Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14637)

baconeatingatheistjew 07-10-2008 11:17 PM

I wonder if Missionary is Sable Chicken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDeQ6zbjUF4

psychodiva 07-11-2008 04:29 AM

lol- can't see anyone wanting to reproduce with that one

Single Serving Jack 07-12-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 506192)
As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.


I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale at the moment, and The Seal's Tale* reminded me of this thread. Specifically it discusses the extreme sexual dimorphism in Elephant Seals and how it relates to the species polygyny. It seems that sexual dimorphism is a good indicator of the breeding system a species uses, for a further example it describes the much greater sexual dimorphism of gorillas (much larger male and polygynous) to gibbons (sexes are approximately equal in size and monogamous).

Human beings are slightly dimorphic, obviously. Not as much as gorillas but more than gibbons. Which suggests that the natural breeding system of early humans (before civilisation and culture became the important factors) was probably a somewhere between the polygyny of gorillas and the monogamy of gibbons.

That doesn't seem to fit with your belief highlighted above. If God wanted us to be monogamous, why are humans sexually dimorphic?

*(p171-177 of The Ancestor's Tale (hardback) by Richard Dawkins if anyone is interested)

WickFut 07-12-2008 09:41 AM

Quote:

baconeatingatheistjew wrote (Post 506371)
I wonder if Missionary is Sable Chicken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDeQ6zbjUF4

grrrr don't you hate timestretching audio ?

antix 07-12-2008 06:34 PM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 506688)
I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale at the moment, and The Seal's Tale* reminded me of this thread. Specifically it discusses the extreme sexual dimorphism in Elephant Seals and how it relates to the species polygyny. It seems that sexual dimorphism is a good indicator of the breeding system a species uses, for a further example it describes the much greater sexual dimorphism of gorillas (much larger male and polygynous) to gibbons (sexes are approximately equal in size and monogamous).

Human beings are slightly dimorphic, obviously. Not as much as gorillas but more than gibbons. Which suggests that the natural breeding system of early humans (before civilisation and culture became the important factors) was probably a somewhere between the polygyny of gorillas and the monogamy of gibbons.

That doesn't seem to fit with your belief highlighted above. If God wanted us to be monogamous, why are humans sexually dimorphic?

*(p171-177 of The Ancestor's Tale (hardback) by Richard Dawkins if anyone is interested)

Unfortunately, you're bringing up science. And if there is one thing Mish hates, it's actualy science.

Missionary 07-13-2008 07:11 PM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 506688)
That doesn't seem to fit with your belief highlighted above. If God wanted us to be monogamous, why are humans sexually dimorphic?

Actually, it would be expected. Why wouldn't we be?

Single Serving Jack 07-14-2008 01:11 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 507188)
Actually, it would be expected. Why wouldn't we be?

I just explained why it wouldn't be. Why don't you explain why you think it would be?

Riddler 07-14-2008 03:15 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 506192)
As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

Ten other monogamous animals that God might therefore look like, and want to illustrate his relationship with:

Ducks
Eagles
Foxes
Geese
Gibbons
Lynx
Marmosets
Mountain lions
Swans
Wolves.

Riddler 07-14-2008 03:37 AM

. . . However, all this is still evading the issue of how and why gender came about. As has been needlessly pointed out in this thread and broadly agreed by proponents of both sides of the argument, the great majority of animal life is split into two genders, whether they practise monogamy, polygamy or outright promiscuity. Ceremonial agreements and sexual fidelity among certain species have no bearing on that matter.

What exactly is the substance of your argument, Missionary? That God made two genders in all the higher species so that just one of them could have nice church weddings? What is God's purpose for (for example) Buddhist, pagan or humanist weddings — or unceremonied mutual partnership agreements?

And why does he turn out the occasional human hermaphrodite?

zer0 07-15-2008 05:46 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 507188)
Actually, it would be expected. Why wouldn't we be?

SSJ's post went about a mile over your head it appears.

ubs 07-15-2008 06:11 AM

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 507257)
And why does he turn out the occasional human hermaphrodite?

And why did he make us think about stem cells and lead us to the research that would end with hermaphrodite world domination. From the Times of India

Quote:

In a speech titled ‘Should Human Beings Have Sex’, Dr Robert Sparrow told the Australian Medical Students Association convention that females could soon rule the world as hermaphrodites without the biological use of men. ...

To reach this post-sex world, Dr Sparrow said parents wanting the best for their children should start choosing baby girls through IVF because they live longer and have more opportunities in life.
Most of you will not be assimilated.

antix 07-15-2008 12:07 PM

Quote:

ubs wrote (Post 507588)
And why did he make us think about stem cells and lead us to the research that would end with hermaphrodite world domination. From the Times of India



Most of you will not be assimilated.

:o

I do have long hair and am working on a pair of man-boobs. Does that count for anything?

ubs 07-15-2008 01:14 PM

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 507708)
I do have long hair and am working on a pair of man-boobs. Does that count for anything?

antix, you have long hair? That's not very ant like of you.

It's funny. I know I saw an article just a month ago that said men plus stem cells were going to be the new mothers of the universe, but I can't find it anywhere.

Kate 07-15-2008 01:19 PM

Quote:

ubs wrote (Post 507746)
antix, you have long hair? That's not very ant like of you.

He only said that to try to get me to brush his hair, too.

antix 07-15-2008 01:25 PM

Quote:

Kate wrote (Post 507752)
He only said that to try to get me to brush his hair, too.

Dang, I've been found out. So uh... about that hair brushing...

Riddler 07-16-2008 08:45 AM

Quote:

ubs wrote (Post 507588)
And why did he make us think about stem cells and lead us to the research that would end with hermaphrodite world domination.

I don't think that was intentional. That awful business with the snake and the apple was the thin end of a wedge. ;)

JU Mike 07-16-2008 04:18 PM

I had long hair for a while, but I had to cut it recently due to dress codes at work.

antix 07-17-2008 05:20 AM

Quote:

JU Mike wrote (Post 508039)
I had long hair for a while, but I had to cut it recently due to dress codes at work.

Well, then you weren't a true long hair. :bop:

Kate 07-17-2008 05:33 AM

Quote:

JU Mike wrote (Post 508039)
I had long hair for a while, but I had to cut it recently due to dress codes at work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/feat...mullet_150.jpg

skribb 07-17-2008 06:27 AM

Quote:

JU Mike wrote (Post 508039)
I had long hair for a while, but I had to cut it recently due to dress codes at work.

Wow. Either you're really desperate, or you really like your job, or you're really submissive. I wouldn't cut my hair for the life of me!

Professor Chaos 07-17-2008 06:44 AM

Quote:

skribb wrote (Post 508127)
Wow. Either you're really desperate, or you really like your job, or you're really submissive. I wouldn't cut my hair for the life of me!

Or he's really grown-up and mature and realizes that a career is more important than a hairstyle.

Irreligious 07-17-2008 08:14 AM

Hmm. I wonder what I would do if my bosses at work told me I had to cut my hair to keep my job? I suppose if I wasn't confident that I could land another job, I'd have to do as they demanded.

nkb 07-17-2008 11:35 AM

skribb,
You're saying that you would rather die than cut your hair?

Kate 07-17-2008 11:37 AM

http://www.need4sheed.com/images/fabio.gif

JU Mike 07-17-2008 03:49 PM

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 508097)
Well, then you weren't a true long hair. :bop:

I guess not. But my hair wasn't really that long, perhaps medium length. If you watch the TV show Smallville, my hairstyle was very similar to Tom Welling's, except a little longer.

JU Mike 07-17-2008 03:50 PM

Quote:

skribb wrote (Post 508127)
Wow. Either you're really desperate, or you really like your job, or you're really submissive. I wouldn't cut my hair for the life of me!

What's wrong with being submissive?

Kate 07-18-2008 08:07 AM

Nothing.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...Dominatrix.jpg

Professor Chaos 07-18-2008 08:39 AM

fapfapfapfapfap

zer0 07-18-2008 10:17 AM

Feel free to keep posting those Kate hahaha

JU Mike 07-18-2008 04:21 PM

Quote:

Kate wrote (Post 508364)

I knew you would post something like that, and that's why I asked that question? See, I can control your mind Kate, mwahahahaha!

Choobus 07-18-2008 04:27 PM

yes, but she can control you with stiletto heels and plastic tubing.......

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 04:43 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503718)
I bet you put out milk and tuna for stray cats.........

Six have passed my doorstep bistro in as many months, though the fare is less expensive than tuna.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 05:00 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503765)
It's easy to explain away isn't it? It's like it comes naturally. But you know.

Do you not know the difference between "explaining away" and finding an equally likely (or more so) explanation for an event?

The following is not an example of explaining away: "Which is the more likely, that the creator of the universe impregnated an unmarried virgin or that a Palestinian tart lied?" CH

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 05:15 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503819)
Now THAT'S rolling the dice...

I know with mathematical certainty that God* cannot exist because His alleged attributes are contradictory. Neither I nor anyone else can so clearly prove that some generic god does not exist so, I honestly used the "probably" term to cover all gods. Such is not an admission of failure. In this instance, "probably does not exist" means "less likely than the president of the dominant society on Beta Lyrae Seven coming to Earth, on an Eighteenth-century open handcart, to be your school's next prom queen".

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 05:20 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503821)
Think back. What was the source of the "deep and sincere despair" and what exactly did you expect from God? Did you consider the possibility that the situation was such that God was expecting something from you and it was you that wouldn't give in? Because I can tell you, God was right there all along.

I am certain now that, if God existed, He was the author of my despair since that is the way He is said to often work; deprive a person of all dignity and humanity to force him or her to the pit of desperation so they will cry out to their last possible (and least likely) hope for succor. At the time I was completely open for whatever crumbs God would dribble on me.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 07:47 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503908)
Seriously...I thought you guys knew the bible so you could reject it with knowledge, logic, and reason? Y'all don't seem to even understand the first 3 chapters. I seriously doubt you've read them much less any of the rest.

You asked about Adam and Eve. Gen 2:24-cleave; one flesh

See: Mal.2:14-16; Matt.19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12 for further reference which illustrates the following:

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Cor.6:17

AND

Ephesians 4:3-6 (KJV)
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Oneness in unity.


The platypus wasn't created in God's image nor given dominion over the earth. The platypus does not marry, have a relationship with God, or face moral dilemma. The platypus does not sin or need forgiveness, atonement, or salvation.

Come to think of it, this applies to the worm and ant as well. I best include as a disclaimer, all of the animal kingdom, lest you be asking about kangaroos or sea urchins next.

A small problem with this: humans are members of the animal kingdom by sharing all of the indicative animal attributes. Your knowledge of biology is not improving, yet you continue to make biological statements. Jerk.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 10:42 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503940)
If the universe had a beginning, it had to have been caused. I can hear the usual "so what caused God?" This is a faulty line of reasoning since there must have been some uncaused cause, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible or nothing would exist. We know that the universe itself was not uncaused, since it had a beginning. Only something with no beginning can be uncaused. Traditionally the uncaused cause is God. Now that is light years from Christianity but let's start with baby steps, first.

Your first premise is not in evidence. The most that you can say is "Everything whose beginning we have been able to examine, was a rearrangement of pre-existing material". The "creation" of a star, for example, is the condensation of existing material which process causes heat and eventual nuclear fusion, all under the universal law of gravitation.

From this we can infer that, as long as we lack the ability to examine the purported beginning of the universe, we cannot decide if there was a pre-existing state. We cannot even infer that, if the universe really did arise from absolutely nothing, that any agency was required to make it happen because there are no examples that can be tested or observed.

Concerning your second premise, many events at the quantum level are uncaused in the sense that, if an event is caused, its characteristics are determined by that cause and, for some subatomic events there is no determination. This is particularly important for your premise that God might be directing things from behind the curtain, so to speak. The actual statistical characteristics of these events eliminate a plan, a goal or any intelligent design.

In case you meant "self-caused" in your second premise, there is no reason that, if an object could be self-caused at all, it could not do so at any time and cease to exist at some later time, thus being completely finite in all particulars. There is currently no evidence against the possibility of a self-caused object from a single neutrino to a universe full of neutrinos. There is, indeed, evidence that some atoms may appear spontaneously in pairs and remain in the universe if they are separated from their partner by a black hole.

No supernatural realm or entity is shown to be necessary for the beginning of the universe. The tradition of attributing to God actions that do not belong to Him is not logically or scientifically valid.

Do you never tire of being comprehensively wrong, Bovina?

Philboid Studge 08-04-2008 10:52 AM

http://i37.tinypic.com/120rmnk.jpghttp://i37.tinypic.com/120rmnk.jpg

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 11:08 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503982)
SSJ: Don't make me laugh! Multiverses and all that nonsense are elaborate fairy-tales to get around the worry that there really might be God at the beginning of it all. Now, as I think is obvious but I did not state it in so many words, God is a postulate. There must, logically, be an uncaused cause. An infinite regress of causes cannot explain the existence of anything.

I came across a really interesting quote from Hawking recently. He said (I am trusting my source that he really said this): “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”

This is a peculiar mistake of scientists (some of them) to think that if they can describe something with a mathematical equation, they’ve explained it. Hawking at least realizes this is not the case, nor even the right way to approach the question. Atheists simply say you can explain it all without any need for God but, of course, they haven't and can't. Long experience here suggests that at bottom the idea of God is so repugnant, that 40 angels polishing your test tubes and telescopes would not occasion anything other than the response: "we’ll keep trying, thanks very much".

Even I can't do anything more!

Mathematical models are not for explanation of a theory; they are for implementing the predictive capability of a theory. The theory is the explanation. The test of a theory is its ability to make predictions that pan out in real life. It might predict that Hydrogen and Oxygen will combine explosively or it might predict that fossils of a particular new kind might be found in a particular stratum in a particular geographic area.

Your understanding of science is dismal. It is still better than your purported understanding of the Bible that most Christians believe.

Watch where you step; Bovina has been this way recently.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 11:50 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503990)
Correct. You, we, they don't know the mechanism, principles, particles, forces involved. Therefore you ascribe weight to SOME explanations and contempt for others depending upon what exactly?

Identify the criteria by which you accept or reject statements and determine plausibility.

I'm suggesting, that of you're honest with yourself, you will admit a prejudice and bias against a Creator for no other reason than you don't want to even consider what He may want or require of you since you would obviously have been created by Him.

What a wanker.

All your creator can want or require is something it does not have. That lack is not possible for a perfect entity. Either your God wants, wills, plans or designs nothing, or He is not perfect (by your own definition of perfection).

You do not know a great deal about reality yet you prefer, through bias and prior commitment, to ascribe what you do not know to a supernatural universe that you also do not know. By what criteria do you choose a supernatural (necessarily vague, untestable and unfalsifiable) explanation over a plausible, though currently unproven, necessarily concrete, testable and falsifiable natural explanation?

Plausibility is merely the closeness to reality of one possible explanation.

If an event was observed and verified which had a supernatural component, it would still be as welcome as any other natural fact and would be recorded as a natural fact and all relevant theories would have to accommodate it.

Many scientists would rejoice to find a bona-fide supernatural fact as it would open a whole new realm for objective observation, testing and theory-building. Possibly an entire technology, perhaps forthrightly called "Magic" could develop. What a boon to humanity it would be to harness all of those currently ill-employed demons, to power our factories and desalination units and farm equipment, not to mention cheap (free) transportation. It might even become possible to send a return-receipt message to God in place of this one-way situation.

Science, dealing in observation, does not reject any fact out of hand. It will rightly reject any observation, natural or super, that cannot be objectively verified. There is vanishingly small bias in this. If some scientist did discard information due to its supernatural origin, you can be sure that one of the Christian scientists that you all crow about so much, would grab it and make it known worldwide.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 11:56 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503992)
And again I repeat myself....

God has produced the evidence Himself AND made it known within you that He exists. You choose to dismiss and deny the evidence.

I do not present evidence. I point to it.

There is no evidence where you point so you have contributed exactly nil.
Point to the Bible ... nope, nothing valid in there. Perhaps creation is evidence for God ... nope, existence is only evidence of existence; it does not identify its cause, if any.

You are a net loss here, jerk. Shuffle off now, before you make Jesus appear even more of a clown for choosing you as a messenger.

Choobus 08-04-2008 12:00 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503992)
I do not present evidence. I point to it.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...9/retard-1.jpg

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:02 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503993)
oh well, if you put it like that then you must be right.....

How does a cosmological argument for the existence of god end up with jesus? These are two separate belief systems and you can try to bridge that gap however you like, but it's still there.

Could it be that both the creator of the universe and Jesus were created by an itinerant uber-gott as the byproduct of a one-night-stand, with a slightly run-down, but once spiffy hyper-goddess, in this sleazy rural corner of the ultraverse?

Gap filled!

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:08 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503995)
No kidding...

The only Gap argument is "The Scientist of the Gaps" who fills the unknown with "Amazing Stories of the Scientifically Fantastical!"

It's nothing more than putty, glue, and duct tape.

Happily, putty, glue and duct tape are all real and they are all effective. You would rather fill the gap with an invisible, immaterial, ineffective, inconceivable and noxious fantastic conceptual entity.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:11 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504003)
The evidence in part is creation itself which you claim is explained by scientific theories as to origin. I point to the evidence God has provided and you explain it away.

Existence is only evidence of existence, it does not identify its causes.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:17 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 504020)
A Brain scan?

With a large hammer?

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:20 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504049)
??? How so? There is a certain body of evidence for Christianity, which unlike any other religion grounds its belief in an historical event. This body of evidence can be argued, poked, prodded and discussed. The fact that there are unbelievers out there is suggestive that the evidence won't convince everyone. The presence of believers suggest that it does convince some.


ADT-- You have revealed to me my purpose in life. I was put on this earth to be your straight man (woman)! :P

... and it grounds the historical event in a belief.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 12:37 PM

Quote:

Barney wrote (Post 504071)
The constant inclusion of theist scientists as a prop for creation and God is something, as Dawkins says, that really the theists ought to be quiet about.

The 19th century scientists were either working pre-darwin and hadnt access to the facts or were living in a age where you simply had to be a theist or face real punishment and ostrication.

Several studies including 1300+ of the royal fellows of science showed 9% as being theist.Other studies by theists showed a list of six nobel prize winning beliver-scientists. Six out of several hundred. 2% at the most by their own research.

These are not figures to proclaim. This is stuff to be embarressed about. People of reason and measurement dont beleive in the magic man.

I am embarrassed that so many (2% or 6%) scientists permit their brains to be damaged by a whole irrational belief set. You just know that a good scientist who is also Christian (or any other religion that makes scientific claims) must realize the incompatibility involved and deliberately filter his or her faith out of the equations.

It is like the Christian Texas oil-man who thinks the world is 4+Billion years old when drilling for oil and that it is 6000 years old at all other times.

Victus 08-04-2008 12:39 PM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote (Post 512204)
Could it be that both the creator of the universe and Jesus were created by an itinerant uber-gott as the byproduct of a one-night-stand, with a slightly run-down, but once spiffy hyper-goddess, in this sleazy rural corner of the ultraverse?

Gap filled!

That's what she said.

Choobus 08-04-2008 12:45 PM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote (Post 512209)
I am embarrassed that so many (2% or 6%) scientists permit their brains to be damaged by a whole irrational belief set. You just know that a good scientist who is also Christian (or any other religion that makes scientific claims) must realize the incompatibility involved and deliberately filter his or her faith out of the equations.

It is like the Christian Texas oil-man who thinks the world is 4+Billion years old when drilling for oil and that it is 6000 years old at all other times.

One thing I can tell you about theist scientists is that their faith never shows up in their work. Astronomers do not posit theories of 6000 year old asteroid fields, and if they did they would be laughed out of town, and all the other astronomers would make fun of them. The fact is, scientists who believe in god leave their jeebus at home when they go to work. Those who don't don't have a problem, because they don't have jobs.

nkb 08-04-2008 02:57 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 512211)
One thing I can tell you about theist scientists is that their faith never shows up in their work. Astronomers do not posit theories of 6000 year old asteroid fields, and if they did they would be laughed out of town, and all the other astronomers would make fun of them. The fact is, scientists who believe in god leave their jeebus at home when they go to work. Those who don't don't have a problem, because they don't have jobs.

Or work at the Discovery Institute.

But then, calling them scientists is a stretch.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 05:53 PM

Quote:

VladTheImpaler wrote (Post 504081)

Excellent video!

Gives ample support for the dual notions, that one can sift the Bible for good and valuable ideas while eliminating the parts created for human spin and power agendas; the Bible was physically written by humans with, at most, the tiniest subtle dusting of influence by some kind of spirit.

In other words, the Bible might contain some words that God wants us to know and understand, but it is certainly not the "Word of God", complete and inerrant.

Bless those honest theologians who admit that earthly human desires are the substance of so much of the Bible.

Damn the clergy and the powerful who continue to teach children and others that the Bible is literal as if written by God Himself.

Thanks Vlad, good catch!

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 06:11 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504082)
Again. If the evidence is persuasive that Jesus is who he said he is, he is God and all further discussion is merely an interesting diversion.

That might be true unless, for example, Zeus is who he says he is, in which case, Jesus takes a decidedly subordinate young upstart position. Even Mithras, if he is who he says he is, has seniority over Jesus.

Your oft-repeated "IF" still lacks merit, Bovina.

If I am who I say I am then all of my words are inspired and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

A failed condition yields a failed consequent. Jesus is thus not shown to be God or anything else.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 06:21 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504111)
This is so stupid it isn't even amusing. First of all, Christ was seen by many hundreds of people after his resurrection. Some of them are even named by Paul in one of his letters. It was not just the "12" who saw him. Next, you don't have to pay the church a single penny. Salvation is free and it is yours for the asking.

I doubt that I will bother any further with you. This is kid's stuff. When you grow up, there are lots of people who will help you learn what the actual claims of Christianity are.

Yeah, be sure you look up the Biblical references to tithing and the "widow's mite" in your quest for the actual claims of Christianity.

"God may be great, but He just can't handle money." Carlin

Paul, the early spreader of hearsay, never met Jesus either. His testimony concerning the testimony of other people just bears no weight.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 06:32 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 504134)
Lily, if the events depicted in the New Testament are true and so many learned folk approach it as historical, why is Christianity a religion and not, you know, just plain ol' history?

Related question: if there was significant factual basis, wouldn't it be the science of Christ and not the religion of Christianity. Incidentally, wouldn't the textbook be revised at least every century or so to accommodate the influx of new facts?

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 06:47 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504161)
Actually He does. He says He created male and female to procreate and fill the earth. Science doesn't have a clue how it happened.

They've got some stories cooking, now. But they don't have a clue.

"He created..." is not even a guess at HOW genderless creatures evolved gender, non-randomly, for no other reason than that doing so improved their survivability. If you knew even a jot of biology this would be much clearer and your opinions less ignorant. All of modern Biology is predicated on goal-free, undirected evolution.

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 06:49 PM

Quote:

Barney wrote (Post 504193)
There are chariot wrecks under the red sea.
So an egyptian fleet sank there.
So..................

...........well umm, thats it.

Or a large cargo ship carrying chariots sank ...

Sternwallow 08-04-2008 07:03 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504372)
You really believe intelligence "evolved"? You tell me that principles of physics just simply exist? How is selection natural and unguided across life forms with no sets of instructions? They evolved for survival but we see extinction and degeneration of species? Where are the "super-unkillables" that should have evolved to such strength and numbers that they are unstoppable as the fittest of the fit?

Unintelligent questions that have, even so, been answered thousands, if not hundreds of times.

If the aggregate intelligence of one generation is slightly different than its parent generation and if intelligence is inherited and if intelligence improves species survivability, then intelligence will (has) evolve(d) from just smart enough to steer in the direction of food and away from signs of danger, to modern intellects and beyond. Evolution has not stopped for any living species.

The principles of physics do exist and, no, they do not suggest or imply anything about their origin. Like mathematics, they, in a corresponding form, might be co-existent with God and manifest in the universe without being created, just as mathematics were.

Bah, enough of this pounding sand down a rat-hole, willfully ignorant jerk.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 05:27 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504373)
Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas had been considered mythical persons for centuries. They've found evidence proving they're historical persons. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple which took place in 70 CE. We know for a fact that churches were begun prior to 70CE in Athioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessolonica, and Rome as mentioned in the NT. We have Roman rulers mentioned by name.

So, you write a letter saying what a great war hero your grandfather was and that he received a personal commendation from Harry Truman. In a hundred years, the confirmed administration of Harry Truman adds exactly what credibility to your grandfather's good record? He might have been a traitorous deserter, but Harry Truman existed so your written crap must be true, right?

"Gone with the Wind" is an historical document because almost everything depicted in it is completely accurate about the people and places of the civil war. Anyone not recorded in the annals of that time must be true because the rest of the book is.

The way that confidence games ("cons") work is to meld a dollop of truth into the false story. Then the gullible fool believes it because it "makes sense" and some of it can be verified.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 05:29 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504374)
I'm dismissing no evidence of science. None. Only the interpretive hypothetical opinions pertaining to cause.

You are claiming that even the science comes from your farcical being.

Single Serving Jack 08-05-2008 06:19 AM

Is the plank even around anymore? He seemed to vanish right after I brought up sexual dimorphism. Pfft.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:14 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504376)
Sure...Like Jericho and Nineveh were considered by the Enlightenment as myths that proved the bible wrong. The problem is they found them both in the 1800's.

You do love selective reading, don't you. Jericho was discovered and it had been ruined and abandoned more than a hundred years before Joshua is supposed to have arrived. All the best myths have a sprinkling of incidental truths just to make them believable. Similarly, Nazareth is a real place, but in Jesus' time it was a necropolis (grave city) that no Jew would think of living anywhere near. Similarly, Ai, supposedly completely destroyed and desolated forever in the Bible story, wasn't supposed to be discoverable, has been discovered and is a vibrant city/village with a substantial population.

Saying that the Bible is a reliable historical document is not only incorrect, it would not help the credibility of the Bible if it were accurate.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:29 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504383)
I agree the "how" is likely unanswerable since we're talking about specific mechanisms we can't observe or recreate.

The real question is "who and why" OR if a who and why exists. You claim that all this is caused by some explainable phenomena even though it can't be explained as to the origin of the original energy, matter, forces, principles, etc. that somehow set an unguided chain reaction of events in motion culminating in the universe, life, and intelligence.

I say that the very idea is preposterous and fantastically ignorant without even considering the insurmountable statistical odds of such an occurrence.

You contaminate the question immediately by asking "who" did something. You presume, without reason that everything was done by someone.

When you are pinned down as to just who that someone is for the creation of the universe, the best that you and your mental cohorts can suggest is
"the universe was created by that being who was capable of creating a universe." You seem to actually think that you have an answer and that you have proven the eternal existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

You repeat that science's current inability to explain the origin of the universe defaults to God.

I have a bag containing 100 pennies. Now, you tell me, who put them in the bag. I don't know who put them there and neither you nor I can find out (we do know that it was done long ago due to the dates on the coins) so it must have been God, right?

To quote a contemporary philosopher: "the very idea is preposterous and fantastically ignorant".

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:35 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504515)
While the exact how is unknown, the who and why have been made known. Why would it be arrogant to agree with the Creator?

It is arrogant to say that you agree with the Creator. Stupidly arrogant if the Creator does not exist and pridefully arrogant, implying that you know fundamentally unknowable things about Him, if He does.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:39 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504516)
Not at all. Born again believers know God and have a relationship with Him. His word answers all the questions of His singular existence, His intentions, and His edicts. There's no faith involved in knowing truth or what's been revealed.

Faith is a trust placed for the future based upon the knowledge of His character, personal relationship, and His interaction with mankind throughout history.

Then faith is a trust based on wishful dreams for His character, personal subjective unverifiable internal experience and the effects these dreams have had on mankind.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:44 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504517)
What's to know? The entire story line by line of how rocks, minerals, gasses, and chemicals sprang to life and became intelligent and aware?

Who now build cities and love? From a big bang? You're deceiving only yourself.

What's to know, is the scientific method and logic. You do not have it yet you pontificate on scientific issues, wanker.

If you spend some 13.6 Billion years contemplating your navel, pretty soon, you, too, will find yourself loving and building cities.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:55 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504522)
Does it mean that the fittest survive? That sounds reasonable, but then again, I'm no evolutionary biologist. It could mean, in scientific terms, that the most intelligent organisms try to kill each other for Nike's or a bag of coke.

It could also imply that some apes could be liars or unfaithful. But I'm not sure.

As expected, you are exactly wrong on all counts. I am not going to feed you this central information that forms the basis for all of modern biology. I will merely accept your admission that you know squat and I will remind you of your willful ignorance whenever you make a statement about anything in biology, including abiogenesis, jerk.

Incidentally, you just admitted that apes with no soul are still bound by morality since you say that they can commit sins, and therefore have a relationship with God that can be damaged. This helps your case because humans are apes. It harms your case because it shows souls are not necessary for a relationship with God.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504523)
I just draw a line between fact and fiction is all, Mog.

Science offers up a great deal of accurate information for which they have proven supporting facts and evidence. That doesn't mean that everything they spit out is truth. I only have problems with the sci-fi stories they make up and can't support but that some people take off running with them like banners of truth. They aren't accurate or factual explanations...They're just opinions and speculations, Mog

You do see that, don't you?

In science, opinions, guesses and speculations are so labeled and the accurate information that explains known facts are called theories just so there is no confusion. You could learn the difference between fiction and speculation (hypothesis) before you embarrass yourself even more, jerk.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 09:15 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504783)
The only failures are of comprehension. For some people, that could involve dozens per sentence. It depends on which "Official Atheist List of Biblical Contradictions" you draw your comprehension failures from.

After all, God can't beat iron chariots, right?

It is right if God* said so just as God* created all evil if He admitted His guilt for doing so.

Sternwallow 08-05-2008 09:23 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 506192)
As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

Wanker


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.