Questions on Christianity (Again...)

[aigonz]

@Lobohan

@aigonz

1> Why would there not be transitional forms? Even in your own wiki refernce it states “It must be noted, however, that vestigial structures may have had their original function replaced with another. For example the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.”

If god made animals as they were there wouldn’t be transitional forms. Because they wouldn’t be changing. If we have transitional forms then animals weren’t designed in their current form. Jesus merciful fuck, this is stunning. Stop and read the masthead of the site a few times.

I don’t know what you think you’re getting at because of the sentence of vestigial forms. But they support evolution. They certainly don’t support design, because God would be an idiot to put tiny worthless feet on a legless lizard.

But than again, I guess God is an idiot. Because it seems like he wants his followers to ignore what’s in front of their eyes.

2> “Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out?” No, but you must believe that this happens in trasntions over millions of years, so you will have evidence right?

Yes. We have evidence. We have transitional forms. And DNA. And taxonomic bits. Read the page again.

1> The issue here is macro evolution, the notion of common descent from one ancestor. That needs to be restated becaue you are all presenting evidence for intra species development as evidence for common descent, whihc it is not.

2> Vesitigial forms, where they actually exist, are evidence for changes of form or even ‘decay’. They say nothing as to common descent.

3> DNA is NOT evidence of common descent. It is the building block of life. If we have a common designer it would make sense that we have common building blocks.

[Apollyon]

For Lobohan, and the other good souls who are trying to reconcile **aigonz **with the site’s masthead, a quote…

Not mine, just something I admired considerably, and that seems terribly apropos here:

[QUOTE=Lizard_SF (Fark forums 6 July 2010)]
Let me try this another way. Suppose, in the interest of debating Christianity, I said to you, “How is it that of God’s five sons, which he bore upon five different mothers at different times in history (See Aristotle 5:6-16), it was only Jesus who actually went into hell and fought Satan hand-to-hand (Cohen 14:2-45), while the others just sat around? Also, when Thor and Hercules meet Moses in the desert (Second Exodus, 17:1-12), why does the Bible have Thor wielding a sword, instead of his famous hammer?”

You’d look at me slack-jawed for a second or two, then tell me that I clearly haven’t read the Bible, know nothing about Christianity, and you can’t answer these questions because they’re nonsensical – it’s like asking “If 2 and 2 makes oranges, how can you say pi=51?” The question shows such a fundamental level of ignorance that the only way to “answer” it is to go back to ground zero and start over, and, by the time you’ve learned enough to ask a sensible question, you’d know why your first question was nonsense.

Based on your posts here, that’s the state you’re at with your “knowledge” of evolution. You’re speaking nonsense. Your questions can only be “answered” by starting you over in first grade and teaching you science. There are certainly many intelligent and interesting questions to be asked about evolution – this is why scientists keep filling up journals with new studies, new discoveries, etc – they ask the question and then they seek out the answers. You, however, do not yet possess enough knowledge to ask those questions. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid, just ill-informed. The main question for you, then, is are you willing to invest the time to learn what you need to learn to ask the right questions, or do you prefer ignorance? Your call.
[/QUOTE]

[aigonz]

@Apollyon

For Lobohan, and the other good souls who are trying to reconcile **aigonz **with the site’s masthead, a quote…

Not mine, just something I admired considerably, and that seems terribly apropos here:

[QUOTE=Lizard_SF (Fark forums 6 July 2010)]
Let me try this another way. Suppose, in the interest of debating Christianity, I said to you, “How is it that of God’s five sons, which he bore upon five different mothers at different times in history (See Aristotle 5:6-16), it was only Jesus who actually went into hell and fought Satan hand-to-hand (Cohen 14:2-45), while the others just sat around? Also, when Thor and Hercules meet Moses in the desert (Second Exodus, 17:1-12), why does the Bible have Thor wielding a sword, instead of his famous hammer?”

You’d look at me slack-jawed for a second or two, then tell me that I clearly haven’t read the Bible, know nothing about Christianity, and you can’t answer these questions because they’re nonsensical – it’s like asking “If 2 and 2 makes oranges, how can you say pi=51?” The question shows such a fundamental level of ignorance that the only way to “answer” it is to go back to ground zero and start over, and, by the time you’ve learned enough to ask a sensible question, you’d know why your first question was nonsense.

Based on your posts here, that’s the state you’re at with your “knowledge” of evolution. You’re speaking nonsense. Your questions can only be “answered” by starting you over in first grade and teaching you science. There are certainly many intelligent and interesting questions to be asked about evolution – this is why scientists keep filling up journals with new studies, new discoveries, etc – they ask the question and then they seek out the answers. You, however, do not yet possess enough knowledge to ask those questions. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid, just ill-informed. The main question for you, then, is are you willing to invest the time to learn what you need to learn to ask the right questions, or do you prefer ignorance? Your call.

[/QUOTE]

It is not I alone who have strayed from the sites masthead. There can be no discussion without particpantS.

The rest of your response is fairly typical of proponents of common descent, indeed to many proponents of atheism as well. It is the ‘look down the nose’ type of arrogance that is associated with an inability to defend one’s preciously protected position. The challenges to common descent are not just from within theists. They are not from the majority, but they neither are they ‘first graders’. If you take the time, you too can learn.

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

1> The issue here is macro evolution, the notion of common descent from one ancestor. That needs to be restated becaue you are all presenting evidence for intra species development as evidence for common descent, whihc it is not.

The issue is you aren’t using the correct terms. You seem to be talking about abiogenisis. The very beginning of life. Evolution is silent on the creation of life, it’s about the change from the earliest forms to what we have today.

Marcoevolution is specifically the study of changes of species.

I naturally assumed you at least understood what words you are using. I don’t know why I thought that in retrospect.

2> Vesitigial forms, where they actually exist, are evidence for changes of form or even ‘decay’. They say nothing as to common descent.

They are evidence of speciation and general change.

3> DNA is NOT evidence of common descent. It is the building block of life. If we have a common designer it would make sense that we have common building blocks.

We contain DNA from previous animals. We can track this back and can see how closely related we are, that is to say how far in the past we diverged. This is evidence for common descent.

For fuck sake, you could have at least read up on the terms you were throwing around. It’s bad enough that you don’t respond to evidence, but you need to at least communicate like someone who knows English in order to even start debating.

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

It is not I alone who have strayed from the sites masthead. There can be no discussion without particpantS.

The rest of your response is fairly typical of proponents of common descent, indeed to many proponents of atheism as well. It is the ‘look down the nose’ type of arrogance that is associated with an inability to defend one’s preciously protected position. The challenges to common descent are not just from within theists. They are not from the majority, but they neither are they ‘first graders’. If you take the time, you too can learn.

To the extent you’re being looked down on, it’s because you are so utterly sure of the incorrect things you are saying.

[Lobohan]

@Apollyon

For Lobohan, and the other good souls who are trying to reconcile **aigonz **with the site’s masthead, a quote…

Not mine, just something I admired considerably, and that seems terribly apropos here:

[QUOTE=Lizard_SF (Fark forums 6 July 2010)]
Let me try this another way. Suppose, in the interest of debating Christianity, I said to you, “How is it that of God’s five sons, which he bore upon five different mothers at different times in history (See Aristotle 5:6-16), it was only Jesus who actually went into hell and fought Satan hand-to-hand (Cohen 14:2-45), while the others just sat around? Also, when Thor and Hercules meet Moses in the desert (Second Exodus, 17:1-12), why does the Bible have Thor wielding a sword, instead of his famous hammer?”

You’d look at me slack-jawed for a second or two, then tell me that I clearly haven’t read the Bible, know nothing about Christianity, and you can’t answer these questions because they’re nonsensical – it’s like asking “If 2 and 2 makes oranges, how can you say pi=51?” The question shows such a fundamental level of ignorance that the only way to “answer” it is to go back to ground zero and start over, and, by the time you’ve learned enough to ask a sensible question, you’d know why your first question was nonsense.

Based on your posts here, that’s the state you’re at with your “knowledge” of evolution. You’re speaking nonsense. Your questions can only be “answered” by starting you over in first grade and teaching you science. There are certainly many intelligent and interesting questions to be asked about evolution – this is why scientists keep filling up journals with new studies, new discoveries, etc – they ask the question and then they seek out the answers. You, however, do not yet possess enough knowledge to ask those questions. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid, just ill-informed. The main question for you, then, is are you willing to invest the time to learn what you need to learn to ask the right questions, or do you prefer ignorance? Your call.

[/QUOTE]
That right there is brilliant. Show in their terms. I’m gonna save that.

[Apollyon]

@aigonz

It is the ‘look down the nose’ type of arrogance that is associated with an inability to defend one’s preciously protected position.

Perhaps there is something to that… or at least there would be if there wasn’t actual evidence and defence for the positions being taken, evidence that other posters keep presenting; evidence that you seem unable or unwilling to discuss.

I see Lobohan has already commented on the DNA issue – I was going to suggest that while the mere existence of DNA as a common building block doesn’t prove common descent, the research on molecular evolution that began in the 1960s does strongly support common descent, and that evolution of globins, etc is something you might want to read up on.

On a slightly different note, and while personally agnostic – and no, it doesn’t mean what you’ve stated up-thread – I’ve felt that if I was to be theistic, then I could work with the notion of a first cause creator who set the laws of the universe up so that many billions of years later we would get to here.

But what I fail to see is any support for the leap from that premise to being able to know anything else about the creator… and it seems very odd to me that a creator who would work on that scale would then care about who I slept with or how many fibres my clothes were made of.

[aigonz]

@Lobohan

@aigonz

1> The issue here is macro evolution, the notion of common descent from one ancestor. That needs to be restated becaue you are all presenting evidence for intra species development as evidence for common descent, whihc it is not.

The issue is you aren’t using the correct terms. You seem to be talking about abiogenisis. The very beginning of life. Evolution is silent on the creation of life, it’s about the change from the earliest forms to what we have today.

Marcoevolution is specifically the study of changes of species.

I naturally assumed you at least understood what words you are using. I don’t know why I thought that in retrospect.

They are evidence of speciation and general change.

3> DNA is NOT evidence of common descent. It is the building block of life. If we have a common designer it would make sense that we have common building blocks.

We contain DNA from previous animals. We can track this back and can see how closely related we are, that is to say how far in the past we diverged. This is evidence for common descent.

For fuck sake, you could have at least read up on the terms you were throwing around. It’s bad enough that you don’t respond to evidence, but you need to at least communicate like someone who knows English in order to even start debating.

1> You either can’t read or are simply being obtuse. None of my comments infer abiogenesis. I specifically referred to ‘common decsent’. That’s what macro evolution is.

2> Your comment on DNA is invalid, since it assumes evolution. I can just as eaisly assume creation and state we contain DNA simsialr to animals because we all were created by the same intelligence.

3> I will respond to evidence when you provide it.

[aigonz]

@Apollyon

@aigonz

It is the ‘look down the nose’ type of arrogance that is associated with an inability to defend one’s preciously protected position.

Perhaps there is something to that… or at least there would be if there wasn’t actual evidence and defence for the positions being taken, evidence that other posters keep presenting; evidence that you seem unable or unwilling to discuss.

I see Lobohan has already commented on the DNA issue – I was going to suggest that while the mere existence of DNA as a common building block doesn’t prove common descent, the research on molecular evolution that began in the 1960s does strongly support common descent, and that evolution of globins, etc is something you might want to read up on.

On a slightly different note, and while personally agnostic – and no, it doesn’t mean what you’ve stated up-thread – I’ve felt that if I was to be theistic, then I could work with the notion of a first cause creator who set the laws of the universe up so that many billions of years later we would get to here.

But what I fail to see is any support for the leap from that premise to being able to know anything else about the creator… and it seems very odd to me that a creator who would work on that scale would then care about who I slept with or how many fibres my clothes were made of.

1> DNA just as strongly supports a common designer.

2> Theistic evolution…no problem for me. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. Providing there is evidence.

3> This isn’t about ‘knowing’ the creator. We’re far enough away frm the original header as it is!

3>

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

@Lobohan

The issue is you aren’t using the correct terms. You seem to be talking about abiogenisis. The very beginning of life. Evolution is silent on the creation of life, it’s about the change from the earliest forms to what we have today.

Marcoevolution is specifically the study of changes of species.

I naturally assumed you at least understood what words you are using. I don’t know why I thought that in retrospect.

They are evidence of speciation and general change.

We contain DNA from previous animals. We can track this back and can see how closely related we are, that is to say how far in the past we diverged. This is evidence for common descent.

For fuck sake, you could have at least read up on the terms you were throwing around. It’s bad enough that you don’t respond to evidence, but you need to at least communicate like someone who knows English in order to even start debating.

1> You either can’t read or are simply being obtuse. None of my comments infer abiogenesis. I specifically referred to ‘common decsent’. That’s what macro evolution is.

2> Your comment on DNA is invalid, since it assumes evolution. I can just as eaisly assume creation and state we contain DNA simsialr to animals because we all were created by the same intelligence.

3> I will respond to evidence when you provide it.

No you won’t. Well, I can’t force you to think or respond in a way that someone actually involved in a debate would, so I’ll wait for you to post something else silly before responding again.

By the way, you do know that no one thinks you’re winning this argument, right?

[Der_Trihs]

@aigonz

There is NO evidence for time loops, previous universes or other parallel universe. None. This is simply your opinion. Neither do you have any explanation of how ‘nature’ caused the universe we know exists. Every single compoenent of your view is unable to be supported by anything empirical.

All of those have far more evidence for them than gods. Time exists and can be distorted, and according to some theories can indeed be looped; and again, previous universes and multiple universes have the existence of this universe for evidence they are possible. As opposed to the God hypothesis, which has zero evidence that it is even possible much less true.

As for empirical evidence of the natural origin of the universe, that’s the simplest and therefore default hypothesis. It’s the responsibility of those trying to introduce an extra entity - a physics defying god in this case - who have the responsibility of coming up with evidence for it. Lots of evidence considering how wildly implausible and directly contradictory to everything else we know that such a claim is.

@aigonz

1> I have explained what God ‘is’. God is ‘spirit’. God is ‘super-natural’. God is beyond our understanding of time and space.

Meaningless handwaving. Those terms are just attempts to avoid actually defining anything about your god that can actually be pinned down and discussed.

@aigonz

2> To consider the concept of God to be contradictory is to misinterpret even the most basic definition of ‘God’. God is all powerful, and therefore although beyond time and space, he is able to create time and space.

You of course have no evidence that is even possible. And there’s plenty of contradictory things about “God” that doesn’t address, especially the Problem of Evil for people who want to claim that their imaginary god is something to base morality on.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yeah, that Haeckel claim is very deceptive. It is not taught as true in any textbook.

In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US.

Haekel’s idea is “shown” as an example of a debunked hypothesis. It is not taught as truth. It is deceptive and dishonest to try to imply that they do. Thou shalt not bear false witness, dude.

[scorpio5169]

oops

[scorpio5169]

@monavis

@scorpio5169

This goes back to the key phrase entirety. To my knowledge, God is never described as a loving, kind, God. His son Jesus however, is described as the one who is the mediator between a wicked people and a righteous God. As far as being the Heavenly Father, the Bible says that He is the perfect father and love requires chastisement. On a further note, which innocent people did God kill? Finally God has shown that he will use anyone for his purpose that is willing.

It would take a long post to show the innocent people that God has supposed to have killed, The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, Joshua killing the people at Jericho etc.; surely there were babies and young children among the dead. A supreme being could have found a better way to help His children. And God didn’t really do anything as far as I can tell, it was some writer or person who blamed it on God. Thinking they were a chosen people. I do not see any kind of a good supreme being that knows all things, created people who (if he knew ahead of time they were going to be bad or disobey His orders or commands) why He would create them in the first place. It seems He is blaming people for His errors that could have been avoided. This doesn’t sound like a loving or all knowing being, and it would be an insult to such a being to say He made it happen!

Love doesn’t need chastisment, if the creator is all knowing. and Killing some one is a little far fetched, when the person or person’s are being judged again after they have died!!

Firstly you still have not shown who were the innocents that he killed. Do you really consider the people at Sodom and Gomorrah to be innocents? Long post? I think not. Rather I doubt that you can actually name one innocent that God killed. Good luck with that. Start in Genesis, you will find that he gave Adam and Eve the choice to do right or wrong. They chose their path. It is called free will. Why wouldn’t God give man a choice. He was not creating puppets, he was creating human beings. There is nothing more precious than a free-minded human choosing to love. This was his desire. What an amazing God to create us knowing full well that he would be dissapointed more often than he would be appreciated. He even was willing to create humans that spend their God given talents and time trying to convince others that he was mistaken in creating these people. I’m sure that he was not wrong to create you. He must be a father that is more loving and forgiving than I will ever be. His example does however, give me a reason to keep trying. :smack:

[Der_Trihs]

@scorpio5169

Firstly you still have not shown who were the innocents that he killed. Do you really consider the people at Sodom and Gomorrah to be innocents?

:rolleyes: So everyone right down to the young children in those cities was evil? In the myth of the Flood all the people - again right down to the babies - were evil?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@scorpio5169

Firstly you still have not shown who were the innocents that he killed. Do you really consider the people at Sodom and Gomorrah to be innocents?

Actually, yeah. What were they guilty of?

[quote]
Long post? I think not. Rather I doubt that you can actually name one innocent that God killed.
[/quote

How about that whole flood thing, then we can move on to all the innocents he killed with the passover, then there were the thousands he occasionally slaughtered capriciously during the Exodus, and there are als all the innocenbts he ordered the Israelites to kill during the conquest of Canaan, including direct orders to murder children and infants.
Start in Genesis, you will find that he gave Adam and Eve the choice to do right or wrong.[/quote]

No he didn’t. Genesis says that Adam and Eve didn’t know right from wrong until after they ate the frut, so they couldn’t have chosen wrong because they didn’t know what it was. Moreover, your God LIED to them and told them them eating the fruit would kill them instead of telling them it would give them knowledge of good and evil. The talking snake is the only character in that whole story who doesn’t lie.

They chose their path. It is called free will. Why wouldn’t God give man a choice. He was not creating puppets, he was creating human beings. There is nothing more precious than a free-minded human choosing to love. This was his desire. What an amazing God to create us knowing full well that he would be dissapointed more often than he would be appreciated. He even was willing to create humans that spend their God given talents and time trying to convince others that he was mistaken in creating these people. I’m sure that he was not wrong to create you. He must be a father that is more loving and forgiving than I will ever be. His example does however, give me a reason to keep trying. :smack:

They didn’t have free will, because they didn’t kno right from wrong yet. Fee will is an impossible, nonsensical concept anyway, but for the sake of humoring the argument, God could easily only create people who freely choose good if he wanted to. If anyone chooses evil, it’s only because God wants them to. Nothing can happen against God’s will, therefore everything that happens is God’s will. Every rape, every murder, every contemporary country CD. God decided before he created the universe that he wanted each and every one of those things to happen. If he didn’t want them to happen, they wouldn’t. The free will defense doesn’t work, because God knows what people will do before he creates them. Everything they choose was his decision first. he could simply choose not to create people who cjoose evil, and only create people who freely choose good. This would not be a violation of their free will, because he would not be forcing them to choose anything, only using his omniscience to know what they will choose all by themselves.

[aigonz]

@Lobohan

@aigonz

1> You either can’t read or are simply being obtuse. None of my comments infer abiogenesis. I specifically referred to ‘common decsent’. That’s what macro evolution is.

2> Your comment on DNA is invalid, since it assumes evolution. I can just as eaisly assume creation and state we contain DNA simsialr to animals because we all were created by the same intelligence.

3> I will respond to evidence when you provide it.

No you won’t. Well, I can’t force you to think or respond in a way that someone actually involved in a debate would, so I’ll wait for you to post something else silly before responding again.

By the way, you do know that no one thinks you’re winning this argument, right?

What I do know is that your level of argumentation has barely risen above the laughable. You really need to reconsider your blind faith in a proposition you cannot support.

[aigonz]

@Der_Trihs

@aigonz

There is NO evidence for time loops, previous universes or other parallel universe. None. This is simply your opinion. Neither do you have any explanation of how ‘nature’ caused the universe we know exists. Every single compoenent of your view is unable to be supported by anything empirical.

All of those have far more evidence for them than gods. Time exists and can be distorted, and according to some theories can indeed be looped; and again, previous universes and multiple universes have the existence of this universe for evidence they are possible. As opposed to the God hypothesis, which has zero evidence that it is even possible much less true.

As for empirical evidence of the natural origin of the universe, that’s the simplest and therefore default hypothesis. It’s the responsibility of those trying to introduce an extra entity - a physics defying god in this case - who have the responsibility of coming up with evidence for it. Lots of evidence considering how wildly implausible and directly contradictory to everything else we know that such a claim is.

Meaningless handwaving. Those terms are just attempts to avoid actually defining anything about your god that can actually be pinned down and discussed.

@aigonz

2> To consider the concept of God to be contradictory is to misinterpret even the most basic definition of ‘God’. God is all powerful, and therefore although beyond time and space, he is able to create time and space.

You of course have no evidence that is even possible. And there’s plenty of contradictory things about “God” that doesn’t address, especially the Problem of Evil for people who want to claim that their imaginary god is something to base morality on.

There seems to be a double standard as to evidence implicit in your responses.

1> The existence of one universe is NOT evidence for others. It simply suggests it may be remotely possible.

2> There is no empirical evidence for any other proposition of origins. Opinion? Yes. Evidence ? No.

[aigonz]

@aigonz

2> To consider the concept of God to be contradictory is to misinterpret even the most basic definition of ‘God’. God is all powerful, and therefore although beyond time and space, he is able to create time and space.

You of course have no evidence that is even possible. And there’s plenty of contradictory things about “God” that doesn’t address, especially the Problem of Evil for people who want to claim that their imaginary god is something to base morality on.
[/QUOTE]

You have absolutely no no evidence multiple universes. Or previous universes.

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

@Lobohan

No you won’t. Well, I can’t force you to think or respond in a way that someone actually involved in a debate would, so I’ll wait for you to post something else silly before responding again.

By the way, you do know that no one thinks you’re winning this argument, right?

What I do know is that your level of argumentation has barely risen above the laughable. You really need to reconsider your blind faith in a proposition you cannot support.

I’m not the one with blind faith. My beliefs are based on reality and science. Your beliefs are based on the fantasies you have about God.

That’s probably why you refuse to actually accept when you’ve been shown wrong. It would destroy the dream you’ve built your persona on.

Maybe that would be a good thing?