Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Can I try, too?
No one has come close to showing that even the simplest god could possibly assemble itself.
False Equivalence - created entity to eternal entity.
Then all one needs is a simple modification to deal with your semantic dodge and get the argument back on track, namely that you're desperately scrabbling to avoid your own double standard.
No one has come close to showing that an eternal entity could possibly exist.
There we are. Are observations required, or are they not? Moreover, please do note the difference between evidence and assertions, as the rest of your diatribe falls squarely in the latter category.
Quote:Creation affirms that God is a necessary being (a being that cannot not exist or must exist) that called all contingent realities (things that cannot create themselves) into existence. God is thus the infinite and eternal, self-existent. Past infinite regression explanations breakdown logically into metaphysical speculations. God has reveal himself in two ways: 1. General Revelation (Creation), 2. Special Revelation (Scripture). All 7 billion persons should know the reason for Creation*. It appears per scripture that a large minority will choose connection with God thru redemption; while the smallest majority will choose separation by rejecting redemption.
So your evidence is "creation," which is absolutely not in evidence, and "the book done said it." You read the book, and then willfully assume your conclusion. Are you proud of that?
If I said my evidence you were wrong was Undesigned Nature and Science Books, would you accept that as true? Or do you suddenly gain the ability to recognize when people are lazily trying to insert their conclusions into their arguments when it's not your question begging on the chopping block?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
March 2, 2017 at 5:53 am (This post was last modified: March 2, 2017 at 5:54 am by Fake Messiah.)
(March 2, 2017 at 12:00 am)snowtracks Wrote: God has reveal himself in two ways: 1. General Revelation (Creation),
How can you think that good god created world, even if you don't acknowledge evolution, when there is so much pain and suffering and all sorts of microbes and parasites?
When looking at the parasitic wasp or the blood-soaked faces of lions after horrifying behavior undeluded people don't see god, but animals that are merely doing what nature demands of them because almost any one of us could make far better if we possessed magical powers.
Had a human with a minimal sense of decency created this world, we might not have all these mosquitoes that spread misery and death in developing nations by delivering viruses into the bloodstream of millions of people including children.
If I created the world it would be a lot more beautiful than the one we have now, the one you say your god is responsible for.
(March 2, 2017 at 12:00 am)snowtracks Wrote: God has reveal himself in two ways: ... 2. Special Revelation (Scripture)
OK let me look... "Psalms 137"
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Word of God!!! What the heck have you been smoking?
Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this: "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*
Quote:
The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.
Pretty convenient that a "day" can just mean whatever stretch of time you want it to. I wonder what possible justification you might have for using the term that way?
But if you want to go that way, then you've now got to reckon with all the many, many ways that the "day" order in genesis is simply dead wrong. Because, see, if you're pegging the Cambrian period as the fifth day, you've fucked up: god is all like "hey, here's seeded plants now, woo!" on the third day, yet the earliest known precursor of modern seeds- not even actual seeds but the things seeds evolved from- is a Devonian era fossil, and the Devonian era is about a hundred million years after the Cambrian. So now you've got day three happening before day five, good for you. You also have vegetation existing before the stars, including the sun, which... no. You have birds coming into existence on day five along with the water-borne creatures, which is not even close to true, because the first birds arose long after the Cambrian era and there are no avian fossils in Cambrian strata, since you place so very much importance on fossil evidence.
So is the Cambrian the fifth day or not? Because if it is, then your genesis account literally cannot be true: the third day precedes the fifth in the bible, yet it happens after it in the evidence. Which is it?
Quote:
So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.
So you're just going to arbitrarily hone in on an area where we have fossils, but not the particular ones you've arbitrarily assigned importance to, while ignoring all the rest?
Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night.
no problem sleeping, but your statement is somewhat troubling. "Wrong: not only do we have pre-cambrian trilobyte fossils- redlichiids," But, guess we have to go with that, however this - Redlichiida is an order of trilobites, a group of extinct marine arthropods. Species assigned to the order Redlichiida are among the first trilobites to appear in the fossil record, about halfway during the Lower Cambrian. Wikipedia
-----
Trilobite's point of view - http://www.trilobites.info/geotime.htm
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
How does do you manage to cram that much stupid into one body? You must be a magician.
No magic required -- just years of training *cough*indoctrination*cough* to wipe away the "god given" intelligence he was born with.
That's the first step in a lengthy apprenticeship.
He has a long way to go before he graduates to the level of Master Bullshit Artist. But I'm confident he'll get there eventually. His religion seems good at producing such specimens.
March 6, 2017 at 1:01 pm (This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm by Fake Messiah.)
(March 6, 2017 at 2:19 am)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Fossils support Biblical Creation.
How does do you manage to cram that much stupid into one body? You must be a magician.
Yeah, he just rambles and is never interested in answering questions. I mean imagine this world of creationism where at some point in history for some time all animal species lived together on this planet including humans and pre-human subspecies. How would this even be possible? Mammoths, neanderthals, spinosaurus, trilobites, eagles, quetzalcoatlus, koalas, paraceratheriums and so on and on. And there is no fossil evidence for this, although he obviously claims there is. So where is it snowtracks? Do you know some that we don't know or you're just lying for Jesus?
(March 6, 2017 at 1:01 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Minimalist
How does do you manage to cram that much stupid into one body? You must be a magician.
Yeah, he just rambles and is never interested in answering questions. I mean imagine this world of creationism where at some point in history for some time all animal species lived together on this planet including humans and pre-human subspecies. How would this even be possible? Mammoths, neanderthals, spinosaurus, trilobites, eagles, quetzalcoatlus, koalas, paraceratheriums and so on and on. And there is no fossil evidence for this, although he obviously claims there is. So where is it snowtracks? Do you know some that we don't know or you're just lying for Jesus?
Deep down, I suspect they all know they are lying for Jesus, since there isn't one among them who would have come to such conclusions based on the actual evidence alone. For them to actually think the evidence supports their nonsense requires a prior commitment to slavishly adhering to their ancient holy book (and their assumptions about how it should be read and understood), come what may.
This is my first post outside my mom's thread. I cannot, nor do want to put an end to any of the world's religions as if one could. But when anyone talks about life being eternal, much less humans, even Buddhism and Hinduism and claims of past lives, sorry, it is utter nonsense. My mom's death is a very painful reminder of that harsh reality. As special as my mom is to me and all those who know her, and as much as I love her, not even she is special to life or the universe. It is insulting to reality and facts and logic, to plop in old unfounded claims of hocus pocus and does not in the least explain the good or bad in life. It does not do my mom's REAL life justice or explain our evolutionary nature and the good in her.
You don't need gap answers or magic or old religions or even new age religions, to explain life. Life has great things in it, IE, my mom. Ultimately for everyone, even the most rich and famous, that ride always ends friend and foe alike. Unfortunately our harsh reality is evolution does not care if cruelty or compassion win. It is up to humans as to how we interact with each other, but our morality is really the same. Compassionate people, like my mom contribute by being concerned with the welfare of others, not just family, but like teaching. Compassion is why humans care for each other and seek cooperation, but that is evolutionary.
Religion in all it's forums past and present are simply a human invented placebo born out of narcissism, insecurity and fear. I don't say any of that to be mean, but as a statement of our species flawed perceptions. It is easier for our species to be sold a comforting story than it is to question that which is sold us, to which mostly sold to youth long before they can formulate critical thinking skills.
Humans are not as different as we think, religion and politics and economic views and nationalities do not change that our evolution always has had a common past.
How does do you manage to cram that much stupid into one body? You must be a magician.
Yeah, he just rambles and is never interested in answering questions. I mean imagine this world of creationism where at some point in history for some time all animal species lived together on this planet including humans and pre-human subspecies. How would this even be possible? Mammoths, neanderthals, spinosaurus, trilobites, eagles, quetzalcoatlus, koalas, paraceratheriums and so on and on.
And there is no fossil evidence for this
although he obviously claims there is. So where is it snowtracks? Do you know some that we don't know or you're just lying for Jesus?
This is what happened: God created the Cambrian animals in the greatest possible diversity at the greatest possible abundance levels at the earliest time permitted in the history of the universe (earlier human beings and human civilization would be impossible). This is what your guys are dealing with*: The evolutionary paradigm has had it day; however, this century finds it crumbling at a exponential rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossils record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them ‘‘a major mystery,’’ a ‘‘challenge.’’ Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, Page 2 Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists… Kevin Peterson et al. (evolutionary biologists). *http://enallagma.com/reprints/Peterson%2...Essays.pdf Darwin knew he didn’t have the fossils, but he assumed it would be just a matter of time before they were unearthed (1859 –present, no fossil. Damn, where are they?)
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
