Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#614526 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What are U talking about? U just came in with nothing to add. Please, head back down the hole to Wonderland until U can think of something. I'm merely looking to see what some of the smarties have to say about things that are still in question. And there are parts of E.T. and B.B.T. aren't figured out. And I'm tired of folks on here trying to testify what the truth is, claiming to have advanced knowledge beyond anyone else like they're "the chosen one" or something. When those people are presented with things that may alter in some way their outlook about what they believed to be so true, they flare their nostrils, gnash their teeth, and start attacking with insults.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when people ask you to accept something as the absolute truth when there is absolutely no proof for what they are claiming?

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#614527 Apr 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Erm, not so much.
You're making the classic error of assuming that because something happens, it's "driven", and that therefore there must be a "driver".
It's the old C/ID* myopia.
Evolution is a function of life, and all things living have evolved.
'Cos if they hadn't, they'd be dead.
Just like 99% of all the species who ever were.
You need a sense of scale.
__________
*Creation/Intelligent Design.
Why should living things want to live? Are you suggesting that every living thing is self aware, recognising the difference between life and non-life and choosing life? Is there some sense of inertia? Reactions occur in cell organelles and the hence the complusion is to keep ensuring that reactions keep occurring in cell organelles? The living somehow recognised its superiority over the non-living, and strove to replicate itself?

There has to be some driver, even if it isn't Allah. If something happens once off, it is a coincidence, an accident. But if it happens consistently, and consistently in the same way, there is something driving it. If it is not God, then it is the self awareness and deliberate choice of the single celled life to choose life over non-life, to function as opposed to not function, to maintain its current state, as opposed to allow itself to die.

The single cell organism has no brain. It has no self awareness. So is it simply reflexive reactions? Is it all mass and energy balances? Is the consciousness of beings, nothing but an intricate system of physical laws? Do cell organelles all function by some kind of symbiosis? If one organelle performs one action, the others respond "appropriately", all based on chemistry and physical laws? A common desire, a common conspiracy to evade and dominate over non-life?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#614528 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What are U talking about? U just came in with nothing to add. Please, head back down the hole to Wonderland until U can think of something. I'm merely looking to see what some of the smarties have to say about things that are still in question. And there are parts of E.T. and B.B.T. aren't figured out. And I'm tired of folks on here trying to testify what the truth is, claiming to have advanced knowledge beyond anyone else like they're "the chosen one" or something. When those people are presented with things that may alter in some way their outlook about what they believed to be so true, they flare their nostrils, gnash their teeth, and start attacking with insults.
I've been here for years and once again, what difference does it make to you whether they believe in the god myth or not? Are you a god believer?

Do you think man was fashioned from mud and a woman from a rib?

I'll need an answer to those questions before I regard you as any different from the others.

Or you can ignore me and let me mock you with impunity. Some choose that path, for a little while.
James Bond OO7

Anonymous Proxy

#614529 Apr 9, 2013
Let me understand God's world and will try to do some expermiments on ownself......thereafter i may be able to prove there's a god

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#614530 Apr 9, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should living things want to live? Are you suggesting that every living thing is self aware, recognising the difference between life and non-life and choosing life? Is there some sense of inertia? Reactions occur in cell organelles and the hence the complusion is to keep ensuring that reactions keep occurring in cell organelles? The living somehow recognised its superiority over the non-living, and strove to replicate itself?
There has to be some driver, even if it isn't Allah. If something happens once off, it is a coincidence, an accident. But if it happens consistently, and consistently in the same way, there is something driving it. If it is not God, then it is the self awareness and deliberate choice of the single celled life to choose life over non-life, to function as opposed to not function, to maintain its current state, as opposed to allow itself to die.
The single cell organism has no brain. It has no self awareness. So is it simply reflexive reactions? Is it all mass and energy balances? Is the consciousness of beings, nothing but an intricate system of physical laws? Do cell organelles all function by some kind of symbiosis? If one organelle performs one action, the others respond "appropriately", all based on chemistry and physical laws? A common desire, a common conspiracy to evade and dominate over non-life?
There ya go again.

Every living thing wants to live, because if its ancestors hadn't, it'd never have been born.

You're underthinking and overanalysing.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614531 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
There U go again talking about what U think U are sure of. If U believe that something comes from nothing, then it is U who has the delusions of nonsense. Since there are many theories that U're up on and none of them "invoke" a starting driving force we know as a divine being, then which of them states that something comes spontaneously from nothing and is in fact the truth?
When did I say I was sure? I said that there are several theories backed by evidence. Evidence is something you don't have. You have a god of the gaps.

And "something from nothing," with regards to the big bang, is something of a misnomer. "Prior to the big bang," (in quotes because 'prior to' doesn't really make much sense before t=0), the "nothing" would have been a vacuum of negative energy. In this environment particles can pop in and out of "existence." According to quantum mechanics, there really is no such thing as empty space - and in this scenario a particle could have popped in, without violating the law of conservation because they are "lent" energy, free to create a big bang.

Now, provide evidence for a first mover. Poking holes in scientific theory doesn't count. Again, your position needs to stand on it's own.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614532 Apr 9, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Unfulfilled prophecies are always allegorical.
Duh.
Aha. Your right. Sneaky.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614533 Apr 9, 2013
You're

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614534 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't have any proof of God that I can show U and think that it would be satisfactory to your kind. Life demands an able body and mind in order to come into existence. How can it happen on its own? I don't see how people can be so stubborn to open their eyes to the obvious! I don't see why evolutionists require a sign from God before they can realize He exists? If U ignore the obvious things around U everyday, then how can U be satisfied with any "sign"? I believe if U found out that God is definitely real, U would still curse His being and deny Him to His face because that is most likely who U are and for whatever reason just hate God anyway.
I hate something that I don't believe in? Funny how religious people always resort to that one. Like, "oh, they just hate the idea that there's an old bearded sky daddy up there looking out for them, making plans for them, and saving a space in heaven for them. What a terrible thought!"

That's funny.

The rest of your post is a straight up appeal to ignorance. You can't imagine how it could have happened any other way, so goddidit. That type of argument only carries weight with people who are already indoctrinated.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614535 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U can't be this......never mind! Evolution REQUIRES meaning. According to ET any mutation is meant to do something. For better or for worse. Why would U think that no meaning is needed in the process. Whatever steps are taken through evolution, it means something whether Darwin's finches were meant to grow beaks efficient for cracking certain seeds or whether apes evolved into sophisticated man. If these things were not MEANT to happen, they would not have happen. It is just thick-headed individuals that refuse to realize this. It's not hard but some seem to make it so!
You are absolutely wrong. Laughably wrong. I'm starting to suspect you're a poe.

Mutations are not "meant" to work. Evolution does not "require meaning." And evolution works through several different mechanisms, not just mutation. Mutations are random. Sometimes, a mutation will confer an advantage, in which case it might get selected for and be passed down, becoming an adaptation. If it does not confer an advantage, it will get selected out. Sometimes, adaptations that have been selected for will become a disadvantage due to a changing environment, and that too will be selected out. None of this requires any purpose beyond a need to adapt to the environment to survive and pass on genes. They are only "meant to happen" insofar as the fact that certain adaptations will confer greater survivability - but a different, but just as effective, adaptation might have worked just as well in a given situation.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614536 Apr 9, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
See what you get for believing?
A lot of words. No substance. You should have taken a picture.
"Hey God", flash, "Gotcha".
Now go sit between the Alien and Sasquatch believers.
OK, bring in that Santa dude.
Psh. What? He's speaking pure, unadulterated wisdom. You just don't want to see the truth.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#614537 Apr 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>There ya go again.
Every living thing wants to live, because if its ancestors hadn't, it'd never have been born.
You're underthinking and overanalysing.
Why did its ancestors want to live? Surely you believe life had a beginning. Life wasn't always there. It developed in pools that happened to possess the right building blocks for life. Life formed largely by accident, with odds being somewhat realistic considering the vastness of opportunity.

And why should a single cell organism "want" to live? So you think that a single celled organism is self aware? Possessing desires? Like how you and I constantly choose life over death, does a single celled organism do the same in the same way?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614538 Apr 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Erm, not so much.
You're making the classic error of assuming that because something happens, it's "driven", and that therefore there must be a "driver".
It's the old C/ID* myopia.
Evolution is a function of life, and all things living have evolved.
'Cos if they hadn't, they'd be dead.
Just like 99% of all the species who ever were.
You need a sense of scale.
__________
*Creation/Intelligent Design.
It's a common error. I remember reading somewhere that humans in general have a tenancy to over infer agency, a trait which may have been a survival benefit in the past. Is that the wind blowing, or did a tiger just rustle the bush? So the tendency too assume agency behind everything may have been passed down for that reason. Or perhaps it's hogwash. It's an interesting idea, anyway.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614539 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What are U talking about? U just came in with nothing to add. Please, head back down the hole to Wonderland until U can think of something. I'm merely looking to see what some of the smarties have to say about things that are still in question. And there are parts of E.T. and B.B.T. aren't figured out. And I'm tired of folks on here trying to testify what the truth is, claiming to have advanced knowledge beyond anyone else like they're "the chosen one" or something. When those people are presented with things that may alter in some way their outlook about what they believed to be so true, they flare their nostrils, gnash their teeth, and start attacking with insults.
Haha. Yeah. The ones who provide evidence for their claims are arrogant, and you, the one who just "knows god" with no evidence is perfectly humble.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#614540 Apr 9, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should living things want to live? Are you suggesting that every living thing is self aware, recognising the difference between life and non-life and choosing life? Is there some sense of inertia? Reactions occur in cell organelles and the hence the complusion is to keep ensuring that reactions keep occurring in cell organelles? The living somehow recognised its superiority over the non-living, and strove to replicate itself?
There has to be some driver, even if it isn't Allah. If something happens once off, it is a coincidence, an accident. But if it happens consistently, and consistently in the same way, there is something driving it. If it is not God, then it is the self awareness and deliberate choice of the single celled life to choose life over non-life, to function as opposed to not function, to maintain its current state, as opposed to allow itself to die.
The single cell organism has no brain. It has no self awareness. So is it simply reflexive reactions? Is it all mass and energy balances? Is the consciousness of beings, nothing but an intricate system of physical laws? Do cell organelles all function by some kind of symbiosis? If one organelle performs one action, the others respond "appropriately", all based on chemistry and physical laws? A common desire, a common conspiracy to evade and dominate over non-life?
Lots of words, there. Missing something though.
Greens - tuf

Australia

#614541 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely wrong. Laughably wrong. I'm starting to suspect you're a poe.
Mutations are not "meant" to work. Evolution does not "require meaning." And evolution works through several different mechanisms, not just mutation. Mutations are random. Sometimes, a mutation will confer an advantage, in which case it might get selected for and be passed down, becoming an adaptation. If it does not confer an advantage, it will get selected out. Sometimes, adaptations that have been selected for will become a disadvantage due to a changing environment, and that too will be selected out. None of this requires any purpose beyond a need to adapt to the environment to survive and pass on genes. They are only "meant to happen" insofar as the fact that certain adaptations will confer greater survivability - but a different, but just as effective, adaptation might have worked just as well in a given situation.
So what you are saying is that mutations take place for the sole purpose of greater survivability . Why would something that came from "nothing" feel the need to "survive"?
How would it know what advantage / disadvantage it would achieve if Evolution has no meaning ?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#614542 Apr 9, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a fraud and have no understanding in mutations.
Mutations are not progressive, dip-chit!
Most aren't.

Some are.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614543 Apr 9, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>Hiya Clementine!!!!!!
yh

coz

(what else does she write?)

sweeeeeetie!!!!!!!!!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614544 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Your response was ignorant. If someone has a different idea about what god may or may not be, your suggestion is that god has "shown himself to them" but that they don't know it yet - which basically means that you think they will be a christian one day. It's like to you, there are either christians or future christians.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that I think God is a very subtle sumbitch. He could very easily show Himself to someone, Christian or not, and that someone might not even know it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614545 Apr 9, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never met that kind of atheist, introduce me to one.
Of you've never met an atheist that doesn't believe in the existence of any god, you've never met an atheist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 5 min Naked Truth from ... 39,609
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 11 min Gaza lives 121,333
concerned 19 min concerned22639 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min oxbow 574,070
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min Naked Truth from ... 608,194
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 47 min macumazahn 442,089
Israel End is Near 49 min AussieBobby 14
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr RADEKT 268,883
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 5 hr yes lover 162
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 11 hr Coco 203
More from around the web