Ben Masada Posted October 6, 2012 Author #426 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Jesus is the only way... John 14:6 If you mean, the only way to get salvation, he spoke as part of the Jews and not as a private person, because he said that salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) And he said "from the Jews" and not from one among the Jews. Ben 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 6, 2012 Author #427 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The evil will find their heaven in hell. The evil will find their hell in heaven. The good will find their hell in hell. The good will find their heaven in heaven. If you agree with the above statements then the surest way to go to heaven is by being 'Evil'. This sounds like the Po Li concept of Chineese Taoism. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #428 Share Posted October 13, 2012 No, the scientific world has wholesale rejected creationism/intelligent design, as I've said. You've been lied to, I'm afraid. Nobody created this world. And the origin of the eye is a very well-understood process. The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 13, 2012 #429 Share Posted October 13, 2012 The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect. Darwin's references to the eye have been misrepresented far too many times. All he ever said was that common sense at that time would seem to have rejected his theory, and the eye was one of the primary examples he gave of something which would seem to defy the logic of evolutionary theory. We have since overturned the antiquated paradigms of Darwin's day however, and the evolution of the eye is no more miraculous or difficult to explain than any other evolutionary development (that is to say, it is very easy to explain). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted October 13, 2012 #430 Share Posted October 13, 2012 The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #431 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Darwin's references to the eye have been misrepresented far too many times. All he ever said was that common sense at that time would seem to have rejected his theory, and the eye was one of the primary examples he gave of something which would seem to defy the logic of evolutionary theory. We have since overturned the antiquated paradigms of Darwin's day however, and the evolution of the eye is no more miraculous or difficult to explain than any other evolutionary development (that is to say, it is very easy to explain). [media=] In that video clip "irreducible complexity cut down to size" I found some of his arguments almost fatuous. As an example, he said something like "it hardly challenges evolution if an object we all agree didn't evolve couldn't have evolved". The reason I think that is because the principle is the same...the mousetrap is inorganic (except for the wooden base) and animals and plants are organic, but why does that invalidate the principle? The principle is that each of the component parts is useless by itself, so in order to be of use to the organism they would all have to come together at the same time. The mousetrap is merely an illustration of that principle, so that the fact that the mousetrap can't evolve (although somehow animals and plants can) doesn't seem to me to be a true refutation of the principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 13, 2012 #432 Share Posted October 13, 2012 In that video clip "irreducible complexity cut down to size" I found some of his arguments almost fatuous. As an example, he said something like "it hardly challenges evolution if an object we all agree didn't evolve couldn't have evolved". The reason I think that is because the principle is the same...the mousetrap is inorganic (except for the wooden base) and animals and plants are organic, but why does that invalidate the principle? The principle is that each of the component parts is useless by itself, so in order to be of use to the organism they would all have to come together at the same time. The mousetrap is merely an illustration of that principle, so that the fact that the mousetrap can't evolve (although somehow animals and plants can) doesn't seem to me to be a true refutation of the principle. The principle however, is unfounded. As was demonstrated very clearly in the video (why is it that everybody seems to get hung-up on the mousetrap?), evolution has no end-goal in mind, ergo, though the eye is the current product of natural selection, its predecessors would have been perfectly beneficial in their own right. Just because we happen to think that an eye couldn't function without certain features doesn't mean that a model with fewer or alternative features couldn't be perfectly useful as well; it simply would have a different function. And in the case of the human eye in particular, there happens to be a great deal of evolutionary baggage. This video illustrates a number of these features (and in a thoroughly-enjoyable way; albeit less serious and professional than the others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #433 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Can you seriously say, whether you believe in a Divine entity or not, that you think that He would tell His people to behead anyone who didn't agree with believers, that sex with children was perfectly ok, that disfiguring or killing their wives is perfectly ok if they have somehow dishonored you maybe by cooking something you didn't like for dinner, and that murder of a non believer was not murder at all, but a duty??????? Ok, so now who sounds silly??? I knew the Quran was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 13, 2012 #434 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) I knew the Quran was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad! Don't believe everything you hear... lozaleibou has never read the Quran. It isn't nearly as bad as he says. It's no better or worse than the Bible. Edited October 13, 2012 by Arbitran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #435 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Don't believe everything you hear... lozaleibou has never read the Quran. It isn't nearly as bad as he says. It's no better or worse than the Bible. I have a friend of mine who has a copy and he has been wanting me to read it (and he's a Christian, or at least he says he is), but it's just there are so many books to read. Anyway, I will have to say, I admire Lozaleibou's courage, he's not afraid to at least to speak up for what he believes. I feel like sometimes I don't always say what I should because I worry how people will react, but then, it won't matter when I'm laid in the grave, so I should have more courage and faith like Lozaleibou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 13, 2012 #436 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) I have a friend of mine who has a copy and he has been wanting me to read it (and he's a Christian, or at least he says he is), but it's just there are so many books to read. Anyway, I will have to say, I admire Lozaleibou's courage, he's not afraid to at least to speak up for what he believes. I feel like sometimes I don't always say what I should because I worry how people will react, but then, it won't matter when I'm laid in the grave, so I should have more courage and faith like Lozaleibou. Courage is admirable; the spouting of falsehoods disguised as truths is not. That is my key quarrel with lozaleibou; he speaks with such confidence, and yet fails to back up a single thing he says. Edited October 13, 2012 by Arbitran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #437 Share Posted October 13, 2012 http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 13, 2012 #438 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Courage is admirable; the spouting of falsehoods disguised as truths is not. That is my key quarrel with lozaleibou; he speaks with such confidence, and yet fails to back up a single thing he says. Well I hope he gets back on here and backs up his speech! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 13, 2012 #439 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage. I'm not sure I completely understand your question... Sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted October 13, 2012 #440 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage. But did you read the entire page? Evolution's not a certain science, we'll always be missing a step because at this current moment in time we only have the animals that are the current product of evolution, all other animals that proceeded them are dead, and the majority were probably never fossilized. Also, if you want an example of each individual stage, and explanation for every eye that's ever evolved, that's a good way to think, but it would be bloody difficult for anyone to do. Not all animals of today will have an example of the different kinds of eyes, and as the page says, octopuses and mammals evolved the same sort of eye independent of each other, and the eye itself has many, many flaws. It's by no means the perfect way to perceive the world. Edited October 13, 2012 by Hasina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 14, 2012 #441 Share Posted October 14, 2012 But did you read the entire page? Evolution's not a certain science, we'll always be missing a step because at this current moment in time we only have the animals that are the current product of evolution, all other animals that proceeded them are dead, and the majority were probably never fossilized. Also, if you want an example of each individual stage, and explanation for every eye that's ever evolved, that's a good way to think, but it would be bloody difficult for anyone to do. Not all animals of today will have an example of the different kinds of eyes, and as the page says, octopuses and mammals evolved the same sort of eye independent of each other, and the eye itself has many, many flaws. It's by no means the perfect way to perceive the world. I wonder, do you agree, Hasina, that evolution would require billions of years? I found this link that I thought was interesting: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth%20Link%20Page.htm Especially it seems interesting to me because he gives both sides of the coin as it were and lets the reader make up his/her own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 14, 2012 #442 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I wonder, do you agree, Hasina, that evolution would require billions of years? I found this link that I thought was interesting: http://www.earthage....h Link Page.htm Especially it seems interesting to me because he gives both sides of the coin as it were and lets the reader make up his/her own mind. EarthAge is a creationist site; not scientifically credible. I perused their information; vacuous and demonstrably false. But in any case, evolution does not require billions of years; not by a long shot. The difference between you and your parents counts as evolution; as does the difference between Homo sapiens and our ancestor Homo heidelbergensis. Although, certainly, give evolution billions of years to work, and you get an astoundingly diverse array of organisms; i.e., every organism that has ever existed on our planet, up to present day (hundreds of billions of species; incalculable trillions of individuals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 14, 2012 #443 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) This is a link to another site, I don't know if it's pro-creation or pro-evolution or neutral, but it does seem to confirm that viable DNA has been found in ancient fossil bacteria: http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm And this is relevant why? Because viable DNA is supposed to only remain for thousands of years, not millions (of years). Edited October 14, 2012 by Gummug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 14, 2012 #444 Share Posted October 14, 2012 This is a link to another site, I don't know if it's pro-creation or pro-evolution or neutral, but it does seem to confirm that viable DNA has been found in ancient fossil bacteria: http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm And this is relevant why? Because viable DNA is supposed to only remain for thousands of years, not millions (of years). That is a creationist site I'm afraid; and, as per usual, disingenuous and intellectually vacuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 14, 2012 #445 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) That is a creationist site I'm afraid; and, as per usual, disingenuous and intellectually vacuous. It's easy to say it's disingenuous and vacuous, but upon what do you base those claims? eta: I mean if I disagreed with something for whatever reason and wished to avoid a true discussion I could just say, "that's disingenuous and vacuous". Oh really? Why, then? Edited October 14, 2012 by Gummug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted October 14, 2012 #446 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Theres no way to escape hell ,when we live in a decayed world and the pain of life having to nourish life to survive.Don`nt know if its some universal mind thats want to experience life in matter or if its a individal choice. All I know is we are of everything of the stars and of the earth and I want to thank all life that went before me that made life better for me and hope I can leave something that was of a helped to others 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 14, 2012 #447 Share Posted October 14, 2012 It's easy to say it's disingenuous and vacuous, but upon what do you base those claims? eta: I mean if I disagreed with something for whatever reason and wished to avoid a true discussion I could just say, "that's disingenuous and vacuous". Oh really? Why, then? Simple: the "scientific" information they are dispensing is simply incorrect. I could say things more specific, but I'm not exactly at liberty to go and refute the entire website at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 14, 2012 #448 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Simple: the "scientific" information they are dispensing is simply incorrect. I could say things more specific, but I'm not exactly at liberty to go and refute the entire website at the moment. OK is this incorrect also? [media=] [/media]Eta: even if you disagree with it, imo he's pretty funny! Edited October 14, 2012 by Gummug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted October 14, 2012 #449 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) OK is this incorrect also? [media=] [/media]Eta: even if you disagree with it, imo he's pretty funny! Agreed, it's humorous. But incorrect, yes. Edited October 14, 2012 by Arbitran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted October 14, 2012 #450 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Agreed, it's humorous. But incorrect, yes. Why, mought (sic) I not ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now