|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
You can't define god into existence.
I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking (that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else would be overwhelming proof of God's existence. It's not the proof of God's existence we need to look for. There can't be proof, per se. Jesus said, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us in the face. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Perfect example of the scary unthinking refuge taken by the religious. It is
not benign because it's part of the greatest effort to control people ever invented. It's sub-charters are behind the most horrific acts in history. Can't see the forest for the trees? Yeah, okay. RB We're only talking about the existence of God here, Bob. We're not defending the religious. You're comparing apples and oranges. I hate the religious, and as you can see, I believe in God. But here's the thing: the religious don't believe in God. If they did, they would live as if there was a God. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
We're only talking about the existence of God here, Bob. We're not defending
the religious. The creation of a diety invites religion, just as hate invites racism. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
But here's the thing: the religious don't
believe in God. If they did, they would live as if there was a God. Ed, you're making braod, sweeping generalities just like BS does....there are plenty of religious people that believe in God and act in a Godlike manner...Mother Theresa comes to mind as the first...Mahatma Ghandi secondly, and the Dali Lama third....and there are many more....there are expceptions everywhere...it is not religion that is badm it is what mankind does with it that is bad.... -- katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
it is not religion that is badm it is what mankind
does with it that is bad.... Since faith promotes ignorance, it's more than likely that it will turn out badly most of the time...and so it has. I have quite a few friends who are agnostic and athiest and they are the most peaceful people ever. Strange that I can't say the same for my friends who have "faith." RB RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
The creation of a diety invites religion, just as hate invites racism.
RB You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Ed, you're making braod, sweeping generalities just like BS does....there are
plenty of religious people that believe in God and act in a Godlike manner...Mother Theresa comes to mind as the first...Mahatma Ghandi secondly, and the Dali Lama third....and there are many more....there are expceptions everywhere...it is not religion that is badm it is what mankind does with it that is bad.... Granted. Just as a gun is only a piece of metal, and poison is only a powder. Religion is a tool for getting closer to God. That mankind often does not use it for that end is not the fault of a religious system. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Since faith promotes ignorance, it's more than likely that it will turn out
badly most of the time...and so it has. I have quite a few friends who are agnostic and athiest and they are the most peaceful people ever. Strange that can't say the same for my friends who have "faith." I know where you're coming from, Bob. But you're fabricating reasons. You don't care if there is or is not a God. So what? You will live how you believe, regardless of what you profess. There either will be "God" or there won't be regardless what anyone says they believe. Besides, I'm a monist. So to me, you saying you don't believe in God is just that aspect of God that tries to deny himself to maintain the illusion of creation. That's why I don't care what you say you believe or don't believe. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
The creation of a diety invites religion, just as hate invites racism.
RB You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The baby needs to be aborted. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
That's why I don't care what you
say you believe or don't believe. As pointed out, this is the very essense of closed mindedness. I NEVER said that I don't believe in god. I just think "god" is HIGHLY unlikely. One of us is open minded...and it isn't you. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
As pointed out, this is the very essense of closed mindedness. I NEVER said
that I don't believe in god. I just think "god" is HIGHLY unlikely. One of us is open minded...and it isn't you. I see. You need to assert your open-mindedness, and the only way you can do that is to believe that I am close-minded but you are not. And here I thought we were talking about God. Silly me. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
katysails wrote:
Wally asked: the ultimate missing-the-forest-for-the-trees, yes/no? No he didn't - Ed did. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
EdGordonRN wrote:
You can't define god into existence. I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking (that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else would be overwhelming proof of God's existence. IF there is a god, then some arbitrary bit of 'evidence' would prove he exists?!? Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the existence of god. We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us in the face. Do you know what "proof" means? -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the existence of god. Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
How many generations did this small development take?
How old is the planet? More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track projection. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god? -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in
god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not made them change their minds? Uh, yeah. I've run into a couple over the years. The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the existence of god. From my perspective they're practically a photograph of God. Do you know what "proof" means? No, tell me. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track
projection. Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists. However, after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for that argument. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
In your case, you've not evolved, so I can see your point.
"EdGordonRN" wrote in message ... More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track projection. Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists. However, after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for that argument. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god? If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation ..... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. I've considered all the available options. Only one makes sense. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god? If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation ..... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. I've considered all the available options. Only one makes sense. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Some UFO buffs think that intergalactic aliens brought humans to earth,
and nurtured them while they were developing from primitave savages to an "enlightened " human society. I think enlightnement may have run out with the death of Socrates, however. Now the intergalactic aliens are checking us out to see if their experiment went awry. .."Donal" wrote in message ... "Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god? If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. I've considered all the available options. Only one makes sense. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Are you actually claiming that God must exist because evolution isn't possible.
That's pretty lame. And while you might have made an interesting claim that humans couldn't evolve in the rather narrow time period they seem to have, you're claiming that the full age of the Earth is not sufficient. Its pretty clear that there's been plenty of time. Mammals have had roughly 100,000,000 generations to evolve. That's a real long time - we've only had a 100 generations since Biblical times. And mammals have only been around for the last few percent of the timeline. I find it odd that some people try to use "science" to prove the existence of God. Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith. Arguing for the existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the possibility that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist. If you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is justified. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god? If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. I've considered all the available options. Only one makes sense. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. Why does it become an inescapable conclusion? The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Are the types of radiation whose effects we have studied the same as the type that they suggest caused mutations in the past? Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. Fascinating. I've considered all the available options. What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by any one of the available options? Only one makes sense. The god hypothesis might be a good way of attempting to explain how the universe came about, but without evidence to show that god actually exists, it remains a hypothesis. I could hypothesise that it was made by hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings, but people that don't choose to support my hypothesis will have a hard time believing me if I don't show them some evidence. I don't see why the god hypothesis should be treated any differently. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Which option do you believe in? None of the above. I'm partial to evidence for the idea that expansion of the universe is accelerating. Isn't that covered by No. 3? If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum energy". Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote: The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Says who, God? Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal
Children are born every day with altered hands. Some even have thumbs that are not properly opposable. Imagine if one of those children were considered to be prime breeding material for all the women in the tribe. Now wouldn't that thumbless mutation spread rapidly? Please think about it. Cheers Donal wrote: "Wally" wrote in message ... Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the existence of god. Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb. Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working thumb?". How many generations did this small development take? How old is the planet? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Wally wrote: EdGordonRN wrote: You can't define god into existence. I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking (that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else would be overwhelming proof of God's existence. IF there is a god, then some arbitrary bit of 'evidence' would prove he exists?!? Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the existence of god. Are you saying God copied plants DNA? Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
However,
we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation ..... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Not true, we have no way presently to plot mutation via changes in solar radiation, let alone millions of years ago. And there's tons of evidence that the planet's radiation curves changed dramatically many times. Try again. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 20 May 2004 15:26:18 GMT, (Bobsprit) said: I was raised by a scientific family who taught me the rules of nature 1st and morality second. A telling admission. Not to mention that he failed both courses...... PDW |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Bob.... please!! "the rules of nature" !!!???
....and may I take the time to point out that your statement would indicate you place morals [ethics?] secondary to the laws of natural selection and base survival instincts. That's not a good thing Bob. CM "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right | and wrong. | | One of my very closest friends is a detective here in NY. If you think people | have an inate understanding of morality and ethics, you are badly mistaken. | We don't need religion to teach right from wrong, anymore than we need to bring | back Greek mythology. | I was raised by a scientific family who taught me the rules of nature 1st and | morality second. | | RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Navigator" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Some of my best friends are religious. Uh oh! That sounds like "Some of my best friends are black"!!!! Are you a racist? Probably! I suspect that we all are.... to a certain extent. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. Why does it become an inescapable conclusion? Ask yourself the questions. The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Are the types of radiation whose effects we have studied the same as the type that they suggest caused mutations in the past? Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet. Fascinating. I've considered all the available options. What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by any one of the available options? Nothing! I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific viewpoint. I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations. Do you have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!! Only one makes sense. The god hypothesis might be a good way of attempting to explain how the universe came about, but without evidence to show that god actually exists, it remains a hypothesis. I could hypothesise that it was made by hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings, but people that don't choose to support my hypothesis will have a hard time believing me if I don't show them some evidence. I don't see why the god hypothesis should be treated any differently. You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you? I bet that you find it much easier to criticise than to formulate a real opinion. If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put forward your own beliefs. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... However, we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species. Not true, we have no way presently to plot mutation via changes in solar radiation, let alone millions of years ago. And there's tons of evidence that the planet's radiation curves changed dramatically many times. Try again. Don't be silly! We *have* seen the results of radiation induced mutations .... and they weren't pretty. They did not produce a single beneficial mutation!!! .... NOT one!!! Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be any different from mutations caused by solar radiation. Try again!!! Nuclear radiation has been proven to be fatal to mankind. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Navigator" wrote in message ... If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum energy". Allright! I'll bite! Tell us about vacuum energy? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an inescapable conclusion. Why does it become an inescapable conclusion? Ask yourself the questions. You asserted that it was an inescapable conclusion, and I'm asking you to explain why you think that. I asked myself the questions years ago, and didn't come to the same conclusion that you did. The fact that you seem to think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant. I've considered all the available options. What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by any one of the available options? Nothing! So, what you're effectively saying is that there are a bunch of ideas, we have no idea if any of them are correct, so we'll just pick one anyway. I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific viewpoint. You're kidding! I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations. Do you have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!! Of course not! What a preposterous notion! You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you? See above. See below. I bet that you find it much easier to criticise ... I haven't criticised - I've stated my opinion and I've questioned some of the reasoning presented here. You don't seem to have responded to very many of my comments. Why not? ... than to formulate a real opinion. What, exactly, is a "real opinion", Donal? If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put forward your own beliefs. I already have. The fact that you have responded to virtually none of my questions in earlier posts in this thread leaves me wondering if you even bothered to read them. I already stated that I don't think we humans have very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a position to go making proclamations about its origins. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be any different from mutations caused by solar radiation. Try again!!! Nuclear radiation has been proven to be fatal to mankind. "not likely"?? What's that in terms of percentage chance? Please cite learned references to support your response. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Weeeeeeeeeellll energy and matter are the same thing right? So if
there's mass (=energy) that keeps us orbiting the galaxy without enough observed mass to create the needed gravity field it follws there there must be someting like a dark matter (or energy) in the vaccum we that we cannot see. All the arguments follow from that. If you like, the mass/energy exists in another dimension which only weakly interacts with our universe. Put yet another way, only when the gravitation field is low do the effects of the other 'force' becomes visible. Cheers Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum energy". Allright! I'll bite! Tell us about vacuum energy? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal
check these out: http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html Cheers Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum energy". Allright! I'll bite! Tell us about vacuum energy? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
We *have* seen the results of radiation induced mutations .... and they
weren't pretty. Wrong again, Donal. Our "induced" radiation is quite different. Again, We have NO way of plotting specfic effects of subtle changes in radiation over millions of years. RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com