Dear Aimoo User:

We added a function of Aimoo Ticket. If you met errors in Aimoo, you can add ticket to us. we will confirm it and process it first.
Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Help | Sign In | |
FSA > Theology and Spirtuality > This life and the after life Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Tomlapaz
  • From:USA

Date Posted:01-04-2018 06:27:08

A descendant of David was born in Bethlehem (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Micah), died for the sins of his people and raised from the dead (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Isaiah and Jewish King David), 2000 years ago (in the time as foretold by the Jewish prophet Daniel). And because of this descendant of David, men and women everywhere have the means of finding peace with the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The forgiveness of sins.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #91
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 05:23:52

Reply to skwanderer

 Tomas, you are repeating what we all agree, including myself.  Poor mentally ill idiot.  How many threads have you highjacked with this obsession now? 

That Hillary did not win the majority of the popular vote?

If so, great!    Because that is what my previous post was pointing out - and as those authors in the link agree with.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #92
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 05:45:37

 That Hillary did not win the majority of the popular vote?

___

She won the majority (greater number) of votes...but not the majority OF THE VOTE.  Get it?  Majority means the greater number AND more than half my delusional lying friend.

Of course you don't get it.  You are a delusional lying idiot.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #93
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 06:05:24

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Wale, you are either simply mistaken, delusional, or lying.


Perhaps within the limits of your dysfunctional mind, but we have REALITY to contrast and correct you with.
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #94
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 07:29:25

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "[i]If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn.,[/i]" -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #95
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 07:31:26

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?


Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #96
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 07:52:22

Reply to skwanderer

 That Hillary did not win the majority of the popular vote?

___

She won the majority (greater number) of votes...but not the majority OF THE VOTE.  Get it?  Majority means the greater number AND more than half my delusional lying friend.

Of course you don't get it.  You are a delusional lying idiot.


Lets review.

I posted a link noting again that Hillary did not win the majority of the popular vote.   All American sources agree - I noted two more in that post.  Even your English Dictionaries note this.  She won the plurality, but not the majority.

You then said the following in response to that post:

Skw: Tomas, you are repeating what we all agree, including myself.  Poor mentally ill idiot.  How many threads have you highjacked with this obsession now? 


So I summed up the post you say we all agree with, including yourself, by noting that Hillary did not win the majority of the vote.

You now say you disagree with American sources, etc.   Can't keep up you, guy.    Little wonder folk don't take you seriously on more complicated topics.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #97
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 08:50:05

 I posted a link noting again that Hillary did not win the majority of the popular vote.  

___________________________


She didn't.   I agree.   She won the majority of votes, but not the majority of the vote...rather a plurality. Thanks for finally agreeing.  That wasn't hard was it? I know this is all so confusing to an idiot like you.  No wonder you have avoid entering any of the more complicated discussions of a technical nature where I make you look like an even bigger idiot.


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #98
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 09:09:30

So you are in disagreement with both American and British dictionaries, and the two scholars I quoted earlier.   Not to mention the folk in the original thread.

Fine, your choice.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #99
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 09:31:56

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?


Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Let me ask again, with more specificity.

Who, besides yourself, are you referring to when you say "we?"  Are they actual people, e.g. some other FSA participants, or are they other occupants of your split level head?

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "[i]If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn.,[/i]" -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #100
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:15-04-2018 10:07:34

 Thank you for finally admitting you are wrong Tomas. That was big of you. 

Tomas is the sole participant on his side of an argument in most every thread where he believes himself to be actually having a debate, and then imagines others are actually paying attention to him and agreeing with him when no one has ever done any such thing.

Insanity - believing your own hallucinations

Religion - believing other people's hallucinations

Tomas does both.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #101
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:16-04-2018 01:03:05

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?


Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Let me ask again, with more specificity.

Who, besides yourself, are you referring to when you say "we?"  Are they actual people, e.g. some other FSA participants, or are they other occupants of your split level head?


You really are embedded in the ignorance that is YOUR mind. Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #102
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:16-04-2018 05:04:29

This has gotten old, admittedly.   Though I have asked for an American example where we see 'majority' used for a situation less than 50%, never got one (ironically).

Never.  That could have resolved it in your favor a long time ago.

And of course, we are doing this without the context of the original thread.   So, to repeat and elaborate below:

No one won a majority of the popular vote - at least as the word is used in the US, and as noted even by the British dictionary link regarding US politics in particular. Given the importance and interest of US politics for the British public, it would be understandable that it would want that clearly understood.

Hillary, however, did win a plurality of the vote.   I tried to find something to say otherwise from a US POV (maybe where Skw grew up, it was taught differently), but even mathematicians agree.  And the Wiki article has examples noting the same thing.

In the US, a majority is always a plurality, but a plurality is not always a majority.  In fact, in US politics, we have the simple majority and the super majority.  Plenty of other links to show this (for the US) - but lets face it - more facts are not what you are interested in.  We see that with other topics.  You will just twist it as you do other topics.   I think we need another approach for you.


https://study.com/academy/lesson/majority-rule-definition-examples.html

Erin has taught English and History. She has a bachelor's degree in History, and a master's degree in International Relations

This lesson will help you understand the system of majority rule. We will briefly discuss what it means, how it is used in the United States and some of its advantages and disadvantages.

Majority rule is a decision-making system. In a choice or vote between two or more options, the option that wins over 50% of the vote wins. Although we use this strategy in daily life as in the ice cream/frozen yogurt dilemma, more often we think of majority rule in government. When a new law is voted on or a president is being elected we often use majority rule. The will of the majority of people is respected and controls the outcome almost all the time.

Majority rule is similar but slightly different from a plurality system. When a plurality system is used, the winning candidate only needs to win more votes than the other candidates. In a majority rule system a candidate needs to win over 50% of the overall vote.


https://study.com/academy/lesson/simple-majority-definition-system-rule.html

Erin teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in Political Science, Public Policy, and Public Administration and has a PhD in Political Science.

In this lesson, we will learn about a simple majority. This concept will be defined in the context of the United States and compared to the concept of a supermajority.

A simple majority is a vote taken by an organization where at least 51% of the members must vote yes to approve a bill before it is accepted. The United States national government has two lawmaking bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate, which share responsibility for making the nation's laws. Some of these bills that may become law can be passed with a simple majority. For example, in the Senate, at least 51 of the 100 members must vote 'yes' to pass the 51% approval threshold. However, by law, other types of bills must be passed by a supermajority, which is a greater majority than a simple majority. Some issues must be resolved with more agreement than a simple majority. For example, most state legislatures mandate a supermajority vote to amend their state constitutions. Such issues may require a 2/3 or 3/4 vote of members to pass.


Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #103
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:16-04-2018 03:33:43

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?


Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Let me ask again, with more specificity.

Who, besides yourself, are you referring to when you say "we?"  Are they actual people, e.g. some other FSA participants, or are they other occupants of your split level head?


You really are embedded in the ignorance that is YOUR mind. Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Non responsive repetition.  I'll take that to mean the latter.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "[i]If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn.,[/i]" -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #104
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 01:10:30

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

We?  Who is this "we" that you refer to, wale?


Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Let me ask again, with more specificity.

Who, besides yourself, are you referring to when you say "we?"  Are they actual people, e.g. some other FSA participants, or are they other occupants of your split level head?


You really are embedded in the ignorance that is YOUR mind. Those of us in the REAL world, unlike yourself.

Non responsive repetition.  I'll take that to mean the latter.


repetition is sometimes necessary to embed truths into those hostile to the TRUTH and facts, such as yourself.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #105
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 03:04:58

 Lol.  Says the idiot who, when confronted with the facts of evolution, says "no it isn't" as his entire argument...over and over and over and over and over.

You really cant make this shit up.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #106
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 05:28:18

Reply to skwanderer

 Lol.  Says the idiot who, when confronted with the facts of evolution, says "no it isn't" as his entire argument...over and over and over and over and over.

You really cant make this shit up.


Repetition for YOU is a case of simply repeating truths to imbeciles, such as yourself, until they finally understand.

Proponents of the THEORY of EVOLUTION fail to show any definite purpose for the presence of the human family on this planet, or the purpose of existence for that matter.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #107
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 05:51:15

 Repetition for YOU is a case of simply repeating truths to imbeciles

___

LOL.  English much?  Yes, I do spend too much time repeating truths to you, an imbecile.

Evolution has no purpose or goal of ending up with humans or anything else.  In 25 million years there will be other species, and doubtful there will be any humans.  It is as purely mechanical as gravity.  The most fit survive and pass on genes, the outcome is the outcome.

There is both the fact and the theory of evolution as I have explained to you and you are either too stupid to understand or ignored...as in willful ignorance.

The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies in species change over time by natural causes and eventually lead to phenotypic changes and ancestral forms that are no longer similar (new species).  That is an undeniable fact.  Science or anything else will NEVER learn that is not a fact.  Get someone smart to help you look those words up.

A theory in science is defined as the general principles of something known and observed.  Evolution is known and observed.  The theory contains the general principles of how it works, and everything else we know about the fact of evolution.  Much will be added to the theory, but the fact will always be the fact.

Fucking moron.



"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #108
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 05:56:53

If you want to think of a purpose in evolution, some biologists will concur, but not how you think (do you ever think?)

In biological selection,  genes are selected to enable their own replication. Their ability to self-replicate, in turn, depends on how well they can encode traits or adaptations, which permit organisms to out-reproduce other members of their own species. The purpose (that is, function) of these adaptations is to solve complex problems (like seeing, digesting, mating, and thinking), and so they tend to be highly complex themselves. A trait is an adaptation (as opposed to being the by-product of an adaptation, or the result of random genetic ‘noise’). So genes have purpose, without knowing it.

Your purpose, from a biological perspective....live, contribute to social evolution, (you will have to look that up...I cant teach you everything), because your genetics certainly aren't t going to contribute to shit for the species.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #109
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:00:59

Reply to skwanderer

 Repetition for YOU is a case of simply repeating truths to imbeciles

___

LOL.  English much?  Yes, I do spend too much time repeating truths to you, an imbecile.

Evolution has no purpose or goal of ending up with humans or anything else.  In 25 million years there will be other species, and doubtful there will be any humans.  It is as purely mechanical as gravity.  The most fit survive and pass on genes, the outcome is the outcome.

There is both the fact and the theory of evolution as I have explained to you and you are either too stupid to understand or ignored...as in willful ignorance.

The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies in species change over time by natural causes and eventually lead to phenotypic changes and ancestral forms that are no longer similar (new species).  That is an undeniable fact.  Science or anything else will NEVER learn that is not a fact.  Get someone smart to help you look those words up.

A theory in science is defined as the general principles of something known and observed.  Evolution is known and observed.  The theory contains the general principles of how it works, and everything else we know about the fact of evolution.  Much will be added to the theory, but the fact will always be the fact.

Fucking moron.




YOU edited 'yourself' out of the quote Ozskdander thereby distorting the intended of the message.... YOU.

'  In 25 million years there will be other species, and doubtful there will be any humans. '

ASSUMPTION on your part. This span of time allows you to make pronouncements knowing you won't be around to be contradicted.

You keep saying 'fact' of evolution and it is not established fact.

How does evolution address the PURPOSE for our existence?

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #110
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:04:34

 No. I got the message correct.  You are an imbecile.

I've explained evolution and its details to you many times now and you keep repeating the same stupid shit..."no it isn't"

It is a valid assumption humans wont be here forever, no animal species has done so ever in the history of time. 

Evolution is an ESTASBLISHED FACT imbecile.  I have shown you countless examples of humans watching it occur in the wild.  We have witnessed it in front of our very eyes you fucking idiot.

And here you are...repeating "no it isn't" "no it isn't" without any technical rebuttal.

If you think all the instances of us observing evolution in action are false...then show us idiot.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #111
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:14:47

Reply to skwanderer

 No. I got the message correct.  You are an imbecile.

I've explained evolution and its details to you many times now and you keep repeating the same stupid shit..."no it isn't"

It is a valid assumption humans wont be here forever, no animal species has done so ever in the history of time. 

Evolution is an ESTASBLISHED FACT imbecile.  I have shown you countless examples of humans watching it occur in the wild.  We have witnessed it in front of our very eyes you fucking idiot.

And here you are...repeating "no it isn't" "no it isn't" without any technical rebuttal.

If you think all the instances of us observing evolution in action are false...then show us idiot.


How does evolution address the PURPOSE for our existence? ( second or third time asked)

How did LIVING material come from non living inorganic material?

An assumption is something taken for granted, and represents a legitimate starting point for an investigation.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or tentative assumption.

A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles to explain phenomena.

A fact usually is defined as an actual occurrence or something that has actual existence.

In 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” After dismissing any sort of “directed evolution,” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it” (31:138, emp. in orig.).


skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #112
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:16:32

 Thank you


A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles to explain phenomena.

The theory of evolution is the principle that explains the fact of evolution.

A fact usually is defined as an actual occurrence or something that has actual existence.

The fact of evolution has been observed.


Good for you for finally accepting that.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #113
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:17:43

Reply to skwanderer

 Thank you


A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles to explain phenomena.

The theory of evolution is the principle that explains the fact of evolution.

A fact usually is defined as an actual occurrence or something that has actual existence.

The fact of evolution has been observed.


Good for you for finally accepting that.


YOU didn't READ further:

How does evolution address the PURPOSE for our existence? ( second or third time asked)

How did LIVING material come from non living inorganic material?

An assumption is something taken for granted, and represents a legitimate starting point for an investigation.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or tentative assumption.

A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles to explain phenomena.

A fact usually is defined as an actual occurrence or something that has actual existence.

In 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” After dismissing any sort of “directed evolution,” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it” (31:138, emp. in orig.).



skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #114
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:19:04

 Why are you posting things Ive already told you?  To demonstrate you finally agree with me?
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #115
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:22:16

Reply to skwanderer

 Why are you posting things Ive already told you?  To demonstrate you finally agree with me?


Scientists unsure of EVOLUTION : skdander you ignore the supporting part-

In 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” After dismissing any sort of “directed evolution,” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it” (31:138, emp. in orig.).

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #116
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:32:47

 How does evolution address the PURPOSE for our existence? ( second or third time asked)

__

already addressed. see 107

So a dead physicist (non biologist) said what 40 years ago?  lol

Tomas and you can both find two or three "scientists" who aren't biologists who say Noah created the ark.  Your guy Lispon the non biologist, is long ago dead. He died almost 40 years ago.   lol  Even though evolution was already proven in 1980, much more has been proven since.  If you go back far enough, you can find a "scientist" who to his mind..feels the spherical earth is unproven.  lololol

There are thousands of examples of direct observation of evolution.  The theory is the body of evidence of how it works.  There is no question that genetic mutation happens and is passed to offspring that results in species changes.


Here again for the 5th or 6th time are some direct observations of the fact of evolution.


https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896

The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. Creationists claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/


For every long ago dead non biologist you post ...with no evidence to support their belief, I can post 1000 living current scientists who are actually biologists with proof of the fact of evolution


Fucking idiot



"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #117
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 06:40:03

If I find you a long ago dead scientists who says the earth is flat, that means a spherical earth isn't proven, right?

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #118
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 08:16:24

Reply to skwanderer

 How does evolution address the PURPOSE for our existence? ( second or third time asked)

__

already addressed. see 107

So a dead physicist (non biologist) said what 40 years ago?  lol

Tomas and you can both find two or three "scientists" who aren't biologists who say Noah created the ark.  Your guy Lispon the non biologist, is long ago dead. He died almost 40 years ago.   lol  Even though evolution was already proven in 1980, much more has been proven since.  If you go back far enough, you can find a "scientist" who to his mind..feels the spherical earth is unproven.  lololol

There are thousands of examples of direct observation of evolution.  The theory is the body of evidence of how it works.  There is no question that genetic mutation happens and is passed to offspring that results in species changes.


Here again for the 5th or 6th time are some direct observations of the fact of evolution.


https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896

The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. Creationists claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/


For every long ago dead non biologist you post ...with no evidence to support their belief, I can post 1000 living current scientists who are actually biologists with proof of the fact of evolution


Fucking idiot




TRANSLATION

" I NOW change from saying you can't find scientists who say things contradictory to evolution, to NOW saying I can find more thatn you....nyahh-Ozskdander"

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #119
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 08:23:32

Reply to skwanderer

If I find you a long ago dead scientists who says the earth is flat, that means a spherical earth isn't proven, right?


I guess YOU don't NOW want to look at the CONTENT of their reasons, just want to try  and use the dates to dismiss from the outset.

 British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. Dr. Hoyle wrote:

I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).

In fact, Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.

The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).

And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy:

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #120
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 08:25:22

  in 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (20:16, emp. added).

Three years after that, in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Denton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:

In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.

The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.

The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp. 16,327,353, emp. in orig.).

Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.