have shared my experiences and knowledge.
Tell me, for one that assumes such authority.
Are you a scientist.
A physicist.
An academic.
Debate over.
Posted by blackwattle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 1:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2,
I don't think I've been harsh if all the posts are read in context. And I can assure you that I don't lack experience, indeed that I have had many "experiences" of my own that I can't begin to explain, which influence my thinking. And I don't "forget that personal experience is also a valuable scientific tool", though I would prefer to call it radical data. But "the power of observation" is only as good as the scrutiny it is subjected to. What are we to make of personal experience that defies explanation? Be grateful, yes, but treat it as "evidence" on which to build a cosmology? Certainly we don't dismiss such experiences, but if they continue to defy explanation they defy it! We don't then leap to conclusions. I've had some particular experiences that I've been trying to understand for decades, and I have elaborate hypothetical models by which I have tried to explain them. Without giving you the premise I can tell you for instance that I suspect that "everything in our apparently chronologically linear lives has already happened. It just hasn't happened yet". I can explain my sense of this statement, but it is based on subjective experience of the kind we are talking about and unprovable (so far). I therefore keep it as a pet theorem that I cannot validate for myself. So how can I foist it on any body else? Thank heavens life contains these poignant mysteries! But it's the leaping to conclusions that we have to be wary of. I "suspect" a great deal, but I have no way of "knowing" (and neither does anyone else) and refuse to take a leap of faith.
So sorry, mystical experiences "have" happened to me. I just haven't built them up into doctrine.
Apologies if I've given offence, Blackwattle, but I hope I've made you think it over a little more.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 1:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, no apology is needed, we are dealing with a highly emotive subject, people are murdering one another all over the planet in the course of God and Religion.
I agree with you as far as personal experience is concerned, one has to exercise great care with who one discuss's these types of subjects with.
I look upon those incidents as teaching tools, allowing insight into other realities.
We can read all the books in the world, but there comes a time when we have after great thought, look at
what are we going to accept as truth.
One mystical experience i had which was from within did not require analysis, again its very difficult to place into words, "why" because language is inadequate, i simply new what came to me as truth.
I will say this and i may get castigated for it, nothing to do with religion, spirituality weeeeell yes?
I accept without doubt, that you and i and the other 6 billion people on this planet are all divine manifestations, now thats my view and i'm sticking to it.
Now i am really out on a limb.
Posted by blackwattle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 2:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ERROR ABOVE:

Should be: “What I find interesting is Christians accept Jesus without first examining the nature of God. Here, one is naming an entity withOUT fully the addressing the construct “God”, beforehand.”

OUG,

Measure of Plank time:

http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_planck_time_and_the_big_bang

Five Year Old’s Knowledge:

Adults process knowledge different to children. Refer Piaget:

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html

Nuclear explosion:

Energy “is” released:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MuhammadKaleem.shtml

Atable particles refer to the visible universe:

The particles which made the universe “visible” were stable at 380,000 years.

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/ap980207.html

Above, we are looking back towards the (physical) Creation. We can see it because the Universe inflates faster than light, while the light from just after (380,000 years) the Creation is limited to the speed of light in a vacuum.

OUG,

What is the architecture of God? Can you show that God is a closed system having no Creator?

If you feel that the marvels of our universe indicate a Creator, would not an entity more marvellous than universe need to be created, only more so. Alternatively, if something more marvellous than the universe need not be created, why would a lesser state (the universe) need to be created?

If God “acts”, how were the laws of serial causality created, before God’s first action?

Physicists have models of the Creation of the Universe… What is your model of God; i.e, the constitution and processes which enable God?

Squeers,

Many thanks. I have appreciated your contribution to this thread.

There is little evidence over many threads of olo of Christians trying disprove their position, yet several non-theist posters have said that atheism is calibrated (as put by Richard Dawkins), wherein, one can be 99% sure, based on the evidence, there is no God, yet, humans, including atheists, are fallible. On the other hand, Christians seem to hold knowledge of the existence God founded in belief, infallible.

O2,

"Why is he allowing us humans to slowly cause the extinction of so many of his wonderful designs?" - O2

And, further, why did God design and allow the Cambrian Mass Extinction?
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 3:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
olive/oil..quote<<..Universe inflates/..faster than light,.>>apparently/..rebutting them fools..[scientists]...saying light speed is the theoretic/maximum...

<<Outside..mainstream physics,...lol..others have speculated*..mechanisms that..might...,often relying on new conjectures*..of physics..of their own invention*

<<*..but..their ideas..have not gained significant acceptance..in the physics research community...Fictional depictions/superluminal travel are..a staple/science fiction genre*>>...from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
from
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=faster+than+the+speed+of+light%3F&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

<<while the light..from just after..(380,000 years)...>>oh dear im convinced...lol

<<What is the architecture of God?..?>>...yes..you know im going to remove your freewill..to believe it or not...can you see radioactivity?..or the flow of electricity..or the wind...

some things..you just accept/..by their signs...ask the previous posters..to forget their prejudgments..and decare their..unspeakable events...they refuse to accord to god...because they fear ridicule...i cant see their fear..but can read it..between the lines

anyhow that being said i saw god...go on laugh...she looks like a huge round cell..with a central nuculi...my first impression was a huge-white/boob..with an engorged nipple...i love watching babies..drink from their mothers breast...the passion...of these new spirits/babes]..trying..to re-conect to the god head...that the most holy dared not look upon...lol

<<..why would a lesser state..(the universe)..need to be created?>>..we will continue to debate..in circles...im rebutting..the so called science..to be any/..true proof...

..think if someone..switched off logic..no gravity ..no life..heart refuse to beat/..lungs refuse to suck air...air stops being air..water isnt water...

its so easy to say nature/..does it..but what is this nature?..natural selection./reflex action....that science accords its theories upon...simply a way of saying not god...lol...but nature [autro-reflex....natural-law...lol]

<<If God..“acts”,how were the laws of serial causality created,before God’s first action?>>..on the thesis of energy not being able to be created or destroyed...god/logus/logic..was in the beginning..because there are so many beginnings...BIG BANG's...start again...

reveal your measure of..eternal/infinite...

<<What is your model of God;>>t..he logic of what is..is sustained to be by god...i call it giving back to caeser...till science makes its OWN life..from not life...[and evolves it]..

i will defend..the good/god sustaining all life...under only the principle..of genesis 18;23-33...till then the rest of you god/deniers ..re getting a free-ride
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen018.htm

<<one can be..99% sure,..based on the evidence,..there is no God,>>..and based on the one percent..who do..you 99 percent remain free to blaspeme..the most loving/living/..cause of causes

<<yet,humans,including atheists,are fallible>>.we are all weak/only huH-man..lol
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 4:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great reply Squeers... Thankyou!

Maybe we should start a thread the weird and wonderful/not so wonderful but unexplainable things that have happened in our lives.

I wonder if people would really open up. It would be great if they could.

Like you, I didn't jump to some dogma and slot my experience into a box, perhaps because, I had already found the multitude of biblical errors that religious people have chosen to ignore.

"God works in mysterious ways" just didn't wash, and yet, believers will accept that rather than think what the implications of such an infantile statement are.

I'd prefer them to tell the truth saying "I don't know", but owning up to that honestly is a tough ask for religions.

People, WE are all on a journey of discovery and the fundamental rule is that we should always keep an open but questioning mind.

If you expect science to answer every question in this lifetime then you are delusional. Afterall GOD hasn't answered your questions and you supposedly have a one on one relationship with him...

OR Is this another delusion?

The problem with religious books is they divert attention from the real to the highly unlikely and people stop their journeys there saying "I just believe".

Oliver, Get ready for the answer, the Devil, the great deceiver, caused the Cambrian Mass Extinction to divert scientific study from realising GOD is good...He walks amongst us, and especially amongst scientists you know...Ha!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 4:40:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG says,
“some things..you just accept/..by their signs...ask the previous posters..to forget their prejudgments..and decare their..unspeakable events...they refuse to accord to god...because they fear ridicule...i cant see their fear..but can read it..between the lines”
This is interesting and banal. I don’t “refuse to accord to god (sic)” whatever may be her due; that would entail a presumption, and I have no notion of God. Yet it’s true that I do fear ridicule, and thus it’s true that the scientific paradigm holds sway, otherwise I would profess my intuition unabashed—not of God I hasten to add, but whatever it may be. There is a kind of censorship in play then that will have no truck with the kind of transcendental experience we’re talking about. It’s tacitly understood that mystical experiences are embarrassing and best kept to oneself—or else they are readily attributable to a psychological or a physiological explanation.
I have to confess that sometimes they are not, and that here is science’s Achilles’ heel; it has little tolerance of radical data. This is what made Einstein’s quantum mechanics such a breakthrough (and Darwin’s for that matter); it was counter-intuitive. I’m not saying that science is wrong in its approach, but that it is limited, and that it should accept its limitations rather than fall into dogmatism the way religion did.
Is anyone familiar btw with Jacques Lacan’s notion of the “real”.
OUG, I’ve read my share of Swedenborg btw
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 7:43:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
from your link..<<The Plan-ck..Time>...or as i think of it the plan-chwank...lol...timless...lol

<<The big bang theory>>...THEORY...lol

<<also runs into a fundamental limitation>>..the fun-demon-mental lim-it-at-ions...during the first few..MINUS..seconds..[or..as your god-head writes]'

<<during the first..1E-43 seconds..(1E-43..refers to the power of 10 i.e...1..times 10..to the minus..43rd power...)>>.in other words 10 seconds times a really big multiple of huge MINUS numbers...

realising any minus-times..sets this planchwank...into pre/big-bang time...but your..too hynotised..to read through the spin

thus removing the explanation..the sentance reads..<<during the first 1E-43 seconds after time zero.>>>sero time being the BIG BANG...but by virtue of the big minus[1E_43]...becomes pre big bang time...

..idiots..without minds..will accept the new/buzz-word...of a big minus time..somehow post dating the big bang...lol..but..ITS A BLOOMING THEORY...using big/minus-numbers..to really say nothing

<<This time...is called..the Planck time..and arises from quantum mechanics>>>..you know quantum theory...where simply observing an event..CHANGES it from it's math...prediction...but the math...lol....must be right...lol..

so thus weird things..[repotedly]..really happen..[like a named thing..appearing in two places..at the same time/space...and you turkies,..with faith in really..big/..numbers..the theory becomes science...and the belivers..think..its science...lol.

<<Without going into detail,>>....lol..lest we explain something..[others will rebutt..<<quantum mechanics..predicts that..for anything smaller..than a certain scale,..lol..>>...smaller that 1..times..minus big-bang..quantum/seconds..or minus/number?....

<<chance and uncertainty win out..over Newtonian determinism.>>...wow you just have to love..science that spins its spin..to the true mindless[believers]..[eh?]

remember..this is still explaining..the..lol..plan-chwank....<<We/can therefore predict..or measure the path.of a planet..or a baseball,..lol..but we..can only estimate probabilities..for an electron.>>>...oh we..lol..have a theory..of probabilities/sciencs/names..[that exclude..definitivly..god..lol]

<<Subatomic particles..are smaller than Planck's scale,..>>.but hang on..plan-chwank is a measure of minus something..to the power of a big minus..post/pre big bang..theorum

..but back to the explanation..<<..so chance and uncertainty dominate.>>...yes..lol..science certainly is giving..its followers certainty..lol

<<This inability to predict..or measure their paths..results not from faulty instruments or techniques...of course not...lol..but from a fundamental limitation of nature...>>>ah...blame it on NATURE/god...lol..thus THEIR..inability to predict..thats the plan-chwank...lol..science right?

<<<The Planck time...is this limiting scale..lol..translated into time units.>>>..For times in the history of the universe less than 1E-43seconds,..lol..<<quantum mechanics limits..our ability..lol..to predict..or measure the conditions>>..lol...aHH..finally a truth...in theory

<<Our history of the big-bang..must...lol..therefore begin at 1E-43 seconds...>>>..lol...right got ya...lol...but*...wasnt it post big-bang time?

Read more:..http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_planck_time_and_the_big_bang#ixzz0NIaBOmMT...thanks but no more...plan-chwank..thanks
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 7:56:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lest i be accused of cheating

quote oliver<<Measure of Plank time:

http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_planck_time_and_the_big_bang

Five Year Old’s Knowledge:>>

clicking the abouve link
scroll down to the plan-chwank heading

cut and paste
quote...unedited...<<The Planck Time
The big bang theory also runs into a fundamental limitation during the first 1E-43 seconds (1E-43 refers to the power of 10 i.e. 1 times 10 to the minus 43rd power.) after time zero. This time is called the Planck time and arises from quantum mechanics.

Without going into detail, quantum mechanics predicts that for anything smaller than a certain scale, chance and uncertainty win out over Newtonian determinism.

We can therefore predict or measure the path of a planet or a baseball, but we can only estimate probabilities for an electron. Subatomic particles are smaller than Planck's scale, so chance and uncertainty dominate.

This inability to predict or measure their paths results not from faulty instruments or techniques but from a fundamental limitation of nature.

The Planck time is this limiting scale translated into time units. For times in the history of the universe less than 1E-43seconds, quantum mechanics limits our ability to predict or measure the conditions.

Our history of the big bang must therefore begin at 1E-43 seconds. At this time the universe had an estimated density of 1E96times the density of water and an estimated temperature of 1E32 degrees Kelvin. Our universe began in an unimaginably hot dense state.

From this initial state the universe began to expand in the big bang.>>remember to visualise it...were talking [acording to nyour science godheads about this bang being smaller than a matchhead

link continued..<<Next
GUTS and Inflation in the Big Bang

Read more: http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_planck_time_and_the_big_bang#ixzz0NJmNYlMT>>>..and the science...explanation...lol..is revealed...by its own spin

hung on its own petard

this is the level of the info/lol/science..you use to rebut..your living loving god....

as jesus said...the blind leading the blind...there is none so blind as those that will refuse to see...why do you lot so need a god free scam to deney god

try critical reading folks
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:24:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
small lies become big deceptions
first accept the small ones then the huge ones

where does the lie stop?

see that we are lied to in many ways...you can accept their spin as true[unthinkingly]...and they tell you bigger lies...or reveal their spin for what it really is

More Proof Against
WTC 7 Lies
http://stopthelie.com/more_proof.html
Stop The Lie
http://www.infowars.com/more-proof-against-wtc-7-lies/

Another failed building demolition…See what actually happens when only SOME of a building’s support structure is compromised...

..New videos of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing highlight the vivid contrast between the damage it suffered as it was completely consumed by roaring flames,..

..yet remained standing, and the comparative sporadic fires across just 8 floors that led to the complete free fall collapse of WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/v/owyqt-8RnKI

For a more detailed analysis, please see

“Fire Initiated Collapse – Primary Arguments against“
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#FireInitiatedCollapse

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

More proof of WTC-7 implosion
http://www.prisonplanet.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded.html

9/11 truth debunkers are in a bind as to how to respond to the Beijing skyscraper fire because of the building’s similarity in size to Building 7 and the gargantuan fire damage it suffered in comparison with the limited “office fires” witnessed in WTC 7.

The Mandarin Oriental Hotel is over 500 feet tall, just 100 feet short of the height of WTC 7.

Read full article
http://www.prisonplanet.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded.html

Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 “Impossible”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/280508Engineers.htm

–A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,..former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres)

believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

Read full article
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/280508Engineers.htm

unquestioning minds/faith in little things
is the blind leading the more blind

open your eyes and dare to ask questions...
about little lies
to begin with
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 6 August 2009 9:50:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

- SCIENCE STUFF

Good. I think you have found the answer to your question about what is the nature of Planck time.

You mention"chance" in QM. More precisely, we have "summed" probabilities emerging form infinite determinancy. So we now see that the universe may have come into existence without God.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum limit "within" the universe, not "of" the universe itself. Ther universe inflates (into its own four dimnsional space-time) faster than the speed of light. Similarly, when we look into space we see backwards in time. Eight minutes for the Sun. Fifteen billion years for the COBE pic.

-GOD STUFF

You haven't really addressed the issue of:

If the universe needs a Designer, assumed, because the Creation is self-evidently marvellous. God being more marvellous than the universe, by extrapolation of the first case, would be more in need of Designer. Who designed God?

Alternatively,

If God, who is more complex than the universe can exist, without a desiner; then, why must the universe, which is less complex than a God, require a designer? If more complex God does not require a Designer, why should a less complex universe require a Designer?

O2,

OUG has been busy with the Creation. I guess he will conmment of the Cambrian extinction soon.

It seems odd to me a Creator would with foresight produce a line of life and have it ticking along merry for two billion years only to change the environment and extinguish it. It would have been like our friend Noah and the animals "not" surviving the Flood and God keeping only the fishes. If we are a simulation that extinction event was mean bug in the program.

Perhaps, life is a game of snakes and ladders being played by super-intelligent extra-dimensional aliens, and every few hundred million years a player lands on a snake. Extinction! Land on mitosis and advance from single cells to multi-celled organisms. :-)
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 6 August 2009 2:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/bgcharlton/peak.html

STRANGE STUFF

Closest I have come to a super-vivid dream was when I was writing a paper on Primates and Psycholinguists. In a vivid dream ideas just flowed through my head on the topic. I made some connection I might not have made otherwise.

One strange phenomenon I once saw was a broken light filament which shone as if it was still joined. The ends were clearly separated.

Apart from the above, sad to say, no ephinanies or UFOs. I was not inclined to assess either event as supernatural.

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 6 August 2009 5:09:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Epiphanies are grossly exaggerated. The undisciplined brain is capable of feats of supplementation and exaggeration which tend to credit rather than discredit the recipient; similarly, accidental discrepancies at the till always seem to inflate the price. Yet epiphanies and serendipities do occur, for example Crick’s double helix while on LSD. Salvador Dali would sit in a comfortable chair with an arm extended holding a pen; when he fell asleep he would drop the pen and be awoken, hopefully capturing the subconscious moment. I’ve conducted these kinds of experiments myself and am willing to assert that I’ve had dreams I “could not have had”. The point of my last concessional post was that our scientific paradigm exerts the same intellectual censorship as religion once did. Darwin was of the old order and was thus in a similar position to that which Paul Davies often finds himself in (I’m not a fan of his btw). I am struck by the number of respected academics, in the sciences or the humanities, who self-censor their subjective and sometimes irrational thoughts. An overcorrection, I suspect; after centuries of god-bothering and transcendental masturbation, the modern objectivist is wont to ignore volcanic eruptions, or at least to keep them to herself. I am not saying that we are repressing God, but that there is, apparently, a dimension to human life that is seeking an outlet, and that even after Freud’s pseudo-science, it shouldn’t be too hastily dismissed. Lacan’s reworking of Freud is interesting; his “real” is the opposite to our perceived “reality”; the “real” is a kind of negative to Kant’s sublime. Not talking yin yang, but a postmodern update to Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. Science’s foundation is human perception; but how can we know that what we perceive is how things are in themselves? The human senses either create phenomena (Hegel), or they translate it (Kant). And then there is the symbolic order (Lacan), which translates that dubious reality into an intertextual realm of slippage and indeterminacy.
OUG’s gonna have a ball with this, but that’s easy when you have a closed mind!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 6 August 2009 6:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Sometimes you can be very confusing even with your Bible quotes.

You typed << i will defend..the good/god sustaining all life...under only the principle..of genesis 18;23-33...>>

If true, in these passages, Abraham quite bravely questioned GOD regarding innocent and guilty numbers. But once again this story is totally flawed because GOD goes against what he promises.

Sodom was a city of men, women and children. Some of the women would have had babies in the womb. GOD said he would not destroy SODOM even if he found 10 innocent people there...GENESIS18:32.

This means that GOD considered the children and the unborn as guilty as the adults and murdered them as well....GENESIS19:23.

What sort of maniac loving GOD could kill innocent children?

But more...he had to send his angels down to see if the accusations were true. So much for an all knowing, all seeing GOD! This is obviously fiction!

Then you said <<....you 99 percent remain free to blaspeme..the most loving/living/..cause of causes>>

By believing and quoting this passage in the Bible haven't you blasphemed. Are you saying that your GOD deliberately "rained burning Sulphur" on the innocent children and the unborn?

How can someone who states they believe in a loving GOD, even for one second, believe that their GOD...(the Master of the Universe)...could do such a thing?

And poor old Lot's wife (another innocent) looks back and gets turned into a pillar of salt...GENESIS19:26

But previously you had typed <<...your proof is what...miss-translated holy texts?>>

So they are mistranslated Holy texts when I quote them verbatim...BUT when you quote them they suddenly become a reliable source of GOD's instructions?

I realise you are under great pressure here...but you can't have it both ways.

Just so I can debate with you on your terms...Can you please tell me which of the Bible texts I can rely upon and which are mistranslated and incorrect?

Once again you are making your so called "Intelligent Designer" look pathetically "unintelligent".

Are you being sacrilegious by doing this? Are believers the real blasphemers presenting their GOD as so evil with their selected quotes?
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 7 August 2009 12:37:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo O2,
but of course OUG only has to respond to his own satisfaction, lol, and is exempted from rigour, lol, or the kind of "proof", lol that he constantly demands of us. I confess to my cosmic bewildermen ... but then I'm not "one under god". With that kind of rampant megalomania, I'm surprised God got top billing!
.......But on with the show! What do you say, God?... sorry, One Under, I mean. Shall you not smite O2 for his blasphemies?
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 August 2009 1:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

God stuff reminder, Sir...

Questions on Intelligent Design.

Please refer:

Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 6 August 2009 2:21:05 PM

O2 makes an excellent point. Were there chidren in Sodom? With all the promiscuity, there would have been many innocent children, methinks. Even Lot offerred his virgin daughters to the angels, who could have their way with the daughters and know them.

O.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 7 August 2009 3:47:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whaT IS THE USE OF REPLYING YOU CLEVER LOT...of know it all about fables but nothing about verifying your science facts...

as its only us..in this room that give a damm...and you lot got no idea about science validation...

ok lets debate about sodemites

sodomy is as many of you...might be able to realise..is about the high art of sodomy...im sure many of you will have had the personal experience..thus would be better qualified to commentate

anyhow should one of you sodomites verify it..the act dosnt lead to pro-creating children...sodomy in fact has never resulted in verified impregnation...but its doudtfull any science would definitivly state that..

..add the fact it is usually mono-sexual...it might not have entered your attentions..that the virgins offered were femail/..virgin for want of a male..normal male..intrested in mating with a femail...

the refusal of females speaks loudly..to those who are able to read criticlly...and comprehend the intent and meaning inherant in sodomy...having its root in sodon[and gone-arear-more-ah]

if not the desire expressed in the crowd..lusting after the male angels..might just wake you up...but i doudt it..your so obessed with your own wolf pack mentality...devouring that your thinking is meat..to miss the bleeding obvious...there just might'nt have been children in sodomy country...they just might have..gone raiding for fresh meat...this meat bites back

why i bother attempting to explain..the obvious to..mindless retards amases even me,...read the link you see if there were butt 10..normals...the town would be saved...18;32..i know how hard it must be for you lot to read full quotes...

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen018.htm

but clearly..even as few as ten..is/was impossable...as this topic reveals only three mindless wolves... make their pack attack...in mindless ignorance..with not a thinking brain ammoung you...the origonal thought might just escape you as the others have fallen on stoney ground

till..you lot reveal an origonal thought..[or quote a science fact..[im shaking the dust off my feet]

i know my tares from my wheat...clearly your tart-tares,,,mearly seeking fresh meat...as meat beaters supreeme.. you lot certainly cant be beat
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 August 2009 4:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I must say this is an anticlimax OUG--hilarious as ever but somehow lacking in substance. A decided absence of mirth too. You surely can't resent my disrespectful tone, especially when that's what you've been dishing up all along.
On the subject of sodomy; surely if a virgin birth is possible, so is an anal conception?
True, your wordplay is as usual topnotch, but I thought that was sheer effervescence, beneath which a crushing logic held sway?
And how can you accuse us of "pack attack"? You've been privy to the disquiet in the ranks. We are anything but coordinated. And yet your tone betrays human weakness--irritation--petulance. a bruised ego? Spock would reply, "I have no ego to bruise". Perhaps you've grown complacent--slovenly of thought. Perhaps hitherto you've been a wit among dunces; and now you're a dunce among wits?
Before you run off, what about the Cambrian extinction--I'm keen to hear the rationale behind that--intelligent design?
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 August 2009 5:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.......But this is all too heavy! Here's some light relief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzXYYmBMst
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 August 2009 7:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

What about the alternatives presented in my earlier posts about intelligent design? If the argument from Intelligent Design demands the marvels and complexity of the universe require an Intelligent Designer, God who is more marvelous and more complex would reqire a Designer too, even more so. Else, if the retort is God who is more complex than universe can exist without a Designer, why not the the universe which is less complex than God?

So, we have choice do we accept God needs a Designer based on argument from Intelligent Design. Or, do we set aside argument from Intelligent Design and agree that the universe does not require a Designer.

The matters raised by Speers, O2 and myself address the universe, intelligent design and God's behaviour revealed in the Bible. All these matters focus on the olo topic. Less sure about sodomy.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 7 August 2009 7:03:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, here be the link, I think. Worth a look if you haven;t seen it.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVzXYYmBMst8&ei=nex7SoOgKYPMsQOk36DvCg&usg=AFQjCNHdoriXHip_sAuRm6UprlH7VPrUGQ&sig2=ra06cOuLS2CM-wZjS5G3GQ
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 August 2009 7:09:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

I realise that the Bible is hard to defend....but I thought you were above name calling...Didn't you just "Bear False Witness"...EXODUS20:16...by calling people Sodomites especially when you brought up the story of Lot?

But if Sodom was full of homosexuals, then why did the Lord say GENESIS18:20-21 that he would go down to see if the accusations he had heard were true? He's GOD! He must have already known!

GENESIS19:1 Lot had daughters and a wife...so there were women. Again negating your argument.

PLUS in GENESIS19:12 The two angels advised Lot to get anyone else...sons, daughters, sons-in-law or any other relatives living in the city to get them out.

SO if everyone in Sodom were male homosexuals, as you say, then all the relatives of Lot must have been homosexual, and yet they would have been spared.

It doesn't make sense again.

Of course the next bit where Lot (after drinking) gets his daughters pregnant goes even further into the mire of this disgusting tale. But, according to the Bible, if that hadn't happened, the Moabites and the Ammonites would never have existed.

Surely OUG, you must see that this stuff is pure fiction?

Why can't you reveal your sources for your total belief in GOD?

I don't mind you doubting and debating science but I do worry when you totally believe things that are obviously fiction.

But what of the other Christians on these pages, why don't they come to your aid? If they believe the Bible is God's word, can they defend their "Intelligent Designer's" position?

I understand your frustration that you are the only one trying to defend your position. I am sorry for that...but what does it tell you about your beliefs or the intestinal fortitude of the other Christians here?

By getting angry with reasonable questions...aren't you letting down your GOD?
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 7 August 2009 7:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
squeer<<the Cambrian extinction--I'm keen to hear the rationale behind that--intelligent design>>..as you know i am science first call then ditched the deceptions for the surity of god...

as for the can-brian extinction...stuff happens...but we being spirits having an incarnate experience..what happend in the past intrests me..not a real lot

we are spirits evolving..[about the only aspect where the evolution reveals continiousness]..evolution is valid/only at the spiritual level or within genus]...one need only look at the beast/like nature..of many humans..to note their last incarnation..WAS CLEARLY THAT OF THE..[a]..BEAST

that being said..i will put forth some thinking..i did on the matter of extinctions...as i was hotter..[and if i have the right event...ie a metior striking earth..bringing on a nuclear winter]...

clearly only warmblood or feathered beasts have a chance of survival...noting it couldnt logiclly have been a complete extinction..as i havnt heard of any science looney..saying we evolved[lol]..from the seas twice

as chickens..are dinousaurs closest relitives,..its likely that bird-like dino survivers downsized..[just as the horse upsized]..noting that bird/lizard intermediate has been proved a fraud...it has modern chicken feathers..[but such is the measure of proof..you gullable evolving belief-ers by faith..swallow]

as for god being more complex..thats an absurdity i will partly explain..one spark can start the biggest bush fire...your body was one egg..uniting with one LIVING sperm...

its..facilitated..so research has confirmed by twelve others..13 seems the miniumum..for natural sperm penitration..but again..thats wasted on you lot..

god only needs to be living..to have to be the cause of all life...he only needs be light..to sustain life to live..he needs only be electricity to have thought../logic..and be real to sustain mass..[that is only energy]

i will note that the bible..specificly has its beginning..[thousands of years pre evolutionary theory's]..now..[somewhat absent anbiogensis first]...

noting..god breathed life into clay...ie science will..if nothing else con-firm..life comes from life...and that no change of genus has EVER BEEN OBSERVED..[nor claimed as faulsiyable/proof]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 August 2009 8:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o2<<OUG,I realise that the Bible is hard to defend>>im not defending the bible...those who wrote it..i take as having recorded things..according as they saw them to be...they set out to record...not lie...

at least presume they had higher intent...had they not we would never have evolved..[spiritually]writinhg comes via the priesthood/math science it all has its roots in religion

<<I thought you were above name calling>>..sticks and stones...names can never hurt anyone...i can try to be nice..[read swedenberg]..i have freewill to chose not to be...but mainly i chose to TRY TO BE...only god is perfect/love/grace/mercy...i wont pretend to be anywhere near perfect

<<Didn't you just "Bear False Witness"...EXODUS20:16...by calling people Sodomites especially when you brought up the story of Lot?>>..as previously stated in other posts...the 'god' of these realms is not my god...jesus was offered these realms and refused it...the lord of the bible is the lord of these realms..read comments on the job topic

<<you totally believe things that are obviously fiction>>..its you that take delusions /fictions..as true..if not..PRESENT YOUR PROOF....of evolution...where you think i err correct or rebut me

<<what does it tell you about your beliefs or the intestinal fortitude of the other Christians here?>>..they accept their faith in evolution..[just like their pope]..because they..like you lot dont know how to reads and test their root/science...but..they make no claim of science..[only blind faith like you]

>>By getting angry with reasonable questions...aren't you letting down your GOD?>>..what we do matters little to god...are you concerned about the micro beast..living in your eyelash?...

we are spirits having an incarnate life experience...live with it..if your faith is in science..present the science
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 August 2009 8:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that all the huge design flaws in the human physiology, social and mental structures would indicate that if there was a designer, he was extremely sloppy, and intelligent would have been a stretch.

Builing man in his image would be compounding the error.

Perhaps the One Underdog could shed some light on this abuse of reason.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 8 August 2009 6:54:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
minester of shadows quote<<huge design flaws..in/human physiology>>>sad..one so wise as you..miss the builtin failsafes we have..in our physio-logical selves,

we..daily murder our brains/livers with booze/etc..yet the body keeps these organs..[in the main]..functioning till they have rotted completly away...unlike the perfectly designed...lol..moter-car..that dies..if you simply insert.../the wrong fuel..into it...lol[or fail's to go..to a service]

your missing/how perfect the body is for its function...to house the spirit of life..to allow the body to form its soul..[then the soul body lives on ..ousing its life spirit]...for eternity...

its self repairing..[the best science can do..is fix a bone in place..while the bone heals itself...surgens would be useless/..simply using their surgery..if the body didnt heal itself

we can expoliate..yet further..in the future..[when we extract stem-cells from our fat-cells..to inject them into our broken spines or destroyed organs...to help the body assist its own healing...they are allready making dogs walk..with their own stem cells harvested from their own fat...its not a science..lol..invention...science and medicine..is only finding..what the physiology allways had

<<social>>>..is at the control of men..[thus freewill will see excess]..but gods perfection is revealed even here...see god could have created mindless-automotons...but instead..chose us each to have freewill...its time you realised..how clever that turns out to be..i know it mightent seem it yet...but soon..we will all be appriciated as together..revealing the fullness and goodness..of our creators hand...that we did to the least..we did to god

<<and mental structures..if there was a designer,he was extremely sloppy,>>...yet..even the most ignorant..yet can have a decent reality

<<intelligent would have been a stretch>>>..ok no sweat create but one like it[..or better yet do it better...your kids no doudt are perfect right?...an arm chair critic..will allways critisize while even the worst footballer..is yet on the field making the effort.

<<Builing man in his image..would be compounding the error>>..i presume[mr perfect]..you mean building....it seems better/gods error...than your..best efforts..my bro...would?...or did?

<<abuse of reason>>...opinions are like..iffs and butts..[we all got at least one]..feel free to reveal your reasoning....be more precice on what..god did wrong...

anyhow..as usual..no science thought..or facts to re-butt here
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 August 2009 8:36:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think that all the huge design flaws in the human physiology, social and mental structures would indicate that if there was a designer, he was extremely sloppy, and intelligent would have been a stretch." - Shadow Minister

Good point. The Scientific American once put out a special publication on flaws in the design of humans and made suggestions as to how to improve things. If memory serves SA were able to design a superior back to ours'.

OUG,

The Intelligent Design issues I raised?

By whose design do cells become malignant?
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 8 August 2009 11:49:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations OUG!

This thread is now a week old. In multiple posts you have managed to refrain from mentioning Israel. That's progress!

Unfortunately you appear to have missed the point of my original post.

The possible existence of an intelligent designer does NOT imply the truth of the bible, the koran, or any other holy book.

I do not know whether there exists an intelligent designer. I do know that an itinerant first century Jewish preacher was NOT God incarnate who rose from the dead. I also know that a seventh century Arabian warlord NEVER received any communication from the intelligent designer assuming one exists.

OLIVER, SHADOW MINISTER, OPINIONATED2, et al

I am afraid that you too have also all missed my point.

We do not need to evoke the existence of an intelligent designer in order to explain the evolution of complex life forms. Darwinian evolution through natural selection is all the explanation we need.

The question is, how do we explain what the physicist Paul Davies and other call the Goldilocks enigma? How is it that the laws of physics and the constants of nature are fine tuned so as to allow for the emergence and evolution of chemically based life forms?

If you want just one example of how unlikely this all appears I urge you to study the following link. It explains the bizarre coincidence that enables stars to synthesise carbon.

http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm

Note, this is just ONE of DOZENS of known "cosmic coincidences" that had to work out just right for any sort of chemically based life forms to be able to appear and evolve.

There are speculations aplenty about how we come to inhabit a Goldilocks universe. But at the moment we have no scientifically testable theories.

For a wikipedia discussion see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 8 August 2009 12:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with evolution is that our animal origins tend to get in the way.Consequentially we tend to make some bad/biased underpinning assumptions to our reasoning.

the first is that there must be *a reason* for life. Why? on what logical non anthropomorphic justification is there.....none,zilch, Nada boopkiss.

Consider I *need* for to be as besotted with me as I with her. Its all I can think about, we're both intelligent and therefore suited it makes logical sense that we should be together(in my mind but would an unbiased alien agree?) I doubt it...it's NOT an irreducible universal truth.

Others assume that we are the highest life form and our culture/nation etc. are their respective paragons virtually superior to all others. Again why?

That is not what Evolution says. Like proverbial justice the direction of evolution is blind its only criteria is to survive and hence the most adaptable does so in the longer run. Not survival of the fittest or strongest. Let's get real a Trex is both fitter and stronger than any man yet they went extinct.

There is an argument for 'punctuated equilibrium' i.e. change by paradigms not gradual steps.

All this need to understand our environment/struggle for survival and supremacy etc can be rationally explained as manifestations of animal instincts.
One can surmise that we haven't yet (or ever) out grown our needs for animal instincts.

Humans are categorised as being linked genetically with primates but no where does evolution say we evolved from the same "we had a common ancestor"(Full stop).

Just because some animals roll in poo and act on chemical pheromones is NO justification/explanation for us to behave like our genetic predecessors.

Just because one is secular that DOESN'T mean that individual is any lessor a human.

In short the most likely universal truth is 'Life is its own reason' and therefore the only logical morals are those that are Humanistic.
If there is an Intelligent designer by life's ad hoc nature he must be a real 'bush' carpenter!

Oliver,
Have you got a title or date etc for the American S edition?
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 8 August 2009 1:34:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven

Whenever someone mentions the "Goldilocks enigma" my mind always fast-tracks to Douglas Adams:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

We only know about the solar system in which we find ourselves, and that none too well at present. The universe is large and diverse enough to contain many and varied circumstances which may support life - but, not necessarily "life as we know it, Jim".

As to postulate on an "intelligent designer" while it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, the final question remains: Where did the intelligent designer come from? For myself, the idea of multiple universes and the rebirth and extinction of universe as a part of an infinite process at least has some basis of evidence - the universe around us. Whereas the "intelligent designer" idea has more basis in anthropogenic obsession.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I haven't read up on the Goldilocks enigma, but describing it as a question of "How...the laws of physics and the constants of nature are fine tuned so as to allow for the emergence and evolution of chemically based life forms", takes an entirely deist perspective. The universe hasn't been set up to allow earth's type of life: earth's type of life is a kind that can exist in the universe we inhabit. For all we know, there may be millions of planets out there occupied by life forms that thrive on ammonia, or in extremely low or high temperatures. Just because we only know of the life on our cosmic speck (which includes extremophiles) doesn't say anything about the possibilities elsewhere.

Of course, the chance of life emerging at all is minutely small, but that has no significance whatever. For one thing, in a near-infinite universe, over the scale of time it has existed, almost every possibility must be realised. For another, on our small blue planet alone, many events occur every day against almost impossible odds. Here's a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c

Regarding the OP, there is a third choice: god exists, but religions are false. The Abrahamic religious notion of god as nothing but an omnipotent authoritarian father-figure is so petty in scale and concept that it deserves to be left in the Bronze Age desert where it began.
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exterminator,

I haven't seen the copy for some time. It was probably the late 1970s. It had a blue cover. I purchased it at the Technical Book Shop in Sydney. I don't think the copy was one of the periodic editions, but a special edition. My copy may have been lost or boxed-up when I went overseass to teach.

I will check on my university's database to se if I can find it and report back.

Sancho,

"Regarding the OP, there is a third choice: god exists, but religions are false. The Abrahamic religious notion of god as nothing but an omnipotent authoritarian father-figure is so petty in scale and concept that it deserves to be left in the Bronze Age desert where it began." - S

Yes if God did exist it unlikely it is god identifed in human culture, as couldbe explained by historians and anthrologists.

OUG,

The intelligent design issues
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The blog has been descended upon by evil angels, OUG!
I almost want to take your side ... but not quite.
Can you present any evidence that "we are spirits having an incarnate life experience" ? Sounds delightful, but can you substantiate this, or do I have to take your word for it?
You go on to say, "if your faith is in science..present the science". 'Tis not a matter of faith or science, but method--admittedly flawed. All science is provisional.

What about Lacan and the "real" btw
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:41:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I feel guilty about jumping in at this late
stage however I'll try my best to add something
to the discussion.

You ask, "Does an intelligent designer exist?"
Yes and No.
Only if you believe in the traditional belief -
in a created universe with humanity at its center.

Astronomical observations tend to demonstrate that
our planet is a minor planet in a minor galaxy.
That possibly we're no more significant than a single
grain of sand on a vast beach.

However, for many years it was widely felt that as
science progressively provided rational explanations
for the mysteries of the universe, religion would have
less and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still huge gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality - few people of modern societies would
totally deny the possibility of some higher power in the
universe, some realm that lies beyond the boundaries of
ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense religion
is probably here to stay.

As I've said before - it's all a matter of what you choose
to believe.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 8 August 2009 5:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh-liver's reply..Bacteria,Archae,and Eukaryotic microbes..produce..about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications...however..it is important to note..that there are certain.."hot spots" or.."cold spots"..for spontaneous mutations...depending on exposure to MAN_MADE-mutagens..such as smoking/poisens or vacinations..etc

RNA viruses..have much higher mutation rates..about one mutation per genome..per chromosome replication..and even small increases in their mutation rates are lethal....

whats amasing..is we...with billions of mutations..[fatal errors]..yet seem..mostly..to function just fine..[god's..great design..works]..

Some mutations..arise as natural errors..in DNA replication..(or more often..as a result of unknown chemical reactions);..these are known as spontaneous mutations...E.-coli..has a spontaneous mutation rate of 1/108..(one error in every 108 nucleotides replicated).

Humans have a higher..spontaneous mutation rate:..between 1/106 and 1/105..(probably...lol..as a result of the higher/complexity..of human replication..or exposure to mutagenic substances).

it was widely known..that..when a population of bacteria..is exposed to a toxic environment,..some cells may express the ability..to grow much better/..than other cells..in the population...ie cancer's

[induced mutations);..or spontaneous mutants..might have ocurred[..in the bacterial population]..prior to exposure to the toxic conditions,..or be caused..by them..yielding resistant progeny cells..(or induced...spontaneous mutations)..god or bad.

Rates of spontaneous mutation..seem to be determined by gods premptive balancers..between the deleterious consequences..of many mutations..and the additional energy and time required,,to further reduce affects of a higher mutation rate...via induced poisens/mutagenes.

Induced mutations..increase the mutation rate..over the spontaneous rate...Looking at a single mutation..in an individual,..one cannot tell if the mutation was spontaneous or induced...

...If the observed mutation rate/..is higher,..then..induced mutations can be assumed...Agents in the environment..that cause an increase in the mutation rate are called mutagens.

...In other words,..bacteria/disease..do not mutate..to become antibiotic resistant..as a response to exposure to antibiotics....but may have been induced..into benifitial/or detrimental mution earlier

Mutations..can be reversible...If a mutation occurs once..in a cellular gene-pair..only,..there is a very small probability..that the mutated base..could mutate back..to its original form...[more of gods forsight]

amasingly,..there are occasions..when a mutation in a second,..separate gene-sequence..will return the its origonal-phenotype..of the organism..to a wild-type..within genus...in function/appearance..(a rare case..of two wrongs making a right...a god gift?)...This kind of mutation..is known as/..a supressor-mutation...god is amasing...our bodies reflect this..israel much less so...lol
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 August 2009 6:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EXaminator/quote<<..there must be..*a reason*..for life...Why?>>..think of it as god..simply getting to know itself...the dreamer dreaming his dream...to contact with his..[own]..higher self..he needs us to be us..to see..if..the fruit is good[so to speak]..if the movie/vision..[creation]..has its happy/good fruits..ending

see that your memory..isnt held in one neuron...but many...see collectivly..we are neurons of the greater godhead..what we collectivly know/..god knows...

each of us..is as unique as we need be...we each form the totality of the logic..of all that is..[ie god]..our flesh is his flesh..our higher being..is his lower being

lets say..the big-bang..was..his birth...presume to think..pre big bang there was no logic..[no god]...but collectivly were searching out wether this is a fluke...[or part of a serties of big bangs]...

see our collective knowing..may..just be enough..to ignite the next big bang..[should a big collapse..begin to confirm..not just one/bang but an infinity of big bangs...

we do each..accord individually unto..our collective being..as infinite and eternnal...as we are the thought process..[logic] confirming or rebutting his/gods..thesus..via his creation/dream

<<Consider I..*need*..to be as besotted with me..as I with her...(in my mind..but would an unbiased alien agree?).>>ask your fellow neurons...one may reply

<<Others assume..that we are the highest life form..Again why?..lets say highest KNOWN life-forms..[in this known known/creation/surity]

<<T-rex is both fitter and stronger than any man yet they went extinct.>>..and bateria survived,..revealing might..[just might not be right]..the smallest virus lays low..the mightiest man

<<..rationally explained as manifestations of animal instincts.>>...animasls lack the ability to reason..[no rationaisation]..till we gain higher thoughts

<<One can surmise/we never/..out-grown our../animal instincts.>>..provide verification..[prove your hypothesis]


<<one is secular/..DOESN'T mean that individual..is any lessor a human.>>..or any less..beast[capable]

<<'Life is its own reason'..therefore the only logical morals/are Humanistic.>>...agree

fractile quote<<"Imagine a puddle..thinking/this world was meant to have him in it,..was built/..to have him in it;..so the moment he disappears..catches him rather by surprise.">>..illogical..[if puddle..[water has logic/thought..via logic it became logically/aware rain...and thus..went to see the world

<< Where did the intelligent designer come from?>>>..see we collectivbly are refining the collective all..as we speak...say the universe collapses..collectivly..

we/collectivly..are enough residual/logic..to RE-start..
again...with a huge bang...lol...seeing the joke...dreaming the dream...lol
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 August 2009 8:37:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho<<there is a third choice:..god exists,..but religions are false.>>...but for their dedication..the origonal clues/thoughts would have been lost...them writing/remembering adds..[enjoins our collective memory..into this present day reality...

its like us all living now..to work it out collectivly/to-gether

oliver<<The Abrahamic religious notion of god..as nothing but an omnipotent authoritarian father-figure..is so petty in scale and concept..that it deserves to be left in the Bronze Age desert where it began.>>>its collectivly very high thought...that..but for ego would long ago..have been lost us...

see..it joins much..higher thinking together..into this time..[in this place]..god lives in this..live-time/living moment...now

<<Yes..if God did exist..it unlikely is god..as identifed in human culture,>>..what's more important..knowing or knowing a possably higher truth...we each..are joining the dots...by joining our thoughts into words...

connecting just like neurons connect to think...collectivly our thoughts form the basis of mind..mind=god/logus/logic/light/life/love

Squeers quote<<..Can you present any evidence..that.."we are spirits having an incarnate life experience"..>>there have been posted proofs..[brief revision]..god lives in our hearts/sustaining us to live..para-normal activity...quantum science annomalities...

logic/life/love...will..to reveal a higher purpose..to being..beyond mere chance...our collective is greater..than the sum of its parts...our higher self..is knowable via his fruit/creation

[that links..[us]..to invention/..inspires songs/dreams dreams...we/can decribe that not able to be seen/heard or felt..yet utilises the unseen..to higher function...

freewill allows us to pretend..[feign]ignorance...but how amassing a flower a child/..life from sperm/egg...the beauty of all life in-finate progression...words/music/dance...procreation..at-one meant/empathy/romance/love/living/breathing/loving

<< All science is provisional.>>..maybe transitional

<<What about Lacan and the.."real"..btw>>..huh?..me?

the foxey one..<<You ask,"Does an intelligent designer exist?"..Yes and No...Only if you believe in the traditional belief..-in a created universe/with humanity at its center>>.oh dear one..if god is not the centre..then the vision is delusional.

<<But there are still huge gaps/in our understanding that science can never fill...>>..agreed

<<few people of modern societies..would totally deny the possibility of some higher power in the/universe,..some realm that lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience,..and in this fundamental sense religion is..probably here to stay...

<<As I've said before..it's all a matter of what you choose to believe.>>>...i agree...it clearly maps where we have come from...joining then..to now/..livetime into gods-time..[the/..ever now]..
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 August 2009 9:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My take on it: the intelligent designer dissassembled into the universe.
Any understanding between us is the process of reassembly of the designer. Currently- I do not think the designer exists as a whole. Once the process is complete the designer will be lonely and bored- and away we will go again. Reconstiatuted Hinduism I know- but it has a certain charm.
Posted by Barliman, Saturday, 8 August 2009 10:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barliman quote<<..My take on it:..the intelligent designer dissassembled into the universe>>...logicly then..it wouldnt be either inteligent..[or design]..would it.?..more akin to the ultimate/self-sacrifice..[abhorant to that..we know of god]...gods disassembly...or suicide,..also abhorant

besides designing means..a logic underpinning creation...and i see plenty of logic..IN creation..[not so much the various explanations hypotothising about it...yet all logic..to some]

<<Any understanding between us..is the process of reassembly..of the designer...Currently- do not think the designer exists as a whole.>>...if anything we are presuming to be made..in gods image and likeness...meaning that what we re-ass-semble..has semblance unto gods designed reality

we all have stages in our development...be it peers or rebelious-ness..or stages...i see reflective in the holy texts..reflections of possable stages of the god head evolving isa constantly higher standings...god essentially is like us...or like jesus demonstrated...and no jesus wasnt god...nor alone the only son of god...god has many suns

lets say..god didnt need to have a personalised sepperation of his constituant/constituted being...and mearly had to utter words/vibrations/harmonics..that spoke reality into bearing...saying simply be and it was/is...and this revirberated into string-theory...matter/reality...borne out of the deep

science postulates..the big bang formed..when two opposing equal's came together,...rather a science way..of saying heaven and hell colided...but..like alians creating humans...the thought must arise what..'created'..the alians..[or the oppisite realms..[h-or-h]...in the beginning

equally..there comes the issue of how/who..created god...the simple reply being..god was pre-big bang...remains..post big-bang...

ie was in the beginning and was/will-be..in the end...regardless of the when..of when this was/is...the big-bang is regarded as timeless...thus god egsists out of time...living in..'real time'...god-time...now..all the time..[the ever now]...good/god/now

<<Once the process is complete..the designer will be lonely and bored..and away we will go again.>>..see that we...gods individual neuron sub-units[..who have allready died..have re-combined with the allness...all that ever was..or will/could ever be...

there is no..'time'..in heaven or hell...in the other realms..all is gods..now..time..[the living god..lives not in the past...nor in the future...but lives..in this living..ever now moment...in live time for all time..[and beyond time]

<<Reconstiatuted Hinduism>>..who knows...only god knows for sure...and he is letting us figure it out..as we chose
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 9 August 2009 10:46:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

While at school more decades ago than I care to remember I wrote a story about an intelligent race of flees. They worshipped a merciful God who had made dogs for the benefit of "fleedom". It almost got me expelled. So I do understand where you're coming from.

Yes I do understand that life adapts to its environment. But that is not the full story. We still need an environment in which it is possible for life to emerge in the first place. Not necessarily life like us; but some form of life.

For life to emerge at least three things seem to be necessary:

--Chemistry must be possible which means the universe must be set up to produce chemical elements

--Time is needed – stars or other energy sources must not be too slow to form nor too quick to burn out

--The amount of initial order in the universe must be neither too great nor too little

Without these conditions we couldn't even have multiple stellar systems let alone life forms.

We live in a universe in which these things occur. According to our best current understanding of physics the probability of this occurring in a single universe is VANISHINGLY SMALL. That is why most scientists infer that ours must be one of a huge number of universes.

I THINK THOSE SCIENTISTS HAPPEN TO BE RIGHT.

I want to make that plain. Like you I do NOT believe in the existence of an intelligent designer.

But both of us are expressing philosophical predilections. Neither of us can offer any TESTABLE scientific theories that can explain the Goldilocks universe.

The emphasis is on the word TESTABLE.

If I am wrong, if you know of testable hypotheses that can explain the Goldilocks enigma let's see it.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 9 August 2009 11:14:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before this thread drops stone dead, and in the interests of balance, I highly recommend that the geeks and the analytics read Eagleton on Dawkinds: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.htm
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 9 August 2009 4:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't know why the link doesn't work, but if you google "eagleton dawkins" you'll get the article first up.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 9 August 2009 6:31:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examiner,

I haven't seen the copy for some time. The copy was probably from the late 1970s. It had a blue cover. I purchased it at the Technical Book Shop in Sydney. I don't think the copy was one of the periodic editions, but a special edition. My copy may have been lost or boxed-up when I went overseass to teach. I will check on my university's database to see if I can find it and report back.

Sorry about the salutation error.

OUG,

I have requested three or four times that you reply to intelligent design issues, I raised, as raised. Do you intend to pass on the matter or address the issues posed?

stevenlmeyer,

"We do not need to evoke the existence of an intelligent designer in order to explain the evolution of complex life forms. Darwinian evolution through natural selection ..."

I am not sure we did. Selection (and mutation), I accept these processes.

What I did suggest to OUG was that "if" the complexity of the universe (and life) begs a Designer owing to complexity, a god, being more complex would also require a Designer, as an extrapolation of the first case proposition. Alternatively, if more complex god, does not require a Designer, why should the universe?

The question is, how do we explain what the physicist Paul Davies and other call the Goldilocks Enigma? How is it that the laws of physics and the constants of nature are fine tuned so as to allow for the emergence and evolution of ... ?

Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel physicist, notes how quickly we can come to a unique answer in the process of "twenty questions".

The odds of us being might be a series of 100 times 10 million-to-one events occuring, rather than ten raised by the power of; the power of ten itself raised 123*, as is sometimes cited.

[* more zeros than there are atoms in the universe]

Also, I think it was Gell-Mann who notes it is not just evolution rather evolution "plus time".

Alternatively,

One set drawn from quantum infinite indeterminacy must be us.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 9 August 2009 7:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh liver..i have replied..your questions...will waste a post..listing them..and replying..yet again...seeing as your trying/..to make a point..of my not/replying...lol..

yet too lazy to read my responses

QUOTE..again...oh=liver<<..By whose design..do cells become malignant?>>..posted one whole post explaining gods great design...explaining how its man made poisens...but yet gods great design..often corrects...self-correcting..[isnt../..bad design]

addendum..new point is 3/4 people simply cant get cancer..[ever..because of..GODS GREAT DESIGN]...lol

oh-liver..QUOTE<<..if the retort is God..who is more complex than universe..can exist..without a Designer,..why not the the universe which is less complex..than God?>>....have replied that the biggest fires can begin from the smallest spark/...how smallest virus kills biggest man...and replied many other minour/causel/aspects..you chose to ignore..

eg..[one tiny sperm and egg...CAUSE..grows into fullgrown man]..and how god was..before and post creation..[eternal/infinite]..needing no cause.....

plus..postulated other alternative/theories..that see other alternatives..[clearly over your head]..like us being the collective god head by virtue of..a neuronal/synapse in YOUR mind..not being you[in total]...but part of a collective[..you]..

if your not paying attention..[please note others do]...your continual posting..my not replying..is not re asking the question..you think i avoid

please re ask..if you dont get the reply..you think you deserve...if you think i havnt replied..please dare to ask again..not just claim a-new..that im ignoring your questions..because im not...i enmjoy replying them..[thus have..extensivly...read my replies..most are replying you...thanks for asking me to explain..[yet again]

oh liver quote<<..So,we have choice..do we accept God needs a Designer based on argument from Intelligent Design>>>..replied..yes we have a choice..god is eternal...allways was..just like you could say suns make light/sustaining life...i say god sustains the light/thus the life...but we believe as we chose

no..god does not need a designer..note my posts re evolutionists/..alian theory..lol....[a science alternative]...lol..any alians..STILL NEED TO BE CREATED..too..

but i have heard you athiests seriously spout that cccrap..as a..lol..valid alternate theory...lol...other egsamples quoted..[try reading the replies]

<<do we set aside argument..from Intelligent Design and agree that the universe does not require a Designer.>>...yeah the golilocks parradox..its pure co-incidence...lol..science ideas are fraud...fairy tales for children...present your science

very scientific that...science..that uses co-incidence..ISNT SCIENCE...you claim science...PROOVE it...co-incidence/luck/naturral nothing..present your science...

whats natural selection..to do..specificly with..science method-ology...you claim science..present it
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 9 August 2009 8:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One under god you sure lol alot!

At the end of the day, no-one can ever actually prove whether or not there is or has been any God or Intelligent Designer.

It is all in the imagination of us mere humans really.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 9 August 2009 9:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its either loll or cry suzie...people with no idea about the science yet believe its science ...that disproves god...when science cant even validate its own theory on evolution

simple people who would normally put their faith in the higher cause..now put the same faith upon the science godheads...faulse gods of spin..they somehow sell to the gullable...with big sounding numbers and big words decribing natures progress..not the science process...a

cepting genus to be the same as species...is as absurd as saying black is white..or that they are colour ...

i cant prove there was a designer that engeneered a building..[or an aircraft]...but the logic is they didnt build themselves...

we assume some one built a robot...but balk at stating a human..[vastly better that a robot]...had its own designer...lol...jesus wept...

lol...i see the joke...but feel for those who never can even imagine their great designer..[one to one]...who..as jesus revealed loves even the least..or most despised]..so many times...and all we need do is know his living loving voice
Posted by one under god, Monday, 10 August 2009 9:04:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"<<..why would a lesser state..(the universe)..need to be created?>>..we will continue to debate..in circles...im rebutting..the so called science..to be any/..true proof..." -OUG

"have replied that the biggest fires can begin from the smallest spark/...how smallest virus kills biggest man...and replied many other minour/causel/aspects..you chose to ignore..

eg..[one tiny sperm and egg...CAUSE..grows into fullgrown man]..and how god was..before and post creation..[eternal/infinite]..needing no cause..." -OUG

plus..postulated other alternative/theories..that see other alternatives..[clearly over your head]..like us being the collective god head by virtue of..a neuronal/synapse in YOUR mind..not being you[in total]...but part of a collective[..you]..." -OUG

OUG,

Your posts don't appear to relate the questions/issues I posed on intelligent design. I mentioned that if God is more complex than the universe and one held that the universe had a Designer that by extrapoloation God being more complex would be in greater need of a Designer, Alternatively, if God didn't need a Designer, why would the universe, which is less complicated than God.

Yes, you did make some posts (thanks), but not specifically directed towards the questions/issues raised. I couldn't recognize the comments as replies. Please respond to the matters as raised.

1. If God is more complex than the universe, who designed God, given God's complexity?

.OR.

2, Do we drop the idea of Intelligent Design of the less complex universe, given a (more complex) god requires no Intelligent Design?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 10 August 2009 9:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thank you for asking oliver...quote<<..if..God/more complex than the universe..and..one held..the universe had a Designer..by extrapoloation..God being more complex..would need a Designer>>>..i replied..the cause..need not be more complicated than the result...

think of a jumbo jet...seemingly..far more complicated than a human..[you theorise/imply...as...humans happend/..by chance...yet accord...the aircraft was by design]

<<Alternatively,..if God didn't need a Designer,why would the universe,..>>...ok thats a sepperate question from the addendum/inferance..<<which is less complicated than God>>...lets presume..the chance event..was/is god/...ie cause..[not the universe/result/fruit/creation].

as little miracles..are easier than bigger ones..lets say..that you are god...you..dont know why..but..you need simply say..'be '..and things just happen...

clearly there is a higher cause..than you/god...doing it..but like god[is to you]..its unseen to you...this..higher cause/..than god...is as unseen[to god]..as god is to you..presently...

so god[you]begins testing..the limits of this be..[and it is]..thing

in time..you realise you need to test your hypothesis..[and create[say be...and it is...and you make an equal..[to you]..man...that in time will help resolve/test/prove..or disprove the..[god's]your..hypothesis

see how we confuse..a holy trinity/wholy spirit etc..in concieving our root cause...science clearly isnt serving to get a true answer...because they think they are god...

but god needs..the true science fact...revealing ever more complicated realisations..seeking that cause of causes...that are likely to be less..going back..each time..a new minimul cause theory...inspired by your question

we now know..[via the secret sciences..of/the vibratory-harmonics]...do..the creation...yet the faithfull/fools..are still sold the frauds of evolution theory..[faux sciencese].....are kept in ignorance..of their greatness..[called as co-creators]...by science god heads..peddeling their[evolving]..delusions..upon their athiest[godless]fate-full..faithfull...nedding their god/free/theory

<<not specifically..directed towards/..the questions/issues raised.>>..im calling on words..to describe the mind imagry...the unseen cause of these words...doing the/my best to reply..what you ask...but you should ask god yourself...with your word skills you could explain it better

<<I couldn't..recognize the comments..as replies.>>..i can only try to do the best reply..as im able...im here to rebut..the deceptions of science...not form new godhead/theories


<<1.If God is more complex/than the universe>>>..he isnt

<<,who designed God,given God's complexity?>>.god isnt complex...children..'get god'...who designed god?...the wholy spirit

<<(more complex)god..requires no Intelligent Design?>>>the simplest explanation serves the most...first you/..define god...then i will..try to explain ..who/what designed the logus/living/logic..good/god....hint..god is beyond time..[in the beginning..as in the end...lol
Posted by one under god, Monday, 10 August 2009 11:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG

You seem to think your personal incredulity accounts for something...........it doesn't. It is infantile impatience with science that drives your hostility for science. The christian trinity is an illogical and illegitimate contrivance that depends for its credibility upon the suspension of rationality and logic, reason and common sense. Yet you, with an immaculate faith in just one aspect of the trinity, have concluded that much of science is wrong. Reaching such a conclusion is a grotesque mis-use of your own intellect[?]

Given for just a moment that human pride is not arousing of deistic dudgeon, it can be logically concluded that our intellectual pursuits remain unfettered and that there is a Universe replete with information just aching to be categorised into human knowledge. Are you certain beyond doubt that science will never answer all your questions? Even though you may not be present at the answering?
Have you a well considered and reasoned response to the multiplicity of evidences that support the theory of evolution? A devastating wind of reason that blows away the putative house of straw?

Continuing with human achievement, let us examine the intellectual pursuit of your designer/creator.
Were science to stumble upon such a phenomenon, could we recognise it for what it is? Would there be a consensus between the theist and the atheist [just for the sake of the argument] that we have here, not a supernatural phenomenon, but a manifestation of matter/energy not encountered before and of which
science is so curious that measuring, analysing and testing are immediate reactions? The human intellect has reduced a supernatural designer/creator to a natural one.
Are designer/creator-believers eager for this revelation?

From your posts one gets the impression you think your bald, unevidenced assertions are in fact evidence themselves by divine right. It is delusional for you to think so and you do yourself a disservice by making snide remarks about atheists. It would require only half a brain to be better than you at returning the compliment. But no atheists are so deprived as to be in such a parlous position as the theist.
Posted by Extropian1, Monday, 10 August 2009 12:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Thanks. Let me ty to summarise. You hold that the Holy Spirit created a God, who is less complex than the universe:

Thus,

Your posit would suggest that universe acquired its complexity only after the Creation. Herein, God and the early universe are both less complex than the muture universe. God is not a watchmaker with an understanding of the entire watch, instead God is like a human pilot whom takes the plane off the ground, whilst the greater complexity of the plane's machinery afterwards operates under auto-pilot.

Given your scenarios:

1. Would not Creator be a better term than God?
2. Would not Physics has more relevance today than God? Or, at least be, more indigenous to complexities of the mature universe?

Also,

1. Who created the Holy Spirit?
2. Is the Holy Spirit (aside from the godhead) more complex than the universe?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 10 August 2009 12:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven:

<< Neither of us can offer any TESTABLE scientific theories that can explain the Goldilocks universe.

The emphasis is on the word TESTABLE.

If I am wrong, if you know of testable hypotheses that can explain the Goldilocks enigma let's see it. >>

To the best of my knowledge there is no testable hypothesis to explain the Goldilocks Enigma - apart from the "puddle analogy". We simply do not know enough.

At present scientists believe that the probability of life as we know is miniscule, but subject to change as we learn more.

Why do I get the impression that you appear to be building an argument in favour of this universe being created expressly for the evolution of this planet? I may be misreading you, but I see no point in arguing for testable theories on the Goldilocks Enigma at our present state of knowledge.

Two simple facts:

We are here.
So is a variety of life that survive in conditions, on this planet, that are impossible for the bulk of terran life.

Therefore options are open that life is possible elsewhere under very different conditions than those to be found commonly on earth. It may be rare, or we may be the rarities. No one knows. And that doesn't perturb me in the slightest.

PS

Love the idea of a world created for fleas.

Interestingly, my first sci-fi story written when I was 13 about a scientist and his apprentice (my protagonist) working on ways to transmit matter, without going into the entire story, my apprentice wound up trapped between dimensions where he could be heard by the scientist but not seen - I know this idea has appeared since but when I wrote it, the idea was all mine. So when I began to learn about quantum physics, string theory etc my mind just said:

"YES"
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 10 August 2009 1:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extropian1<<Are you certain/science will never answer all your questions?>>>..my only question is present YOUR proof...i presume to know my own truth...wishing only to rebut..the lies of science having their proof...when all they really got is..believers trusting them via faith

<<Have you a well considered and reasoned response..to the multiplicity of evidences..that support the theory of evolution?>>plenty present them..and watch them be rebutted..present proof of new genus...first life..replicate...dont speculate

<<let us examine..such a..[god]..phenomenon,..could we recognise it for what it is?>>..we have and are..and people fail to see the truth before their eyes..they are free to believe as they chose

<<..a consensus..between the theist and the atheist...a manifestation of matter/energy?[=god]..>>god is more than mere energy..[its a..good/living loving/omnipotant/omnipresent/omnisovereign..energy sustaining life to live]...love/light/life/reason/love

<<human intellect.reduced a supernatural..[supra-natural]..designer/creator to a natural one.>>..mistaken it/god/cause for a judgmental/affect/afectation of the only one...science claimed the nature/natural..of god...labled it science/method/...postulations...but science frauds..underpin their claims/not science faulsifyables


<<Are designer/creator-believers/..eager for this revelation?>>we can only do..as we see our fathers/father/god do...seeking to know and love his creation

<<no atheists..are so deprived..as to be..in such a parlous position as the theist.>>>..i..lol...tar them all with the same brush..i return opinion/insult..with more fact/love/accountability..than the opinions posted


Oliver<<Your posit/that universe..acquired its complexity..only after the Creation.>>...yes..[god created eden...basicly a garden...we turned the graden into cities...made computers/roads/industry/domseticated dogs/cat/fish.livestock...via selective breeding..[concious CO_creation/..via discovery/need/intent and intente..]

<<..God..and the early universe..are both less complex than the muture universe>>....unsure if your saying mature/nature...but yes god..not as complex..as his creation/the uni-verse

<<Would not Creator/..be a better term/..than God?>>is lord god?...[i prefer..cause of causes]..or creator/holy spirit..but..whats in a name

<<Would not Physics HAVE..more relevance today..than God?>>know where we come from..physics is laws of affect...not cause...can we ever know..a famouse painter..by calling his painting/sculpture?

<<Who created the Holy Spirit?>>..my developing theory...we its neurons

<<Is the Holy Spirit>>..aside from the godhead)..more complex than the universe?>>..to keep it simple..we are two/..thus two minds/saying the same thing..[cannot be more..acurate/simple]..than many..as..one one mind..saying one thing..truthfully/factually/authoritivly/definitivly
Posted by one under god, Monday, 10 August 2009 2:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One Under God, are you saying that God and the Holy Spirit are one?
Ok then, who created them? No one will ever know.

You are supposedly getting all this information through Jesus, who apparently spoke to several men 2000 years ago and told them all this?

These men then wrote it down in a book called a bible, and Christians followed this book ever since then, right?
Who was everyone following before this time?

If they didn't have the good book to follow, then how on earth did they get on? Must have been a terribly sin-filled world.
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 10 August 2009 8:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzieol quote..<<are you saying that God and the Holy Spirit are one?>>no..i suppose im saying..cause and affect...lol...or as jesus said see me..see my father/..my father and i are one...its a saying...like oneness...like minded

<<Ok then,..who created them?..No-one will ever know..>>well no-one is pretty exclusionary...god would/could or should know...we can presume/seek/yearn..to know..

as for god/who/what..created god..the accumulated/wisdom..is that god needs no creator..[being eternal and infinite].

but that dosnt stop..any of us..speculating as we chose...my current thinking/..developed..over the course of this topic...a theory if you will..has been previously/defined...gods creator..as such/if any...is most likely to be a collective..at-one-meant/wholy spirit...and i will put up/some further expantion..of the previously flagged..concept

the beginning of the bible...records gods..first thoughts..[post..this latest big-bang]...for me gensis..is pre-ceeded by words as/like..luke 1;1-3...then..like as john 1;1-5...then..gen etc

but..see how...gen 1..'''now..the earth is formless and empty..darkness was over the surface of the deep...and..the spirit..of god..was hovering over the waters..[of the deep...

and god said..[and the holy spirit obeyed]...let there be light...a huge bang...and time began...and lo there was light...and god saw the light was good...and..[that]..he..[the wholy spirit]..had sepperated the light from the darkness...

thus all days begin..with their first night..[into the first day]...insert john/one here..noting..the word was WITH god...but..in the beginning was../the word...and...he..was with god in the beginning...through him../all things were made..etc

i have allways had a problem with jesus being god..[and being created of man....but..as being part of the..wholly spirit..[as we all are]...well maybe jesus..[and all of us]...were..as one...with god ...in the beginning...lol...how else could god know all?...pre big bang...lol

<<You are supposedly..getting all this information through Jesus,..>>...lol..NO..its via imagry..that forms in my mind..from your questions..reading..[the holy texts]...and syncronicity...surity that god lives..in real time...now..[and..a great imagination/...mixed with poor word-skills/..love of god/creation...and enjoyment to reply

<<If they..didn't have the good book to follow,..then how on earth did they get on?>>>..as previously noted..god live in live time all the time..[each big bang is identical]...to the atom...when we die we are allowed to read the book of life...that reportedly is as old as god..[allways was..allways will be../timeless]...predicably indentical

im better rebutting current/science facts...rebutting the flesh/blood/living...not the spirits as passed over...or translations of their vairious texts
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:31:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm...I am none the wiser, One Under God. I think I am done now with this thread because none of us will ever agree...it's been a wild ride though! -lol.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 1:12:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thats fine suzie
i wasnt posting to inform...only seeking science..to rebut...
pulling a few weeds/..planting a few seeds
and pulling some legs...planting some egg heads

see scripture can be wrong..yet still be scripture...

but science cant be wrong and still be science,.
..even if it can still be called..scientific...its not true science...

i love scripture enough..to look over..[overlook]..a few errors...
and love science enough..to de-test/de-bait..bad/sloppy/decietfull science

and yeah..i guess i love god too much..
to let science/religioun's..faulse god/heads..to distort/distract/decry..
his inherant good works/mercy/love

let those who believe..have faith
in their belief's teachers teaching/explaining..based on the facts
explaining to their faithfull..
the true cause of causes

in gods timelesness..[now]..not mans then...if not now..then when?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 9:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UOG

"see scripture can be wrong..yet still be scripture" -like genesis?

It is good to see you finally admit that your beliefs are based on "love" and not on reason.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 11:29:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

OUG also holds that the Holy Spirit created God, whom, in turn, created our universe, which ultimately became more complex than God itself. A position that would be quite radical to Western trinitarian like Sells.

OUG,

By “mature” universe, I mean today’s universe in contrast with the early universe.

Your idea of a non-complex God is reminiscent of Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”, wherein the universe always had motion and always will have motion, yet the simplier UM exists as a transcendental goal. I do not hold that theory, but recognize that Aristotle and you would have the prime transcendental force to be in a sense “lesser” than temporal existence. Both posits would seem to have the universe more complex than the alleged transcendent entity.

I may have misread you reply, so ask: Who created the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit more complex than God? Is the Holy Spirit more complex that the universe?

Examinator,

Sorry, I can’t locate the old Scientific American publication and couldn’t find on a uni database. It will probably turn-up a year from now when I not looking.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister<<scripture can be wrong...like genesis?>>..gensis is what it is...it postuales a beginning...long before science..concieved their big-bang...

it lists..the steps of creation...like evoluion postulates evolutionary-progression...why scripture is scripture..is as it records the thought..of dead people/spirits...like say aristotal or shakespear..it is/stands..as it is

<<your beliefs..are based on.."love"..and not on reason.>>reason-able love




Shadow Minister<<Your idea of a non-complex God..is reminiscent of Aristotle’s..“Unmoved Mover”,..wherein the universe always had motion and always will have motion,..yet the simplier UM exists as a transcendental goal.>>..im not fixed in my beliefs...but..knowing the science dosnt add up..i search for the unseen cause/mover...ok thanks


<<..Who created the Holy Spirit?..Is the Holy Spirit more complex than God?..Is the Holy Spirit more complex that the universe?>>i will attempt to form a reply

we have divided ideas of god..who from the first few chapters..up to gen 2;4...when mid/sentance god..suddenly becomes..lord god...

further..we can take that yet further..to where today those of the christ..make claim that man/christ is god...but the commandments are clear..about having none../before god...and that god is one

thus what is this lord/god..[lord of these realms..[satan]..who offered these realms to jesus]...what of jesus words from john..Jesus refers to sin and blasphemy..against the Holy Spirit..as unforgivable sin.

What are these sins..and what constitutes blasphemy?..indeed what is the holy spirit...there i feel we have had subtil direction upon the reply...

jesus says love neighbour..together..[at..[at-one-meant]..holy spirit]

..if collectivly all neighbours..are neurons..of the[one]..at-one-ment..of the holy..spirit..god is one..

[at-one-meant..with god becomes two...ie conjoined into one wholy spirit...cause of the cause of causes]

Mark 3:29..But whoever blasphemes..against the Holy Spirit..will never be forgiven;[not at one meant]..he is guilty of an eternal sin.(Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit..Matthew 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10).

i dont know the how/truth of it...and dare to speculate...figuring we all got a bit/of the truth...the holy trinity..to me seemed a way of creating jesus[man]..to be spirit[god]...

but we are body..animated by spirit,..when we die/we are souls animated by spirit...god..may..simply be an embodyment of the holy spirit...or not..its our feee choice...

im just following..where my other..[fellow]..neurons lead...trying to be tying the dots..into logus/logic..at-one-meant
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 1:26:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think OUG has debated well here.

That he believes in a creator is no big deal really. He can't prove it, but we can't prove the big bang either or the cause of the singularity that allegedly caused the big bang.

OUG you do however use the Bible as a reference and you do quote it only when it suits you.

By quoting Jesus or your understanding of Jesus' role are you saying the New Testament is accurate?

You seem quite happy to believe that SATAN exists and is the ruler of this realm (so much for the power of GOD), you are quite happy to accept that SATAN offered JESUS this realm (GOD knew Jesus wouldn't be tempted he knows everything),and you believe the bits that state that if you blaspheme against the holy spirit then that is a cause of eternal damnation.

It seems unbelievable to me that speaking against the Holy Spirit is the worst sin of all. GOD could stop this debating in an instant by creating another clay person.

BUT people will believe what they will.

OUG seems to be thinking and questioning on ALL matters. Maybe not his core beliefs in GOD and SATAN...In the end his theories are no worse than anyone elses.

AS Jesus was allegedly with God in heaven and was made perfect.

So basically, According to the bible and believers

God can destroy Satan and all his evil at any time (but doesn't). But more absurd God in not doing so hands humans over to Satan in what OUG believes is Satan's realm.

Isn't this just an excuse used by believers to justify their God's lack of intervention in wars and atrocities like the holocaust and all other manner of areas where people suffer.

And yet Jesus says John 14:14: If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. I am certain people in the holocaust prayed quite loudly!

Aren't believers saying that Jesus told an untruth?...

If there is a GOD, and great designer then he ain't all that good at edumecationalising us is he/she/it?
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In early societies the terrors of religion were instantiated to keep the population in check and maintain the status quo. Nothing much has changed except that church and state now work in tandem; both are reliant on stability, and thus work symbiotically to maintain it.

I exhort you, Mortals! Let your rational selves stand back for a moment and ponder ... are we really "debating" with these witchdoctors (not the wretched minions, but their priests) who earn their ample subsistence by propagating ignorance and primitive subservience?
Science is mere method, but better its modest tenets and its light shone into darkness than huddling in fear and brooding over God’s terrible wrath!
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2<<Bible..a reference>>..quite simply...as long as its there..why not quote it...i could quote..an elisabethian play/or shakespere..or byron...but most know the bible..as a referance/better

<<..are you saying the New-Testament..is accurate?>>..i dont have enough info/..to judge it..[i know thomas bacon..basiclly organised/translated it..into its present format]...as i said..its a basic/referance..most can relate to

<<You../believe..SATAN exists>>...it is a creative fiction/miss-represented...its us who chose sin...not satan..who makes us sin/we tempt ourselves...satan..if he egsists..has taught much...and been scape-goated to boot...i dont believe in santa..[either]..but reserve the right..to use his name/qualities..to explain a point

<<It seems unbelievable to..that speaking against/the Holy Spirit is the worst sin..of all.>.i only quote..as was written..[believe/interpritate as..you..chose

<<GOD could stop/this debating..by creating another clay person>..he allready has..ITS SCIENCE THAT HASNT..MADE..THEIR goyam....robots are close...but not a speck on gods creation...science needs..to..make one first

BUT..people will believe what they will.

<<AS Jesus was allegedly with God..in heaven and was made perfect>>..i am willing to hear rebuttal...but it is..'as was written'...i have no proof..for..nor against.

<<God can destroy Satan and all his evil at any time ..but doesn't)>>>yes he could..but wont...he could kill leeches/mosquitoes/lice/bacteria...but their egsistances..are..our proof...that...god love's us..ALL

<<Jesus says John 14:14...I am..certain people..in the holocaust prayed quite loudly!>>...your missing/leaving out the proviso..john 14;12,13..anyone who has faith in me..will do greater things than these...what these?...its too late..to find faith at deaths door

<<Aren't believers..saying that Jesus told an untruth?...>>....no those of faulse/or little belief...lack the true belief...would you strap a rocket to your butt..and blast off to the moon...expecting jesus to do the rest?

<<..If there is a GOD, and great designer..then he ain't all that good at edumecationalising us is he/she/it?>>...he sustains all life..their lives to live...he sent men..many teachers...what you expect..[him to live your life for you?]

<<In early societies the terrors of religion..were instantiated to keep the population in check and maintain the status quo.>>.yes...its become a lot more scientific since then...lol..

drum roll..enter the NEW..[neo]..word order..faulse god heads of science..[and sport...and media..reprograming us with/ever bigger fears..

ever new/control mechanisms..for their followers/believers...the blind leading the blind
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 8:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Touché, OUG. lol
I must confess I'm suspicious of positivism. Did you read the Eagleton article? He's a lapsed cum recidivist Catholic you know---any fool can be certain, but it takes wisdom to be confused :-)
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 9:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Have lost the plot again?....I can understand God not killing leeches/mosquitoes etc. but do you really believe that we need Satan & evil to prove GOD exists?

That is the failing at Religion 101...It is the exact opposite of what would prove his existence....Poor GOD just became unintelligent again!

The argument that GOD creates evil, so that evil exists, then allegedly does all the craziness contained in religious books, just to show he loves us is absurd.

Maybe healing a few amputees, or feeding a few of the starving, or intervening in the holocaust might show love. But the method you espouse is just plain ridiculous.

Haven't you argued against yourself again? I thought you didn't believe Jesus was GOD?

So please tell me what do you believe Jesus to be?

Is your GOD proven by evil? Suddenly you make no sense again!

The Jewish people who were slaughtered in the holocaust believed in GOD. GOD did nothing to save them.

The Jewish people who died in the holocaust called out to GOD...GOD did nothing!

The Jewish children begged for their GOD to help them...GOD did nothing!

So when you typed in reference to the holocaust victims<<your missing/leaving out the proviso..john 14;12,13..anyone who has faith in me..will do greater things than these...what these?...its too late..to find faith at deaths door>>

This breaks the teaching of the Lord's prayer. It states "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN....praying directly to GOD! Jesus instructed people (most who weren't Christians at the time) this is how you should pray.

So why is John 14:12-13 overriding this prayer? Jesus if he is the son of God surely would intervene in the case of the holocaust wouldn't he?

The fact that he didn't means he can't, or won't or the Bible is rubbish. If he chose not to then he is an accessory, and he broke John 14:13...because I'm sure some people in the holocaust prayed to Jesus as they weren't all Jews!

Again where is this GOD of yours when he is needed most? Missing in Action once again?
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:11:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
opinion-mate-2..quote<<..we need Satan/..to prove GOD exists?>>.think of him..as an embodied./..teaching-aid/like santa..embodies gift-giving

<<It's/opposite of what would prove..his existence>>..without vile what is good..[its opposite]...its about../contrasting oppisites[supreem evil]..allows others to do supreem..good/..balance

<<GOD creates evil,..to show..he loves us..is absurd>>>yes..but he didnt create evil/...we chose it...but its egsistance../proves we really have..freewill.

<<healing/amputees,feeding..intervening/..the holocaust..show's love>>...but does/not allow others..their time to shine...ie no annie/frank..style benevolence/..no shindlers list

<<argued against yourself..again?..you..didn't..believe Jesus was GOD?>>.the son..cannot be his own father..[the wholly spirit cannot be flesh...

spirit animates the flesh...if jesus was good...seeing the good..is like..seeing god..[why call ye me good?]...there is but one..good/god

<<what..Jesus to be?>>..a visualisation/realisation..of gods..living loving grace/good...emauel[god/with-in]...that ye see me do...YOU WILL DO GREATER...greater than god?...lol...we..dont come close...but jesus did..

<<GOD proven by evil?...>>..how do we learn difference?..[between tares/vile and wheat/good?]...by knowing both...by their fruits..[at harvest time]

<<people/slaughtered...believed in GOD...GOD did nothing..>>please provide evidence...many claim remarkable resques...

what about the 25 million xtians in their bolchovic hollow caust's....recall death..where is thy sting...jesus revealed we die/and are reborn..instantly in heaven or hell[..acording as we chose in this life...[more shall be given]..of the same coin/..talents

<<people..died/..called out to GOD...GOD did nothing!>>if your spirituall sensitive...you could imagine..the armies..of angels/demons..that came/..to any war/murder/transition/zone...they appear to our eyes..as flashes of light...ask survicers..if the noticed the light-flashes

<<GOD did nothing>>lol..god sustaine each life..to live..[both here and the next realms!

<<..the Lord's prayer.It states.."OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN....praying directly to GOD!>>..heaven lies within...read rev..gods thone is literally..our living eating heart...god seated on his thone..means he/we/lives

<<why is John 14:12-13 overriding this prayer?>>..it dosnt

<<Jesus surely would intervene in..the holocaust>>?...he did..in so many unseen ways...but so did gods many other messengers..[in the spirit-realm..they help each other..go figure...why..we dont try to help each other..here

<<The fact that he didn't>>..please provide proof

<<he broke John 14:13...because I'm sure..some..people in the holocaust prayed to Jesus..as they weren't all Jews!>>...many died/homosexuals/mental deviant/gypsies/homeless...and each got heklped..wether they prayed or not...often we need ask...but in times of mass admitance/..into the next realms..its all hands on deck...aid and comfort..first

<<Again where is this GOD of ours..>>..in our living beating/hearts sustaining us all..to live
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:31:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG...So GOD placed SATAN in the world as a teaching aid…well I am sure all those who have been victims of evil will be thrilled with your GOD for that!

WHY are you convincing people that your GOD is so dumb?

You may need evil to know GOOD…WOW…Most people know GOOD because they actually feel GOOD when they experience or do GOOD.

I hope there is evil in heaven just so you believers know how to recognize how GOOD heaven is...lol How can one so well read be so foolish?

NO! GOD created ALL things…including SATAN and evil according to believers OR GOD created only some things or nothing. You as a believer can't say Humans created evil.

Are you making this rubbish up as you go?

OUG...6 million die so Anne Frank and Schindler can shine..If that wasn’t such a disturbed thought it would be laughable! You have just lost all credibility!

Did Stalin kill 20million so Solzenitzen could write his book?

You are so busy making excuses for your GOD that you are actually stating he allows things for the craziest of reasons.

Back to the books old Fella!

Just to educate you...the proof that GOD didn't intercede in the holocaust is the 6 million people who were murdered. GOD is a failure!

The proof GOD didn't intercede against Stalin is the 20 million dead. GOD is a failure!

If GOD didn't intercede, GOD didn't answer the prayers. He failed his own system...your GOD cannot be GOD...he/she/it is a false GOD! A mistake in the inner confusions of your mind!

Once again you are saying the most incredibly unGodly things about your alleged GOD. If there is a judgment day, and if there is a GOD, he will be shaking his head in utter disbelief as he assesses you.

You are not a good salesperson for a GOD!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 7:05:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<GOD placed SATAN...lol../teaching aid>>.you love making your re-statments...satan..written into the texts..as an embodyment..of evil

<<GOD..so dumb..>>..is your distortion

<<need evil to know GOOD>>..you ask questions..[without a question i wouldnt be posting....

explaining concepts/..needs a framework/context...that deliniates extreems...thus we have invaded[invader]...good/vile...black/white...hot/cold/light/dark..as egsamples/oppisites..that expand..understanding of concepts


<<..there is evil/..in heaven>>...there isnt..[vile is in hell...as you..might seek to confirm...lol


<<You/..can't say Humans created evil..>>>you as an intelligent man...know its you..chosing to be devils advocate/..satans not making you reply...realise your teasing..is coming from your..freechoice

<<you making this rubbish up?>>...no..im following...lol..a script...just like you...lol

<<6 million die..so/Schindler can shine..>>was there no insanity..there would be no measure..where sanity prevails...if some..would not have had..the choice..of rejecting the insanity...there would be no lesson/..no story

<<Stalin kill 20million>>>..why is it so hard..for you to say../xtians[CHRISTians]..each death ...required some fool..to do nothing...but no doudt some said..this is wrong...

it wasnt stalin/hitler that killed anyone...its just conveniant to blame them...like satan..[what of the jewish-bankers..that paid for it all..[who recieved../the loot and plunder?

<<You are../making excuses for your GOD>>>..god needs/..no man...it is we..who need god...if you sought to know him..you would realise your insulting..the one..who loved you more than any..'other'..ever has/will

<<you/stating he allows/..for the craziest/reasons>>..i reply...your questions...to answer../your absurdities...in the end..its between god/you.

<<GOD is a failure!>>..an ignorant thing/..to say...you have the wrong idea..of god...insulting..the one/good/true...god..who only seeks..to give you life/and love

<<If GOD didn't intercede>>>..you/we..would be no more than..dust/wet clay,

<<GOD didn't answer..YOUR..prayers.>>...thus you claim..<<..He failed his/system>>...but the reality is..he failed YOUR system

<<your GOD..cannot be GOD>>>...he is not..'my/god..[but..'our'..god]...he loves us all..equally

<<you are saying..the most/incredibly..unGodly..things..about..our..alleged GOD.>>>..lol...im saying un-godly things...wow suprise suprise ...only god..can say..'godly'/things...

we can but try[to love..as much as god does],...but only gods/love..is gods love

<<If..there is a judgment-day,>>>there isnt...you got the wrong god[jesus mission..was primary to rebuild...'his temple''..in three days..proving...there's..no smouldering in graves..till a mythical judgement day...get it...?

<<as he assesses you.>>...he loves..love dont judge/asses

<<You are not a good salesperson for a GOD!>>....god dont need selling/..your not bying/..im only replying
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 August 2009 12:51:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok the topic looks egsausted...so will leave a few unrefutable proofs
http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

and a general quote/hint..Proof of God is in Nature/reflecting our creator

So where's the proof of God's existence?...the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope,we observe..The bacterial flagellum..is what propels E.,coli bacteria..through its microscopic world.

It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor,drive-shaft, U-joint,and propeller...It's like..a microscopic outboard motor!

The individual parts..come into focus when magnified..50,000 times (using electron micrographs)...And even though these microscopic outboard motors run..at an incredible 100,000 rpm,..they can stop on a microscopic dime...It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop,..shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction!

The flagellar..'motor'..has two gears..(forward and reverse),..is water-cooled,..and is hardwired..into a signal transduction..(sensory mechanism)..so that it receives feedback..from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems..(living creatures),..we find it reasonable...to infer the presence intelligent design.

Take,..for example,the bacterial flagellum's..stator,rotor,drive-shaft,U-joint,and propeller...It is not convenient..that we've given these parts these names...that's truly their function.

If you were to find a stator,..rotor,..drive-shaft,..U-joint,..or propeller in any vehicle,/machine,/toy or model,..you would recognize them as the product..of an intelligent source.

No one would expect an outboard motor..much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor..to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts....Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore,..the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time...The bacterial flagellum is an.."irreducibly complex"...system.

An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts,..all of which are necessary for the system to function.

If you remove any one part,..the entire system will fail to function.

Every individual part is integral...There is absolutely no naturalistic,gradual,evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum...(Michael Behe,/Darwin's Black Box,1996.)

Proof of God - His Fingerprints are Everywhere!

If we're willing to open our eyes,we'll see the fingerprints of God all around us and all throughout us...Our very existence proves the existence of a Creator God
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 August 2009 9:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Several posts back you stated that complexity into today’s universe exceeds the complexity of God. That God is less complex than our universe. The early Earth being a simple garden, you said. Such a position on the surface at least begs, the universe starting off simple and becoming more complex over time.

The Intelligent Design movement in the US once used the “eye” as an example of “irreducible complexity”, until such time that Science explained it. The ID folk have since moved onto the “bacterial flagellum” because of its complexity (far from a simple garden). According to Paul Davies, the basic processes are already known. More involved processes will likely be explained and the ID folk will need to find a new citation. Against this background, we find that Science has explained much, yet Science cannot explain everything - today. We have only had civilization for six thousand years and true science for three hundred years. Not long given the hundreds of thousands of years of age of our genus. Science is a work in process and always will be, I suspect.

With complex organisms of times the organisim is reducible to components. DNA assembles these components. Squids, humans, birds and snakes have eyes, but none have can hear in 3-D (suspected of dolphins). Yet, bats have acute sonar too. Trucks, cars and planes have simply parts but planes fly.

Moreover, there are design flaws in nature. The human back, for one. Cecidomyian gall midges (flies) sometimes reproduce via parthenogenesis (Gould). When the lavae grow to adulthood “inside” the mother, they by eat the mother from the inside out! This does not seem to me to be a well-engineered design by a loving God.

If God is loving and makes mistakes, then, it not omnipotent and, should called a Creator, perhaps, but God, a term more than a little shacky here. If God is omnipotent and deliberately designed the cruelty in the insect world and tolerates Satan and evil, over millennia, might be all powerful God, is God, but not moral.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 14 August 2009 12:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TYPO ABOVE: Trucks, cars and planes have SIMILAR parts but only planes fly.

The same solution is often found to work in different species towards different aggregated effects.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 14 August 2009 3:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver<<..the basic processes are already known>>.a link..for context perhaps?

<<Against this background,..Science has explained much,..yet Science cannot explain everything..today.>>..thats fine...im fine with them simply making one like it...

then letting..it..self assemble/pro-create..and evolve...

one egsample..being worth a thousand theories/words

<<true..science for three hundred years.>>.dont underestimate the heroes/science's of rome/greece..messapotanoa/babbelon...i say science preceeds the pharoes...minimum

<<Science..is a work in process>>..totally agree...its more...we got it[scientific/curiosity]..from god...but..here are those who..with closed minds..conclude..incorectly..the science is in...

when its..definitivly..not even close

<<DNA assembles these components>>.sorry to rebut...butt..its been foun[simple genes=cause/affect]...is not..how it works...timming is absolutly essential...having..this given gene active..at the wrong time..=..nothing

<<have..eyes,..but none..can hear in 3-D..>>lol..if you mean three dimentions..bifocular vision/hearing are both hearing/seeing in 3 d

<<bats have acute sonar>>..thus..'see'/sense..in bi-focular/..3d..too.

other/automotions..<<have simply parts..but planes fly>>...in 3d..?.

<<there are design flaws/in nature>>>..but these arnt fatal flaws...mainly because of the double helix...clever thinking from god..eh?

<<..Cecidomyian gall midges../When the lavae grow to adulthood..“inside”..the mother,..eat the mother>>..as science reveals..its about passing the genes...

it..only confirms how clever god is..to use it for spirits to quickly live to motherhood...then get to their next spiritual/..progression...

being a moth-er..been there done that..lol...now..be..an earthworm[ie..be father and mother]...lol...it seems like god exploring..all possabilities..[to.../for..us to discover..her evolving/path to perfection..]

God is loving..<<and makes mistakes>>...it is not for/us to make an isue about it...let ye without sin..not cast stones..be ye perfect/..as god is perfect

<<If..God is omnipotent/and..deliberately/designed the cruelty>>..the cruely is incidental...god could hide..her path to godlyness...but leaves it for us..to realise...that we..who/know her true progression into perfection...was/may have been..as flawed as we are...

but now..being perfect...allows us to achieve/..our own perfection...knowing..even the perfect...may not..have been..all that/perfect...

but lets give her..the same grace she gives us...let her have some secrets..from us..her kids/..spawn
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 August 2009 3:42:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver<<..TYPO ABOVE: Trucks, cars and planes have SIMILAR parts but only planes fly.>>...oh come on teacher...what possable use a universal joint evolving...or a tail...lets get away from generalities...a plane is a different genus...than a car

please remember were specificly taking about a particular bug...please name its genus...or hypotheses on which beasts micro evolved..or joined to-gether..to make the complete/functioning.. bacterial flagellum..that propels E.,coli bacteria

<<The same solution is often found to work in different species towards different aggregated effects>>..no doudt all fish have gills...all birds have wings...they may have been evolved from one..[from the mind of one god].. or procreated from many...

UNFORTUINATLY..the one..claimed by science is fraud...now what?

how about science..telling us..as quickly..of fraud..

as they inform us of dicvovery..when their proof becomes revealed as fraud...but they dont...

all..their claimmed/..common ancestoral origenatiors..are fraud...and even then..the frauds are less than 7...not one has survived proper scientific confirmation...they are all fraud...see last debate at first link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

but no one ever talks about that extensive series of proven fraud's...the fools..believing by faith..in an ever ecvolving THEORY..trust that..they hope true...missing the bigger amasing proofs..god give us daily...

its like believing santa gave you presents..when it was your parents did...in reality...GIVE BACK TO GOD THAT OF GOD...validate the theory with science/fact..not simulie

i still await sciences faulsifyables and valid scientific proofs...name names give specific links...

i have had to read too much generalised claptrap..that passes for science only to mindless children...let hear some grown up facts..true science facts..

but of course there arnt any...so we get generalisations and simu-lie
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 August 2009 4:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Neither evolution, nor any science, can access the subject of ultimate origins or ethical meanings." "Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin in the universe or of life's intrinsic significance among nature's objects; these questions are philosophical (or theological) and do not fall within the purview of science." "This point is important because zealous fundamentalists, masquerading as 'scientific creationists,' claim that creation must be equated with evolution, and be given equal time in schools, because both are equally 'religious' in dealing with ultimate unknowns. In fact evolution does not treat such subjects at all, and thus remains fully scientific."
"The 'fact' of evolution [my emphasis] is as well documented as anything we know in science--as secure as our conviction that Earth revolves around the sun. ... Darwin's natural selection has been affirmed, in studies both copious and elegant ... as [Darwin says] 'that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration'"
Stephen J Gould
PTO
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 15 August 2009 8:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... The deepest, in the gut, answer [to the question of our origins] lies in the human psyche [so how about Kant, Hegel, Freud, Lacan?]. ... We are fascinated by physical ties of ancestry; we feel that we will understand ourselves better, know who we are in some fundamental sense, when we trace the sources of our descent. We haunt graveyards and parish records; we pore over family bibles and search out elderly relatives, all to fill in the blanks on our family tree. Evolution is this same phenomenon on a much more inclusive scale--roots writ large. Evolution is the family tree of our races, species and lineages--not just of our little, local surname. Evolution answers, insofar as science can address such questions at all, the troubling and fascinating issues of "Who we are?" Now quoting Freud, "all great scientific revolutions have but one feature in common: the casting of human arrogance off one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our ruling centrality in the universe". ... What can be more humbling, and therefore more liberating, than a transition from viewing ourselves as 'just a little lower than the angels,' the created rulers of nature, made in God's image to shape and subdue the Earth. ...[rather] Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires or intellect."
Stephen J Gould.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 15 August 2009 8:54:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SSqueer..nice w0rds
not one science fact
funny [that]

words are sacred
their spell...is confounded in their spelling

so spell it out for yourself..[SSelves]
it makes no mind ....for thy creator

science is the food...for the mindless/mindfull faithfull
religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel/..

both have their faithfull/..

both have their high priests/..

both have their sacred texts/...that somehow..their faithfdull never fully read/...but selectivly quote from...none the less

how can jesus have died...so thee...can sin?
typical...go drink his blood and realise your the vampire/go eat his flesh and see your the canna-bill

thou art only that god gave you to be

im going walkabout
i have had enough of just talking to me
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 August 2009 5:03:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,
The rationalists “have” been spelling it out for themselves, only to have their thoughts twisted and misrepresented. Science is not contra religion, it is human reason for itself. Conversely, religion increasingly draws its kudos from being contra science, which is mostly a cynical effort to increase the flock, earthly power and capital. Religion parasitises science by pretending to compete with it rationally, viz intelligent design. If religionists are so certain of their sacred Word and texts, why deviate from creationism? Intelligent designers are sophists.
No, no facts; I’ve said all along that science doesn’t deal in facts, but theories, yet you go on calling for them—just as you go on asserting your own “facts” without a shred of evidence, just mystical turn of phrase—a decoction of ignorance, optimism and egotism.

Theories like evolution, however, are tantamount to fact. Rather than being overthrown, the theory will likely continue to develop in sophistication and “elegance”, and eventually be accepted by the most obdurate as the most compelling explanation of phenomena. Religionists should stick with their fundamentals, offer a stark alternative; they will then always have a following.

“science is the food...for the mindless/mindfull faithfull
religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel/..”.
Actually, “religion” is the food—and the “first” refuge of the scoundrel!

There are no priests, or faithful, or sacred texts for science, all are at the mercy of new evidence and peer review.
Historically, religion’s position is flexibly inflexible—hypocritical, in a word.

“how can jesus have died...so thee...can sin?
typical...go drink his blood and realise your the vampire/go eat his flesh and see your the canna-bill

thou art only that god gave you to be”.

This may even be so, but as Gould says, such singularities are not the province of science. And why should such a God resent the humble efforts of humans to make sense of their apparent universe?
The Bible is rightly revered for (some of) the wisdom it contains, amongst which is the exhortation, beware of false prophets.

You will of course perfunctorily distort all this for your own ends.
SSSSqueers
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 16 August 2009 11:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Here we are discussing Intelligent Design, not just “one bug”, as you suggest. It is hard to give “flagellum” a genus, as you ask. It is not the total organism. If I recall, it is a pump/propeller-like mechanism, which scientists understand in part:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

As I said, it is work-in-progress. Science isn’t going to solve everything. Science is subject to economics like politicians, do we built a bridge or a road, becomes to we study “this” or “that”. Where efforts are great, often to is the result: e.g., Kennedy’s and successors backing of NASA into the 1960s.

Yes, as you say, a car is a different genus to a plane. That was one point, I was making. These have similar component “answers”, wheels, seats, motors and design (airflow) & load considerations, yet these vehicles are different. Engineers have been able to create heterogeneous outcomes on homogenous principles.

On the surface something might appear to be infinitely complex. However, on close examination, we find, say, fifteen just “highly” (not infinitely) complex factors. We have ten highly complex proprietary mechanisms, “bootstrapped” by five highly complex organising mechanisms.

Regarding “Cecidomyian gall midges”. I am fully aware the reason is to pass on genes. My point was a loving god and good designer would not have the offspring eat their mother alive from the inside out. Unless you are saying that God can only work within the constraints of the solution.

- Is having an offspring eat it's own mother an example of, "compassion within intelligent design"?

What Sqeers mentions about cannibalism is hstorically evident too. The Romans saw the Sacrament of the Eurarchist to enactment be cannibalism. They thought the idea, yuk. Given all the blood and bread that that has been consummed by billions over two thousand, one must suspect that Christians are the orginal recyclers. :-)

- Is having Jesus commit suicide intelligent design? Death by Roman cop. Again, did God have to act within constraints imposed otherwise?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 16 August 2009 12:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
im sorry i cant give you belief...its for all to choose what they believe[and not]...just see blind faith in science is the same as blind faith in anything...if you cant prove something it is half right/half wr#ong...ie nothing but theory/hope/delusion...opinion..
not fact

i could talk about generic shapes/designes/mutations..[each having a ratio or element of chance]...its a numbers game...and chance is so stacked against the required mutations appearing spontainioiusly...in the right order..within any given genus..as to of its own math improbabilities flaw the theory of evolution..

as is mentioned in the link...no one dares comment on...or
seemingly have tried to ignore...what no rebuttal?
http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

feel free to rebut that...i doudt any have the mental quotant to even read it...but try anyhow...dont be fooled by big numbers...

why ya think its so hard to comprehend...so the fools have faith...but really...thats all they got...if they dont got fact...

your failing to see there is a teaching in all life...think what could be the teaching..of a grub that is raised by murder..from murder..to be eaten by murder...none more innocent than the next/dont cast stones..each to their own wants/as we did to others ...more shall be given..

[in the same coin...murder for murder]...think of the types of spirits reincarnating in this little beastie...they live for the love of murder..but god still gives them their right to life..[of a karmic sort]...but life none the less..

.what else for those eternal spirits..who love to murder...

we are all spirits having a reality experience...we all get sentanced here for life...some serve shorter sentances...but each is the entrance egsam for the next...yet god dont judge...there is no judment day...just more of the same...

fool you once types are sukkers..because they have faith...not fact
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 August 2009 2:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/15/Your-Body-Literally-Glows-With-Light.aspx

>>Schematic illustration/..of experimental setup..that found the human body,especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day.

images show the weak emissions of visible light..during totally dark conditions....The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day.

Credit:Kyoto University;Tohoku Institute of Technology;PLoS ONEBut..your body is also surrounded by light,or energy>>[soul?

earlier research has confirmed that your body emits light that is 1,000 times less intense than what your naked eyes are sensitive to. (Some people, however,are able to see this emitted light or “aura,” and some can even distinguish colors.)

What’s really interesting about this study is that they discovered these light emissions appear to be linked to your body clock and the rhythmic fluctuations of your metabolism over the course of the day.

"If you can see the glimmer from the body's surface,..you could see the whole body condition,”..said researcher Hitoshi Okamura,a circadian biologist at Kyoto University in Japan.

Others have explained the existence of light and energy around your body in terms of a “biophoton field.”

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt discusses this field in The Five Levels of Healing,..which is based on a healing model developed some 12,000 years ago...This energetic model for health has influenced Tibetan medicine,traditional Chinese medicine (TCM),and Ayurvedic medicine as well.

The existence of the biophoton field was scientifically proven by Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp in 1974.

Your physical health is dependent not only on what goes on inside of your body,..but is also interconnected with and dependent on other non-physical levels of energy,..such as the energy surrounding your body, called the biophoton field.


It is known in biology that every cell in your body has over 100,000 biochemical reactions per second, all of which must be carefully timed and sequenced with each other. Many (mostly European) scientists have investigated the organizing principle behind this sophisticated dance.

Dr. Popp also proved that biophotons originate from your DNA and that they are laser-like in nature...He developed the biophoton theory to explain their biological role and the ways in which they help control your biochemical processes.
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 August 2009 3:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,
You talk as though rationalists never had a spiritual thought, or went about their business bloody-mindedly to spite God. Rationality is not an easy diet; it's a regimen that demands philosophy and stoicism (sorry, tautology), like Buddhism (it's interesting that you've brought the eastern concept of Karma into your "Christian faith" btw; you are free to make a potpourrie of it then? If so, what about all the texts you're not familiar with?). I for one would be glad to trade rational discipline for something more indulgent, if only there were evidence (evidence is not what you chose to infer from the incredible manifestation of life!) and it didn't require me to suspend disbelief, to put my faith in some random belief system among the thousands that pockmark history. They say that 96% of the species that ever lived are extinct--roughly the same figure surely applies to religion?
It comes back to "show me the evidence?" If we are not so scrupulously modest about what we know and don't know, how can we trust ourselves not to follow whatever belief is more congenial and flattering, or commit yet more atrocities for the sake of some passionate belief in religion. Terrorists don't want for faith!
So how do you know the things you claim to know, OUG?
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 16 August 2009 3:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
realise..how amasing..we all are...[dare to shine]...be the light

<<How Your..Bio-photon=Field..Regulates..Your Physical Health

The DNA..inside each cell..in your body..vibrates at a frequency of several billion hertz..(which is unfortunately the same range at which modern cell phone communication systems also work)...>>..these towers..can be used to imprint feelings directly into our mind.

This vibration..is created through the coil-like contraction and extension of your DNA...which occurs several billion times per second...and every time it contracts,..it squeezes out one single biophoton;...a light particle.

That photon contains all the information..on everything going on in your DNA at that moment...One single biophoton can carry more than four megabytes of information,..and relays this information to other biophotons..it crosses..in the biophoton field..outside your body.

All the photons that are emitted from your body..communicate with each other..in this highly structured light field..that surrounds your body.

This light field..also regulates the activity of your metabolic enzymes...This corresponds nicely/..with the findings in the study above..that show your light field ebbs and flows..along with your metabolic rhythm.

The information transfer..on biophotons is bi-directional,..which means your DNA..sends information out..on a photon,..and on the same photon..the information of all the biophotons..from your body is broadcast back to your cells,..

and to your tubulin,..which are light conductive molecules in your connective tissue...The tubulin,..in turn,receives the information-carrying..light impulse..and conducts it at the speed of light throughout your body,..where it is translated..inside each cell..into activating...or inactivating certain metabolic enzymes.

Have You Ingested Healthy Light Today?

A fascinating alternative practice... is to use tools that work with light...to influence your biophoton field in beneficial ways.

For example,transmitting the information...of nutrients in the form of light...into your biophotons field..can affect your body..in the same way...as eating the actual nutrient!

Biophoton research..also puts a whole new spin..on the impact of environmental toxins.

Mercury,for example,destroys your tubulins at extremely low concentrations...Remember,tubulins are the light-conductive molecules in your connective tissues,..so by disrupting these all-important light transmissions..from your biophoton field to your cells to your metabolic enzymes,...mercury effectively disconnects..the intelligent force...lol..that organizes your biochemistry.

All the more reason to avoid those thimerosal-laden flu shots!

Raw Food = Live Food =Healthy Light Particles
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 August 2009 3:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having glanced through the quality of oug's recent posts on this topic, I'd say that he may have finally, irrevocably and single-handedly disproved the existence of an intelligent designer.

Congratulations.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 16 August 2009 4:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The one underdog has finally managed to post something so steeped in fantasy and impossible in reality that I am struggling to count the ways in which the laws of physics, chemistry etc have been violated.

Many times I thought he had hit rock bottom, but now it appears that you have started digging.

As Pericles suggested OUG is in person proof that intelligent design did not take place.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 17 August 2009 8:32:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
be a flat earther
present science fact..if you got any

its frankly absurd
two such fine intelects are unable to convince a moron

the clear absurdity..you wrote that i am any proof of anything,
what are your posts proof of...the true worth...lol..of the theory of evolution...lol...as baseless as your last two posts

and yet i love..that you fail to rebut..my posts or provide facts...

it just shows your..the mindless faithfull..fallen for the new faulse god..heads of the frauds of evolution/lol/..science...ha ha...not a fact between you...

no thought..no validation nor rebuttal
nothing to see here...lol
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 August 2009 8:52:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, that would be absolutely right, oug.

>>two such fine intelects are unable to convince a moron<<

Couldn't have phrased it better myself.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 August 2009 11:43:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OUG,

- Genes aside: Is having an offspring eat it's own mother from the inside out, an example of, "compassion within intelligent design"?

- Is having Jesus commit suicide intelligent design? That is, death by Roman cop, with foresight. Here, did God have to act within constraints imposed? Who/What imposes contraints on God? Was human sacrifice the only solution? Applying "only" to God is a bit iffy.

- Does an Intelligent Creator have to be God or just very, every smart?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 17 August 2009 1:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
olive quote<<..Genes aside:..Is having an offspring eat it's own mother from the inside out,..an example of,.."compassion within intelligent design"?..>>you rekon its evolution...chance...but here is a thing you could never think

it breeds by eating its mother
who was the first 'mother''...that was eaten...[lol]...ask your clever scientists to explain that....who was ambiogensis FIRST mother...who did she eat?

<<s having Jesus commit suicide intelligent design?>>>blaspomy from one pretending wisdom....jesus believed he had to die..he did not commit to die by his own hand

he was crucified...how did he put nails in his allready nailed down hand...the absurdity of the thought reveals the depth of your smarts...lol

<<..did God have to act within constraints imposed?>>.god sustained jesus to live till jesus gave it up...he was trying to prove his temple would be rebuilt in threee days...because his people believed wrongly in a judgment day with us sleeping till reserection[lol]day

<<Who/What imposes contraints on God?...>>>>you do...i shouldnt cast pearl before swine...but..good thought bring the angels[bad thoughts bring demons...god is pure love...if god didnt expres in our heart we would drive him away by our anger

<<Was human sacrifice the only solution?>>>wrong topic...but demons do demonic things...we each must consciously strive not to hurt or do vile to ourselves or other



<<Does an Intelligent Creator have to be God or just very,..every smart?>>>..the most clever of the meat people[claymen]...us...

has no idea about sustaining life...this is unique-ly god in action...all your sciences brains..havnt managed..even this yet

anyhow
i see no science to rebut ...yet asgain..lol
because you have no concept of the science
your faith is built on...lol
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 20 August 2009 12:34:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

1. I appreciate that biology of the fly the eating its own mother; both the genes and the need for nourishment. I understand these mechanisms. What I am asking is this solution the intelligent design of a compassionate god?

2. I said the suicide was death by Roman cop. Jesus knew his actions were to bring about his demised and acted towads this end. It is clear, at the Last Supper, Jesus was intending to commit suicide, by his deeds, not by his own hands, orchestrating events by his actions. I am sure the DSM IV would classify his actions as suicidal.

3. If God is omnipotent, he should have been able to devise a non-sacrificial atonement. If God could not do otherwise, he acting “within” the constraints an existing law God must obey: A higher guiding force.

4. We were not discussing Science above. We were discussing, how intelligent is God’s Intelligent Design? We try to give God not science a report card.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 20 August 2009 2:23:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver<<..OUG,

1. I appreciate that biology of the fly the eating its own mother;>>thats really funny[cause you dfont get it

<<I understand these mechanisms.>>ok this fly is created via its eating its own mother...name the prevolved MOTHER[the first that didnt have a mother...how the first get created by evolving...from what

<<What I am asking..is this solution..the intelligent design of a compassionate god?>>..you claim evolution/thus this mother eater must have its evolution TRAIL...from..WHAT...into the muther eater

<<Jesus was intending to commit suicide,>>>its pure insanity..if someone goes away for three days...thats not my definition of dying[nor intent to suicide]...

its making a point that...there is no judgment day where the dead get reserected...and that in truth[even if you destroy this temple[body]...i will rebuild it in three days...and then did it...get it [dead for 3 days isnt dead,..if not dead...CANT BE SUICIDE

<<3.If God is omnipotent,..he should have been able to devise a non-sacrificial atonement.>>god is displeased with blood sacrifice[its in the bible[pre/jesus]...god is sustaining EACH-life its life to live...

the only attonment..god wills..[is try to love each other..AT_ONE_MEANT

[we are sustained to live..of gods will..alone...that ye do to the least...you do to him..at..one..meant..atonement

4<<We were not discussing Science above.>>>lol...no kidding...obsolutly no science...to be found..in the whole topic[unrebutted]..

<<We were discussing,how intelligent is God’s Intelligent Design?>>totally and completly amasing[once we unblinker the lie/of evolution

<<We>>YOU<< try to give 0u-God...not science..>>but?..<<..a report card.>>i for one am so in awe of how amasing god is...you dont realise what your missing...recall ...that ye see me do...you will do greater....wow...please present science fact for me to rebutt

cheers oliver
i love replying...
if only so others might see how amasing...they really are
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 20 August 2009 8:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG

1. The issue here is, is the solution in biology “compassionate” intelligent design? Flies eating their mothers?

2. Are you saying that Jesus didn’t “die” on the cross, before he went away for three days?

3. So human sacrifice is the only solution of god’s will?

4. Yes, a report card. Did god do the best possible job with nature?
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
olover..<<OUG

1. The issue here is,..is the solution in biology..“compassionate”..intelligent design?>>inteligent designer is com-passion-ate...lol... Flies eating [ate]..their mothers?...ate get it>>..>god reveals great humour m-ate

but as i repeat endlessly...IF LIKE MAKES LIKE...as science can confirm..[fruitflies mutate into fruitflies/seagulls into sea gulls...etc]...science confirms...

only god...could..make the FIRST..mother/..that later gets eaten..if not its for science to explain...and if science make it happen again...who else is in this mother eating genus...if science STATE IT

<<2.Are you saying that Jesus didn’t “die” on the cross, before he went away for three days?>>>by my reading vinager is bitter wine...add in some puffer fish poisen and you got a zombie...but no thatys not what im saying...your saying run away from danger..[or your suicidal]

<<So human sacrifice is the only solution of god’s will?>>.god sacrifices...just like the mother moth...you nor i could never fathom the hurt her creation gives to her daily...

a grub eating up its parent..is nothing unique[leeches]sucking the mothers teat...but every joy[every pain]...god knows COLLECTIVLY...every last pain her children felt...that we do to the least ...we did to the most

<<a report card...Did god do the best possible job with nature?>>science claims nature is god...but god is cause [underlying reason/logic...they call natural...because god is unceasing...you dare judge god>>>..

how did your paternals accept your report card?..on them...or your teacher...or a judge in court...how they love your...insulting re-tort[report]...

ye dare not judge the small things but dare the bigger...[not only bigger..dare to judge the biggest]...lol...i thought you could think...

ohhh..liver...what use that an ant/fly/moth...er...judges you?
or me...or has opinion and judgment...lol..so what?
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 August 2009 12:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

1. Even taken for argument god makes the first (mother) fly and the first fly of the next generation eats her, is that “compassionate”? Put Science aside. Is the Design compassionate?

2. If Jesus died on the cross as a matter of intention orchestrated to the end, its suicide. He died. The three days away came later.

3. God had no choice other than human sacrifice?

4. The report card of the Designer is not an “A” afterall?
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 21 August 2009 2:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG
have you ever thought about setting it to music? All your responses are just a refrain after all--repetitive evasion. Science has nothing to prove; it's successes are everywhere, including the machine you type upon. After 2000 years, the burden of proof lies finally with Christianity. Where is your evidence, let alone proof, of an intelligent designer?
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 21 August 2009 5:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver<<..1...Even taken for argument god makes the first (mother) fly and the first fly of the next generation eats her, is that “compassionate”?>>>,.,i think considering deasth is only a change of state...yesx i feel its very compassionate...considering...what they did first

<<<..Put Science aside...Is the Design compassionate?>>>as science would say its curious...but because i know god does nothing without reason....i look for the humour/lesson/joke...where you see an accidental mutation[that cant be validated or verified...by your acclaimed science

never posted a link...its just words...name names with a link[ie give scxience fact]

2..<<If Jesus died on the cross as a matter of intention orchestrated to the end, its suicide>>>look up suicide[i thought you are clever enough to know the definition of suicide....why do we homour those idiot kids that commited suicide in war

<<He died. The three days away came later....when he proved he wasnt dead...attempting suicide/is your take[and its unsupported by logic..or reason]...asking the same question is no worries[i raised kids...i know not to submit to their re-asking the same points ythe feel are winners/but revealing there only whiner

><<God had no choice other than human sacrifice?>>any who takes gods gift of life in vain[can only be decieved into science type logic...nop death serves god...god needs no sacrifice

<<The report card of the Designer is not an “A” afterall?>>>i consider gods work abouve thesis level...how do you rate thesis/made real...confirmed...self susataining...and still tricking those wise in their own eyes...

10/out of a possable ten...1000..in as possable 1000...a out of a numerological supremecie unit of measure of alfa=best...then un hesitatingly...i award god ALFA+..[or for you wise buttts...A++++

<<<Where is your evidence,let alone proof, of an intelligent designer?>>..give me your dis-prooof..oh scientific half witless...life comes from god...the proof is right infront of your nose...read the tread
Posted by Squeer
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 August 2009 6:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

1. Did Christ “die” on the Cross before he changed his state and went away for three days? There is no bed need for a link, the topic is self-sustaining.

2. Okay, you say, dying or merely changing state is compassionate. But what about the offspring fly devouring its mother? Is that compassionate?

3a. Okay, you say, god didn’t need to sacrifice himself. Could he have forgiven sin, without the sacrifice?

3b. If god had chosen not to sacrifice himself, assuming this the superior course of action, would god still have been as moral? If not, then god was compelled to act morally and is therefore not omnipotent, because god could not choose to act immorally.

4. Could god have designed an insect kingdom which not cruel? If he could have, why is god deserving of an A+ report card now?

5. When god created Satan did god know of Satan’s future disposition towards sin?
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 22 August 2009 11:53:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oliver<<OUG,

<<Did Christ “die” on the Cross..before he changed his state..and went away for three days?>>we can on ly say if dead means gone from this realm...then no he did not die...did his body die...more likely than not[but we have a body of light that is indestructable

<<you say,..dying or merely changing state is compassionate>>>not real;ly[more ...of the same....shall be given...god gives us further life....but those loving bad will still seek the pleasures of the flesh....except in the next life its a hollow joke[eg...no booze...because juice cant spoil/ferment...but/yet..the boozers/druggies still seek their fix...its sad

<<..offspring fly devouring its mother?..Is that compassionate?>>>..look at it in hindsight...your self aware...aware/..you devoured your..OWN MOTHER...would it be a relief...when your own consume you?

<<u..say..god didn’t need to sacrifice himself.>>>jesus not god
<<<Could he...who died..have forgiven sin,..without the sacrifice?

>>understand there is no sin..to forgive...GOD DONT JUDGE NO_ONE...not ever...we may have been decieved..to believe a lie...but jesus cleared all/..that up...

new law...love god/love neighbour.test-i-meant..

<<..to sacrifice himself,..assuming this the superior course of action,..would god still have been as moral?>>>jesus/not god...jesus was validating a revelation...no judgment day...or him dying...would still be waiting for it

BUT he appeared 3 days l;ater...in body...thus not awaiting judgment day....cl;early

<<If not,..then god was compelled to act morally>>...god only can do good/..understand..GOD HAS..no evil../no vile/only pure love...like any good parent..only living joy/love/light reason

complelled..[or] act..morally...<<and is therefore not omnipotent.. because god could not choose to act immorally.>>..is it a car who choses to crash...or how..the driver steers it

<<Could god have designed an insect kingdom which not cruel?>>seemingly cruel how...there is only survival...see if all survived the earth would be 20 meters deep in dead stuff...the spirit realm faced the same problem...so there is here..and there..a means to consume un-usable bodies..from cluttering up creation...if things did not spoil...nothing new could be revealed

<<<When god created Satan did god know of Satan’s future disposition towards sin?>>>...you need to study gods most loyal angel...better...

dont believe his bad press...list his crimes ...i will rebut them as being deceptions/faulse judgments..unworthy of attention upon...by any fully informed being/or spirit
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 22 August 2009 3:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

1. Then you hold that Jesus did not die on the cross. He transitioned for our sins, but did not die. He transitioned states. Okay.

2. I would have it that consumption one’s parent is not compassionate. By extension, given the fly example, any Intelligent Desiner is not compassionate. Is an ID compassionate in this case? Could there have been a better plan?

3. God is not omnipotent because he cannot act immorally? The car must stay in the left lane.

4. I understand the survival thing. What I am asking is there a better Design than the survival thing?

5. “When god created Satan did god know of Satan’s future disposition towards sin?” Ypu replied that I need to understand the loyal angel better. Please explain and educate me.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 23 August 2009 11:28:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OLIVER<<..you hold...Jesus..did not die..on the cross.>>>..he didnt[correct]...death means dead/..nothing...

but he proved..that dead aint dead

<<He..transitioned..for..our sins...lol>>...get it right...[there is no origonal sin/..no judging us by our sins...how we judge others is the measure..we use to JUDGE OURSELVES...there is NO JUDGMENT DAY...jesus didnt die..to the flesh...for the flesh...[for our sins...thats so absurd...]

consider actually believing..he can take my sin on him...jesus proved no judgment day..so why?..he..''died''..to proove meat/body..is not life/spirit/..not..sin/not..ginn

<<..consumption one’s parent..is not..compassionate>>..now how to explain it..to the mother?

....who now feels betrayed..because her young..didst not consume her being..as she did..consume her mothers..before them...

rejoice..we have extincted one life-cycle...feel more clean now?

<<By extension>>>..in lue of fact..<<..Intelligent Desiner..is not compassionate>>....every life living..is sustained by god..

no god/no nothing..[think pre-big/bang state,darkdeep/nothing..zarda...nothing...then/love/logic/light/life..bang..

<<Is an ID compassionate..>>name your favoured artist...lets judge your hero...by his..more strange enter-taintments...fair?...judge you/..by whay i feel..your worst game?...fair?

<<?Could../..a better plan?>>...i think..if your a fully aware god...you try your hand..at/with everything...like science dare go where science has no moral/right...but god does have..not only the right/..but the ability...see how thoughrilly it all meshes together...

i have not asked you..to give proof of what you say

3.<<God is not omnipoten..because he cannot act immorally?>>>..there are things we do...[and the reasons we do them..god can do immorally..just as doing/not good..or..not doing good...its not for any to judge

read the quaran...when satan destroyed a boat..seemingly bad[right]...but the reason he destroyed the boat..was good...i wont insult your inteligence..by quoting the chapter and verse

<<The car..must stay in the left lane>>>it stays in the lane..only under the control..of the driver and the car designer

.

<<is there a better Design than the survival thing?>>this realm is the ONLY realm where supreem evil can live side by side with extreem good...

this so called survival thing...is only the way..to sort out the sheep from the goat./wheatfrom tares...those..who love the good from lovers of vile/bad..this life experience..is...accelerated spirit learning..[due to the mix]..the opposing/conflicting/big issues can be sorted..into known knowns..and guessable knowables

<<5.“When god created Satan...You replied that I need to understand the loyal angel better...Please explain and educate me.>>

http://islam101.net/real-tales-topmenu-39/238.html?task=view
http://www.harunyahya.com/Quran_translation/Quran_translation18.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=quran+moses+boat++satan&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks OUG. I am tied-up a bit with work stuff at the moment. Hope to catch-up with you again. O.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 1:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
im sad... no more questions

i stopped asking
so its great to put the questions into my mind
and see what pops out

anyhow thanks for the quest-ioning
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 1:35:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
was searching for a bird flue post
but the fullsome topic...is not active

so swine/bird/vacine shows up here
so add this the other topics addendum here

link one explains the mexico beta test...w
as from a vacine tested by un organisations...lol

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4272

link two is to join the dots
dont say you didnt know
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2729&page=14

as to how this proves gods great design ...figure it out
think of the elites eugenisysts previous tests

the 30?
million dead from the same virus [last time]..ww1 was because the solger boys were vaxinated and sent home to die...it has in fact been attempted many times since then

we dont have too much longer..[or so the scien-tysts would claim]
dont take the hot shot..apparently there are a few different versions going to be pumped into you all...pretty much soon
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 8 September 2009 8:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy