Prove there's a god.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#766042 Aug 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to not avail yourself of the discount, same as he is.
Or free to pursue it, same as he is.
Or free to eat somewhere else, same as he is.
Dear Buck:

Convincing liberals of the superiority of freedom is an insurmountable task.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

Your friend,
Thomas Sowell

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#766043 Aug 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It's neither working nor a model. He just showed different levels of eye complexity and said, "Then you get this, then you get this..." Little Dick Dawkins' demonstration is of no use in providing a Darwinian pathway for assembly of the vertebrate eye.
But if that's as good as you got, then go with it.
How many non-theist biologists can you find that agree with that? You can check here to start:
https://www.google.com.mx/search...

Why do suppose that those who reject the idea that the eve evolved naturally are overwhelmingly believers in gods? Do you think that their faith is a factor in their incredulity? On this thread, that would be you, RR, and lightbeamrider - and probably Joy-"me too"-ful and nanoanomaly. They can disagree if I am wrong.

And if faith in gods is the difference between accepting and rejecting the argument, why should an unbeliever find merit in a faith based thinker's objections?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766044 Aug 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals have been more or less disempowered in American government for over a generation now. America has moved rightward under every president since Reagan, slower under Clinton and Obama, but still rightward. Freedoms have been steadily eroded, citizens have less say in national policy, wealth is concentrating again in the hands of the few, the media have become more conservative (where do you think your attitude came from?), banking was deregulated, prison sentencing amplified, bankruptcy laws tightened, guns more prevalent, and the police have become more militant. It's a regular liberal paradise.
The leftward changes such as gay marriage and pot legalization come from activist citizens, not government.
Haha

Pot legalization isn't working out to well in Colorado. Have you seen the black market rise? Have you seen the new numbers of homeless moving in there? Have you seen the from rate and car accident rises?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766045 Aug 8, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:

Looks like we need to start at the beginning.
Once upon a time, there was a little Big Bang, that grew and grew....
Or you could say; and God said "Let there be light", and something Big Banged.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#766046 Aug 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Nice. We went solar about two years ago and haven't bought any electric power since.
Good call, solar is booming here at the moment.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766047 Aug 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Wrong. If I have to compromise myself to get a discount and you don't, then we are not being treated equally. I believe that it was you who made a similar argument regarding gay marriage - everybody already had the equal right to marry the opposite gender.
So what? If you get dinner before 5pm and get a discount for that and I get dinner at 7 with no discount, we're not being treated equally.

If you get a senior citizen discount and I have to pay full price, we're not being treated equally.

Let's sue all the restaurants for discrimination, what do you say?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766048 Aug 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Why is that a factor? If she was capable of working, she should have been working whether that's been a month or ten years
<quoted text>
Joyful sounds like one of those "scumbags" that chooses to not work to me. Would you agree that if she could have been working but chose not to, that she qualifies as a scumbag by your definition?
No. She's said that she got on govt assistance after her last man cheated and left her high and dry. That's what the welfare system is in place for. She's a mom that's always been a stay at home mom, something her and her ex decided on, someone with virtually no job skills and no work history.

How long she stays on it is very relevant.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#766049 Aug 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I said – anti psychotics, not psychotropics – you dumbo.
Why do I have to be a dumbo?
Aren't both used for the same basic purpose?
Will you please take your boot off my throat so I can breathe?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766050 Aug 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:

Young Dawkins' little eyeball model/demonstration is not evidence. It's speculation.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's not physical evidence. Nature provides the evidence. Dawkins interpreted it. His explanation refutes the claim that eyes could not have evolved naturally.
Nope.

He started with a presupposition that an eye already existed and "evolved" it from there.

It's his guess, nothin more. Why do you buy it?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#766051 Aug 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How many non-theist biologists can you find that agree with that? You can check here to start:
https://www.google.com.mx/search...
Why do suppose that those who reject the idea that the eve evolved naturally are overwhelmingly believers in gods? Do you think that their faith is a factor in their incredulity? On this thread, that would be you, RR, and lightbeamrider - and probably Joy-"me too"-ful and nanoanomaly. They can disagree if I am wrong.
And if faith in gods is the difference between accepting and rejecting the argument, why should an unbeliever find merit in a faith based thinker's objections?
None of that diminishes the problem that no biologist, non-theist or otherwise, has come up with a plausible Darwinian scenario.

The roadblock is not theism - that's a red herring argument.

The roadblock is the deficiency of the Darwinian mechanism, as presently synthesized, and it is not helpful to paper over it by attacking the ideology of those who point it out.

When observations do not comport with the predictions provided by a theory, it is the burden of the devotees to the theory to deal with it.

A priori commitment to the theory is not a rational or scientific response.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#766052 Aug 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Assailing him personally is your substitute for actual criticism. You know nothing else to assail him with, and you are not smart enough to recognize a legitimate case against him if you saw it.
I am not a mathematician for sure and you make it plain that you have problems with anything more than making sure you are not short changed at the booze store

However I consider valid criticism by valid PhDs to outweigh educational failure

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#766053 Aug 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true.
Dawkins provided no explanation. He provided a catalogue of eyes from simple to advanced. That's all.
Consider another evolutionist, who did a better job than Dawkins, but also failed:
‘… an eye need not be as sophisticated as a human eye to be useful to its owner. The skins of most animals are sensitive to infrared (heat) radiation. Now consider an animal whose skin has one or more light-sensitive spots—a very modest shift in wavelength response. The animal cannot see images, but can distinguish light from dark and might well detect the shadow of a predator and escape. One of its descendants might possess a similar light-sensitive spot located in a pit, which would serve to concentrate the light and increase sensitivity. If the pit happened to contain water functioning as a lens, it might do even better. Subcutaneous nerves might evolve to serve the spot better, and more sensitive pigments as well. And so on.’
Notice the words ‘might well detect’,‘might possess’,‘happened to contain’,‘might evolve’.
Among the factual flaws, a modest shift in wavelength response WILL NOT transform an infrared-sensitive spot to a light sensitive spot, because the responses are completely different. Infrared rays cause transitions in molecular states and is ‘heat radiation’. Visible light causes transitions in electronic states.
Nillson and Pegler produced a computer model which Dawkins lied about in his book, "Climbing Mount Improbable", saying they had produced a complete scenario. Nillson and Pegler admitted they did not:
Nilsson and Pelger, "An eye makes little sense on its own" and we "avoided the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor evolution".
They also avoided the problem of how a camera image is useful with no optic nerve for its transmission and interpretation, or vice-versa.
Next, I am ready for someone to repeat the equally refutable lie that Dawkins and Ken Miller repeat - that the human eye is an example of "poor design".
This statement below is wrong.

"Visible light causes transitions in electronic states."

Should be , infrared to visible light is a shift in wavelength within the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared and visible light are both electromagnetic radiation with a slightly different wavelength and both are thermal radiation.
The human eye is a example of poor design, when compared to the eyes of other creatures.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#766054 Aug 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It's California - the U.S. Constitution is not recognized.
True words.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#766055 Aug 8, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> Why do I have to be a dumbo?
Aren't both used for the same basic purpose?
Will you please take your boot off my throat so I can breathe?

No they are not used for the same basic purpose, they are used for more or less the completely opposite purpose

Your ignorance is not my problem

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#766056 Aug 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a mathematician for sure and you make it plain that you have problems with anything more than making sure you are not short changed at the booze store
However I consider valid criticism by valid PhDs to outweigh educational failure
And you get to determine which is valid.

The determinant is whether you like it.

Very rational.

If Crothers were a muslim, you would find his mathematics valid.

I get it.

Your devotion to validity is the same as Catcher's devotion to his constitutional oath.

Peddle your bull shit elsewhere. We're all stocked up here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#766057 Aug 8, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
I'm interested in the first part of your reply. "most things in the solar system are self assembled" could you clarify what "most things" are? I am a little slow and would like to know. I would also like to know which parts you don't think were " self assembled" ?
Sure. The sun, the planets, their moons, the asteroids, and the comets all formed from a cloud of gas and dust. Where once there was just this cloud, there is now a solar system - a star orbited by these other objects. Nobody made any of those.

On earth, virtually everything not made by intelligent life is self-assembled, such as the layers of the earth (core, mantle and crust), the oceans and other surface water, the continents and the atmosphere. This includes the mountains, boulders, sandy beaches, reefs, rivers, and clouds, for example. Nobody made any of those either. The rain and snow falls without intervention, erosion occurs to smooth river rock, whittle mountains, and carve gullies, ravines and canyons. Tornadoes assemble themselves, and earthquakes and volcanoes need no intelligence to do their thing.

And if abiogenesis is correct, life assembled itself from non-life.

The only things that didn't assemble themselves are the artifacts of intelligent creatures like dams, which are built by men and beavers, for example. Houses, paved roads, cars, watches and jet airplanes would be the only things in the solar system that didn't self-organize.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#766058 Aug 8, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement below is wrong.
"Visible light causes transitions in electronic states."
Should be , infrared to visible light is a shift in wavelength within the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared and visible light are both electromagnetic radiation with a slightly different wavelength and both are thermal radiation.
The human eye is a example of poor design, when compared to the eyes of other creatures.
That has been debunked ad infinitum.

(that means "to infinity")

Since: Aug 14

Sevierville, TN

#766059 Aug 8, 2014
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."… 1 Corinthians 1:18,19

Atheists don't want to believe because sin feels good and they can't learn from their own mistakes. That would take discipline in the fear of a God that they can't see or hear until they come to grips with the fact that God's way is the right way and the way I used to live was full yet, empty. If your a believer in God the Father of Jesus then state your case and leave it alone. Knock the dust off your feet and find someone who wants to go to heaven. We should find the lost sheep. Jesus said feed my sheep. He will judge the goats. Pray that you are not a goat. Change us Father. Deliver us from addictions, temptations and all evil in the name of Your Son Jesus our Anointed King. Amen. If they hated Jesus, they hate us.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#766060 Aug 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a mathematician for sure and you make it plain that you have problems with anything more than making sure you are not short changed at the booze store
However I consider valid criticism by valid PhDs to outweigh educational failure
Do you agree or disagree that 'r' in the Schwartzchild solution is correctly treated as a radial distance from the claimed source of the gravitational field and can go to zero?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#766061 Aug 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>Haha

Pot legalization isn't working out to well in Colorado. Have you seen the black market rise? Have you seen the new numbers of homeless moving in there? Have you seen the from rate and car accident rises?
Now who's making up shit?

How do you kill a redneck? Wait 'till he fcks his sister then cut the brakes on his house.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 5 min For The Record 8,225
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 52 min Insults Are Easier 124,303
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr hojo ono 682,149
Being alone stinks so bad...that even God........ 4 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Gay Sex in Houston (Apr '15) 7 hr John j 18
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 hr onemale 286,505
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 hr lil whispers 619,479
More from around the web