Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…131132134136137…232

Comments

  • #3992
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    I think you are cross purposes here. You are being asked about EVIDENCE for ID and you are offering to provide the LOGIC of ID. There is a difference, it seems to me. One could argue that because there are Billions of planets in the Universe then logically there should be life found on some of them but there is no evidence for that life. Both arguments are valid but are coming from different perspectives.
    Unlike the physical reality of stars and planets, one cannot apply logic to the Metaphysical world of Heaven, where God exists. That is a matter of faith. If you have it you believe, if you don't have faith then you don't believe. That is the only logical thing about it. Neither is there any evidence for any of the faith held beliefs of ID. We all find out about it when we die, not before!
    There is indeed physical evidence for ID ... and we don't need to wait until we die to evaluate it. The hypotheses that life was Created by God or that it created itself spontaneously are amenable to a logical scientific examination of the physical evidence contained in life itself.

    You appear to be confusing faith in Salvation in Jesus Christ (that we can only confirm or deny when we die) with our ability to examine the physical evidence for a spontaneous or supernatural origin for life.
    If God, or God-like Intelligence(s), created life then we would expect that life would bear the physical evidence of such a Intelligent inter-action with matter ... and if life created (and/or developed) itself spontaneously, we would equally expect to see it continuing to create itself spontaneously ... or at the very least we would expect that we could scientifically simulate such a supposed spontaneous natural act.
    What we are finding as scientists, is that life does indeed bear the unambiguous hallmarks of intelligent design (on an almost infinitely complex and perfect scale) ... while all attempts at producing life spontaneously (even with the appliance of considerable levels of Human Intelligent Design) have been dismal failures.
    ... so Intelligence(s) of God-like proportions is the only scientifically validated explanation for life ... so far.:)


  • #3993
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    No it doesn't fit with what we observe, what we observe is a world of c. 4.6 bn years existing in a univers of c. 13 bn years, which developed the conditions for early uni-celled prokaryotic lifeforms early (c. 100 m years after forming) in its existence, and from there we observe the evolution of these prokaryotic (some of them remaining prokaryotic, some not) lifeforms into what we have today, a diverse plethora of lifeforms adapted to environmental conditions which existed fairly recently on Earth, some of them dying out because of human interference, some dying out because of an inability to adapt, and the rest changing and evolving to better survive in the current climate. This state will continue until such time as the Earth will no longer be able to support life, and I am fairly confident that the same situation (maybe with different building blocks, definitely with different forms and paths) is happening in myriad different places around the universe, happend in many myriads of other places in the past and will continue to happen in many, many myriads of places in the future.

    Not a single thing of what we have ever observed tallies with your loopy beliefs JC.
    You have just re-stated the common Atheist belief about how the Universe and life came to be ... but it is just a story ... with little evidence or logic in support of it ... and you have mixed in some things which we all accept (like the competition among living organisms and the extinction of some species).

    And could you please keep the unfounded insulting personal remarks out of this debate ... such name calling is actually evidence of a lost cause on the part of those who use it!!!

    Please note that I don't call your beliefs 'loopy' ... they just don't 'stack up' when we examine the physical evidence ... and that is no reflection on your sanity.

    Please stick to the evidence (and the under-pinning logic of any interpretations of the evidence) and leave the personal insults out of it.


  • #3994
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    You have just re-stated the common Atheist belief about how the Universe and life came to be ... but it is just a story ... with little evidence or logic in support of it.

    And could you please keep the unfounded insulting personal remarks out of this debate ... such name calling is actually evidence of a lost cause on the part of those who use it!!!

    Please note that I don't call your beliefs 'loopy' ... they just don't 'stack up' when we examine the physical evidence ... and that is no reflection on your sanity.

    No


    You just totally ignore peoples requests for you not to bold every second word, you continue to (pointlessly) do this KNOWING that it causes pain. Is deliberately causing pain to another human not considered a sin?


  • #3995
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    What ID maths is showing is that the spontaneous generation of life is a statistical impossibility. The odds against even one specific sequence of amino acids arising where and when it could be functional are so low as to be an impossibility ... even in a Universe on the scale of the Universe we observe.
    This problem is so overwhleming (from a materialistic origin of life point of view) that science is now resorting to the idea of an infinity of parallel universes. This relies on the idea that something that is statistically impossible can become possible if there are an infinity of Universes ... its effectively trying to mathematically multiply something approaching zero (the odds of life originating spontaneously) by something approaching infinity (the supposed number of parallell Universes) and thereby getting something approaching 1 or certainty that life could spontaneously emerge.
    This is mathematical conjuring based on the so-called 'Multi-verse' Hypothesis ... which is really only wishful thinking ... in order to deny God as the most plausible source of the origin of life.

    Links to this or GTFO


  • #3996
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    It's been well established that JC is not a scientist. He cannot even comprehend scientific principles so basic and easy to understand that we teach them to primary school kids.
    Please stop making patently erroneous remarks ... that I'm not a scientist and with an intellectual capacity less than a 5 year old.
    By making such obviously erroneous remarks about what people can observe about me ... you are inevitably creating the impression that you may be equally erroneous in any other comments that you may make ... such as your comments about the spontaneous generation of life.

    Please be nice to me ... and ultimately to yourself and your own credibility.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #3997
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    No


    You just totally ignore peoples requests for you not to bold every second word, you continue to (pointlessly) do this KNOWING that it causes pain. Is deliberately causing pain to another human not considered a sin?
    Emphasis is a perfectly acceptable way of engaging written communication.

    I don't see how writing respectfully about the origins of life or God should cause any pain for anybody.

    Could you please address the substance of what I'm saying as distinct from it's (perfectly reasonable and acceptable) presentation.


  • #3998
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Links to this or GTFO
    Bad language is the sign of a lost case.


  • #3999
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Emphasis is a perfectly acceptable way of engaging written communication.

    I don't see how writing respectfully about the origins of life or God should cause any pain for anybody.

    Bolding random words for emphasis does not make your argument any more or less valid it just makes it very very very hard for some of us to read. You have been asked several times nicely not to do it but you keep reverting back to it so from here on i will just report the posts that cause pain due to ridiculous unneeded overuse of the bold function.


  • #4000
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Bad language is the sign of a lost case.

    If you've nothing to lose then link to this "ID math" you're referencing.

    I swear this just gets more and more laughable as time goes on.


  • #4001
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Bolding random words for emphasis does not make your argument any more or less valid it just makes it very very very hard for some of us to read. You have been asked several times nicely not to do it but you keep reverting back to it so from here on i will just report the posts that cause pain due to ridiculous unneeded overuse of the bold function.
    I do not embolden random words ... I emphasise certain words to clarify what I'm saying ... and I don't see why this makes it harder for anybody to read it.

    It may make a greater impact on those who read it ... but then that is what any good argument naturally does anyway.

    The irony of it all ... I'm subjected to personal abuse, such as being called 'loopy' ... or with bad language being directed against me ... and you're objecting to me emboldening a few words for proper emphaisis of what I wish to say.

    ... very soon this 'PC' stuff will get to the point where nobody can make any argument with which somebody else disagrees, before they will be called to task for causing 'pain' to the people who disagree with the argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #4002
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    I do not embolden random words ... I emphasise certain words to clarify what I'm saying ... and I don't see why this makes it harder for anybody to read it.

    It may make a greater impact on those who read it ... but then that is what any good argument naturally does anyway.

    The irony of it all ... I'm subjected to personal abuse, such as being called 'loopy' ... or with bad language being directed against me ... and you're objecting to me emboldening a few words for proper emphaisis of what I wish to say.

    Not by me you haven't. I have asked you several times and you have acknowledged several times that it causes me discomfort. I won't mention it again but as i have stated here i will be reporting overuse of the bold function by yourself from here on.


  • #4003
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Not by me you haven't. I have asked you several times and you have acknowledged several times that it causes me discomfort. I won't mention it again but as i have stated here i will be reporting overuse of the bold function by yourself from here on.
    I have no wish to cause anybody gratuituous discomfort ... but I do retain my right to fully express myself and make my points in a respectful manner ... and that includes the use of emphasis in what I write.

    I cannot see how appropriate use of written emphsis can cause anybody pain ... otherwise practically all assembly instruction manuals should come with a Health and Safety warning for those who have to read them.

    I had to use such a manual recently, and it employed all manner of emphasis (on important issues) ranging from emboldment, underlining and italics ... it even used increases in text size and red writing in some sections ... and the only pain I felt when using it, was when I accidentally hit my finger with a hammer!!!:eek:


  • #4004
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    I have no wish to cause anybody gratuituous discomfort ... but I do retain my right to fully express myself and make my points in a respectful manner ... and that includes the use of emphasis in what I write.

    I cannot see how appropriate use of written emphsis can cause anybody pain ... otherwise practically all assembly instruction manuals should come with a Health and Safety warning for those who have to read them.

    I had to use such a manual recently, and it employed all manner of emphasis (on important issues) ranging from emboldment, underlining and italics ... it even used increases in text size and red writing in some sections ... and the only pain I felt when using it, was when I accidentally hit my finger with a hammer!!!:eek:

    So because it does not bother you it shouldn't bother anyone else? Selfishness.....another sin?


  • #4005
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So because it does not bother you it shouldn't bother anyone else? Selfishness.....another sin?
    Your claim that the emphasis in my writing is causing you 'pain' would appear to be 'vexatious'.

    I base this on the facts that:-
    1. It doesn't cause me or anybody I know, pain ... and I know of no mechanism by which it could do so.
    2. All modern word processors (including the Boards Posting System) contain the facility to emphasise text - and they wouldn't provide such facilities, if they were capable of causing pain to anybody.
    3. Many documents employ emphasis and again they wouldn't do so if they were capable of causing pain to somebody.

    If because of some highly unusual and extremely rare condition, you do genuinely get a headache at the sight of an emboldened word, then I would suggest that you avoid my posts (and the countless other documents that utilise textual emphasis) in the future. For example, the Boards system automatically emboldens the name of the poster in each quote. Indeed, as Mod rulings are, by convention, printed in bold text, you may have to consider not reading any post in future, for fear of encountering emboldened text (of whole sentences and not just individual words) posted by one of the Mods.


  • #4006
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Your claim that the emphasis in my writing is causing you 'pain' would appear to be 'vexatious'.

    I base this on the facts that:-
    1. It doesn't cause me or anybody I know, pain ... and I know of no mechanism by which it could do so.
    2. All modern word processors (including the Boards Posting System) contain the facility to emphasise text - and they wouldn't provide such facilities, if they were capable of causing pain to anybody.
    3. Many documents employ emphasis and again they wouldn't do so if they were capable of causing pain to somebody.

    If because of some highly unusual and extremely rare condition, you do genuinely get a headache at the sight of an emboldened word, then I would suggest that you avoid my posts (and the countless other documents that utilise textual emphasis) in the future. For example, the Boards system automatically emboldens the name of the poster in each quote. Indeed, as Mod rulings are, by convention, printed in bold text, you may have to consider not reading any post in future, for fear of encountering emboldened text (of whole sentences and not just individual words) posted by one of the Mods.


    So now you will discriminate against me because i have sensitive eyes? There is 000 reason for you to embold so many words every sentence and again i am asking you not to. I have every right to take part in this debate and that would be impossible if i (as you suggest) not read your posts.


  • #4007
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So now you will discriminate against me because i have sensitive eyes? There is 000 reason for you to embold so many words every sentence and again i am asking you not to. I have every right to take part in this debate and that would be impossible if i (as you suggest) not read your posts.
    I'm not discriminating against you because you have sensitive eyes ... I'm just suggesting that your 'eye sensitivity' needs to be addressed by you ... and if it's genuine and cannot be treated, you will have great difficulty in navigating printed text ... where encountering emphasis is an every present risk.

    I'm sorry, but I think that your 'senstitivity' isn't sufficient reason for anybody, including the Boards to ban all text emphasis (including emboldened Mod rulings).

    However, if all such 'sensitivities' are to be accommodated, then I would ask that because the word 'evolution' tends to give me 'painful' memories, that it might also be banned from the lexicon on the Boards.ie ... and replaced with something much more to my tastes ... like ID!!!:eek:


  • #4008
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not discriminating against you because you have sensitive eyes ... I'm just suggesting that your 'eye sensitivity' needs to be addressed by you ... and if it's genuine and cannot be treated, you will have great difficulty in navigating printed text ... where encountering emphasis is an every present risk.

    I'm sorry, but I think that your 'senstitivity' isn't sufficient reason for anybody, including the Boards to ban all text emphasis (including emboldened Mod rulings).

    However, if all such 'sensitivities' are to be accommodated, then I would ask that because the word 'evolution' tends to give me 'painful' memories, that it might also be banned from the lexicon on the Boards.ie ... and replaced with something much more to my tastes ... like ID!!!:eek:

    Ahhhh so now you mock my disability, not very christian i must say.


  • #4009
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod: JC / bumper234, put the handbags away and get back on topic. No one is forcing either of you to post on or read this thread.


  • #4010
    H3aler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭H3aler


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Ahhhh so now you mock my disability, not very christian i must say.
    they way you are arguing with JC-- not very human i must say :)


  • #4011
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    H3aler wrote: »
    they way you are arguing with JC-- not very human i must say :)

    Yeah


    I'm an alien :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #4012
    H3aler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭H3aler


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Yeah


    I'm an alien :rolleyes:
    not very human i must say :)


  • #4013
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    H3aler wrote: »
    not very human i must say :)

    Not sure where you're going with this (don't really care) but anywho...........


  • #4014
    H3aler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭H3aler


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Not sure where you're going with this (don't really care) but anywho...........
    human cares for human, not very human i must say


  • #4015
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    H3aler wrote: »
    human cares for human, not very human i must say

    The irony of that statement given the stance of many Christians towards the subject of same sex marriage/homosexuality in general.


  • #4016
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    H3aler wrote: »
    human cares for human, not very human i must say

    All those priests who raped young boys, all those that took part in the Spanish inquisition, all of those who have covered up for crimes committed by clergy.....are you saying that none of them are humans?


  • #4017
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    The irony of that statement given the stance of many Christians towards the subject of same sex marriage/homosexuality in general.
    You mustn't have read much of this poster's posts. Homosexuals are not, apparently, human.

    MrP


  • #4018
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You mustn't have read much of this poster's posts. Homosexuals are not, apparently, human.

    MrP

    Ah i c


  • #4019
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Love you all.


  • #4020
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Love you all.

    I'll love you too if you send me a link to that ID math you were talking about earlier :)


  • Advertisement
  • #4021
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I'll love you too if you send me a link to that ID math you were talking about earlier :)
    The total cost of my love ... is no charge!!:)
    Here is the link you seek:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58433145&postcount=14011

    Happy St Patricks Day saint_patricks_day20.gif


Advertisement