27 Oct 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziZapansy unless you are more affable and reasonable you are bordering on being completely ignored, so please turn the tone up, if you please
arguing in a different manner:
you are a christian, you moron, what use is a book you see as old and metaphorical and obsolete to you? you can agree that stoning an adulterer to death is not to be taken literally but you hold noah and the adam and eve story as history.
how moronic and self delusional can you be?
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am sure you believe you see design in living things and further you believe that living things were created by God.
i think i am a type of creationist, for i see design in living things!
However, neither of those beliefs is sufficient reason to attack the Theory of Evolution. More importantly, if you took the time to understand the Theory of Evolution, you would realize that identifying design in something is not nearly as easy as it seems. Many patterns that occur in nature come about via natural processes yet appear to be designed when in reality all we are seeing is a sophisticated pattern which results from the laws of nature. It is a common mistake to think that because the law is simple it cannot give rise to complex patterns, but the famous Mandelbrot set easily destroys that idea.
The Theory of Evolution proposes a way in which the complex patterns that occur in biological life can arise via various fairly simple laws of physics (chemistry mostly). Whether you like it or not, the basic concepts behind the Theory of Evolution are mathematically provable and thus indisputable.
Too often on this forum we get people announcing that animal A could never evolve into animal B, but it always seems to be a matter of personal conviction rather than based on any form of reasoning.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobierhp must include the option of inserting bitmap images in our posts. it would be useful to show kiddies basic logic.
clear that plants came into existence before light???? sorry Zapansy, you must be quite mistaken, for if you shall examine the ancient and reliable record, not a record of 'how', but a record simply covering the major events taken from a human standpoint (this is discernible from phrases like, 'a greater luminary,' with reference to the sun, for cle ...[text shortened]... therham’s Emphasised Bible.
Capiche? and anyway clearly light existed before the flora!
god: let there be light.
no stars
no earth
where does light come from? everywhere i guess. must be a light source somewhere, probably god himself is shining with inner goodness
"now logically the sun and the moon must have existed" sure they did. if you live in lala land. the sun and the moon didn't exist. why? because god freakin says so. in genesis. the book you hold dear. nothing->heaven and a shapeless earth covered in water-> light. still no sun and moon and stars.
then came light.
"1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse 23 in the midst of the waters and let it separate water 24 from water. 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. 25 It was so. 26 1:8 God called the expanse “sky.” 27 There was evening, and there was morning, a second day."
here comes the sky in the universe which is like a curtain between water and water. still no sun and moon nor stars. so there is h2o here on earth. then nothing(the sky probably a metaphor for the rest of the universe) then h2o again. god seems to be a sea creature.
1:9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place 28 and let dry ground appear.” 29 It was so. 1:10 God called the dry ground “land” 30 and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
still no sun but somehow something is giving all this light
1:11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: 31 plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, 32 and 33 trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. 1:12 The land produced vegetation – plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good
here come the plants. plants need light. they have it from the misterious light source. that of course moves from place to place to give the impression of day/night
1:14 God said, “Let there be lights 34 in the expanse 35 of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs 36 to indicate seasons and days and years, 1:15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 1:16 God made two great lights 37 – the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 38 1:17 God placed the lights 39 in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 1:18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. 40 God saw that it was good.
here come the sun, the moon and the stars. that are imediately available for the naked eye even if light takes a little while to travel. now these take the responsibility to generate light and separate night from day. but what happened to the misterious original light? hmm something is fishy here.
so you see oh most moronic one? but you don't. obviously. oh well.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadare mathematically provable????????, ok then please explain why an owls wing is different from a hawks wing, in that it has lacerations which break up sound waves and provide stealth flight and downy feathers which absorb any remaining sound waves, if you please, mathematically!
I am sure you believe you see design in living things and further you believe that living things were created by God.
However, neither of those beliefs is sufficient reason to attack the Theory of Evolution. More importantly, if you took the time to understand the Theory of Evolution, you would realize that identifying design in something is not nearly ...[text shortened]... t always seems to be a matter of personal conviction rather than based on any form of reasoning.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh you have a different opinion then? some logical insight to add? perhaps a counter argument?
unfounded and belligerent statement, it shall be shredded!
or you simply pack your toys and leave, just after you call me "stupider", pull out your tongue and give me the finger, then put your fingers in your ears while singing "lalala i can't hear you youre stupider"
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis demand of course should be applied to genesis as well. to be fair. right? so it should be reasonable to ask fro a mathematical proof to genesis, right?
are mathematically provable????????, ok then please explain why an owls wing is different from a hawks wing, in that it has lacerations which break up sound waves and provide stealth flight and downy feathers which absorb any remaining sound waves, if you please, mathematically!
oh i do hope you don't think of demanding proof in Haikus. or in a song and dance routine. because that would be really hard.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziwrong! the earth and well as the luminaries were evidently created prior, or did you not understand the point about the diffusion of light! obviously not ! the earth could have existed for zillions of years before the first genesis 'day', it being described as 'formless', or perhaps you overlooked such simple childlike reasoning in your rather ill fated appraisal?
rhp must include the option of inserting bitmap images in our posts. it would be useful to show kiddies basic logic.
god: let there be light.
no stars
no earth
where does light come from? everywhere i guess. must be a light source somewhere, probably god himself is shining with inner goodness
"now logically the sun and the moon must have existed" s ...[text shortened]... thing is fishy here.
so you see oh most moronic one? but you don't. obviously. oh well.
Zapansy it is painfully obvious that you do not understand the chronology of the events described in Genesis, the Bible does not state that the sun and the moon did not exist, a point which is glaringly obvious, it simply states that 'light', did not reach the surface of the earth, perhaps you missed this?? who can tell, .
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually during the course of events you have made references to moronic, ignorant, sanity, barbarians, lack of understanding, self delusional, childlike and a plethora of other self reflecting comments, perhaps you can state where i have yet insulted you?
oh you have a different opinion then? some logical insight to add? perhaps a counter argument?
or you simply pack your toys and leave, just after you call me "stupider", pull out your tongue and give me the finger, then put your fingers in your ears while singing "lalala i can't hear you youre stupider"
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat just about sums you up Robbie.
actually during the course of events you have made references to moronic, ignorant, sanity, barbarians, lack of understanding, self delusional, childlike and a plethora of other self reflecting comments, perhaps you can state where i have yet insulted you?
Good morning.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm good thanks, been feeling a tad unwell recently but am on top form today. You good?
hi, good morning, how are you?
Anyway formalities over and the pistol is now drawn.
If you accept the basic preimse of the evolutionary theory, which is that there can be changes in the genetic material within organisms from one generation to the next, what do you think could happen to a population over say 10million years? If we say for example that our organism has a life expectantcy of around 10yrs, that's 1million generations. Do you not think it could change dramatically ?
27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieholy crp on a stick you must have crazy eyes. as in eyes that instead of pupils have a swirling pink spiral.
wrong! the earth and well as the luminaries were evidently created prior, or did you not understand the point about the diffusion of light! obviously not ! the earth could have existed for zillions of years before the first genesis 'day', it being described as 'formless', or perhaps you overlooked such simple childlike reasoning in your rather ill fa light', did not reach the surface of the earth, perhaps you missed this?? who can tell, .
god says: let there be light. as in let light be, come into being, stop being inexistent. not "let the light that existed for a zillion years reach earth"
"the earth and well as the luminaries were evidently created prior" what luminaries? the sun, the moon and the stars? or the misterious light source that existed prior to them?
"the point about the diffusion of light"
what point? the point in which the light gradually reached earth? what does that mean exactly? in your world? there was day and night. pure and simple. the light was everywhere at first and then it separated . as in light in one place and lack of light in another. day and night.
"Bible does not state that the sun and the moon did not exist(yes it does), a point which is glaringly obvious(no it isn't), it simply states(where in the bible) that 'light', did not reach the surface of the earth, perhaps you missed this(nothing to miss, it isn't there in the bible)?? who can tell,"
how about you supply some verses from the bible instead of rambling. but you won't.
27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClearly you do not want a reasonable discussion on the topic. Go back to my post and read what I actually said.
are mathematically provable????????, ok then please explain why an owls wing is different from a hawks wing, in that it has lacerations which break up sound waves and provide stealth flight and downy feathers which absorb any remaining sound waves, if you please, mathematically!
Evolutionary Theory says nothing specific about an owls wings, in fact the complete theory could be set out without using the words 'Owl', 'wing' or 'hawk' even once.
What I claim is mathematically provable is that in an iterative system similar to life with certain changes happening between generations, certain phenomena will be observed including many of those in the Theory of Evolution such as speciation, survival of the fittest, changes in complexity etc.
You are instead looking at a particular example of the results of evolution - which is a rather different thing altogether. For example we understand the laws of physics enough to calculate the orbits of the planets, but that does not tell us why the Earth is where it is today, nor can the Laws of physics alone tell us the positions of any planets nor event tell us whether they exist. There is a difference between the abstract and the application.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziHe brags about him being scientific, yet he invents 'scientific' things as he goes.
holy crp on a stick you must have crazy eyes. as in eyes that instead of pupils have a swirling pink spiral.
god says: let there be light. as in let light be, come into being, stop being inexistent. not "let the light that existed for a zillion years reach earth"
"the earth and well as the luminaries were evidently created prior" what luminaries? the ...[text shortened]... how about you supply some verses from the bible instead of rambling. but you won't.
robbie: Don't use scientific reasoning in religious matters. You'll fail. Easily.
Religion and science cannot ever mix.