27 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. I still say that design without a designer is best laid off onto Edsel Ford.
WARNING: A very long cut and paste and/or extensive Biblical quotes are about to be posted. Run, campers, run!
He created perhaps the most beautiful auto ever in the Mark I Lincoln.
Then he died and they used his name to sell the absolute ugliest auto ever designed. The "Ford Edsel".
So isn't that "design without a designer"?
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWow I just can't comprehend the thought process (or lack thereof) behind this post.
Would you be so kind as to explain to me how a rock adapted to become a human being?
Nice reasoning. Why haven't you adapted to live without oxygen and food? Why aren't you still adapting?
Organisms (humans included) are still adapting. Of course most of this takes place over such long timescales it can't be observed. However there are some which can. How about during the Industrial Revolution in England and a certain moth which was white to blend against birch trees? The thing was that the birch tree bark became stained black because of the soot and pollution in the air. Now a white moth on a black tree stands out like a sore thumb. So the white moths were eaten quickly. Now by a chance mutation some of these moths were black instead of white. Now in previous times they would have been eaten almost straight away. But now that the bark is black as well they are the ones that survive long enough to give the next generation. The next generation because of this will have a higher percentage of black moths because of this. And so this continues until the moth is black by the norm and the freaks are the white moths. The moth has adapted to it's changing environment.
Your examples are absurd. It shows exactly what happens when people like you stop copying and pasting large chunks of text you can barely understand and start trying to think on your own. You make fools of yourself.
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerA rock? LOL. You have more imagination than the average christian, I'll give you that.
Would you be so kind as to explain to me how a rock adapted to become a human being?
Nice reasoning. Why haven't you adapted to live without oxygen and food? Why aren't you still adapting?
I'll make you a deal. I'll 'explain' how a rock turns into a human if you 'explain' how a being exists outside of time.
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHe's a GOD. Do we know what that concept is? If He created the freaking universe, that includes space AND time, does it not? Even Einstein admitted past, present, and future are illusions to help us comprehend stuff. Do you really think God needs help comprehending something?
A rock? LOL. You have more imagination than the average christian, I'll give you that.
I'll make you a deal. I'll 'explain' how a rock turns into a human if you 'explain' how a being exists outside of time.
27 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerI've done from simple atmosphere to early life here:
Would you be so kind as to explain to me how a rock adapted to become a human being?
Nice reasoning. Why haven't you adapted to live without oxygen and food? Why aren't you still adapting?
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20290
Interestingly, I've given a much more detailed mechanism than you have.
Life needs energy. Food is one perfectly effective way to get it. There's no real reason to evolve to use some other form of energy, as we have no problem feeding enough people to keep the human race going. We can't feed everyone, but even not all plants get enough sun once they've reached a certain population density and have to compete with each other and other species of plants.
There isn't any more readily available chemical oxidant in the environment than atmospheric oxygen. It's everywhere, and aerobic oxidation is far more efficient than anaerobic oxidation.
If there were some sort of oxygen shortage, then those organisms which have already developed anaerobic means of oxidizing their food will have a selective advantage, and evolution will occur favoring them.
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusWas his God Jesus Christ?
And whoever quoted Einstein, why didn't you add his quote where he admitted there had to be an Intelligent Designer? Are we selectively quoting?
Einstein didn't want to believe in a personal God.
He admitted that there was A God.
Chew on that, "intellectuals."
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI am whoever.
And whoever quoted Einstein, why didn't you add his quote where he admitted there had to be an Intelligent Designer? Are we selectively quoting?
Einstein didn't want to believe in a personal God.
He admitted that there was A God.
Chew on that, "intellectuals."
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Albert Einstein
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by xsAs I said. PERSONAL God. But he was definitely a deist.
I am whoever.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Albert Einstein
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThere was some ambiguity in your original quote that Einstein didn't want to believe in a personal God, but that he believed there was a God. When I first read that I thought, "OK, he didn't want to believe in a personal God, but he does believe in one even though he didn't want to initially." I'm not meaning to pick at details, but as you can see this is confusing.
As I said. PERSONAL God. But he was definitely a deist.
If you stand by your statement that he is a deist, are you saying that he was "saved"?
27 Feb 05
3 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957My understanding is that deists believe that some sort of Higher Power created the universe and set the physical laws up, but does not interfere with what goes on in its creation. Obviously, such a belief is completely incompatible with Christianity. It is interesting that many of the Founders of the United States dabbled in Deism, including Thomas Jefferson and it is quite possible that the somewhat ambigous statements in the Declaration of Independence ("Creator" "Nature's God", etc.) reflect Deist thinking.
There was some ambiguity in your original quote that Einstein didn't want to believe in a personal God, but that he believed there was a God. When I first read that I thought, "OK, he didn't want to believe in a personal God, but he ...[text shortened]... tatement that he is a deist, are you saying that he was "saved"?
BTW Einstein didn't "admit" there was a God (as he would have regarded such as an unprovable, nonscientific assertion), just stated that he personally believed that such a thing existed. If you don't know the difference, Darfius, between an admission of a fact and the statement of a belief I can see why you have problems following people's posts here.
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder#1, you are getting my point and I'm still waiting for an answer. It is my impression that many people will gladly jump in the "Founding fathers of this country were Christian" thus we should have prayer in school and all that follows with that. But what I'm trying to get at here is that Darfius wants Einstein to lend credence to a Creator but Einstein was not Christian as such. Does this make sense?
My understanding is that deists believe that some sort of Higher Power created the universe and set the physical laws up, but does not interfere with what goes on in its creation. Obviously, such a belief is completely incompatible with Christianity. It is interesting that many of the Founders of the United States dabbled in Deism, including Tho ...[text shortened]... in the Declaration of Independence ("Creator" "Nature's God", etc.) reflect Deist thinking.
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by kirksey957What is your point? Once people admit there had to have been a Creator, they are more open to what happens in the Bible, and only the Bible stands up to scrutiny.
#1, you are getting my point and I'm still waiting for an answer. It is my impression that many people will gladly jump in the "Founding fathers of this country were Christian" thus we should have prayer in school and all that follows with that. But what I'm trying to get at here is that Darfius wants Einstein to lend credence to a Creator but Einstein was not Christian as such. Does this make sense?