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.
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #211
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 08:36:43

I  wrote the following in reply to Tom's writing out Psalm 26...

Religions prefer their adherents to act like sheep. 
Keep original thought to a minimum, preferably eliminated completely.
Just obedience.


I think it applies to wale's unthinking response to the theory of evolution.

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #212
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 08:37:43

 I guess it must gnaw at you that your word isn't taken blindly, or at all.

Do you have some sort of inferiority complex skdander?

___


Its not my word...for the tenth time.  I'm just passing along some facts of science to a complete moron. 

You can keep repeating over and over that any time a scientist questions some aspect of how evolution works, it could mean there is no evolution at all...but you only make yourself look stupid....and you already look pretty stupid.

How about finding something that says any of the data I have posted is incorrect....you know...the fact that evolution has been observed and...is a fact.?

I know, you cant do it, because there is no evidence that supports your stupidity.  In any event, it is page 7.....care to enter the scientific debate?  I am wondering when you might begin.

Got any evidence whatsoever that supports your notion evolution is not a fact?  One would think you would have presented it by now.



"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 #213
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 08:38:38

 Page 8 now...and still Walnut has not entered the debate.

Got some evidence Walnut

"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 #214
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 08:39:42

Reply to skwanderer

 I guess it must gnaw at you that your word isn't taken blindly, or at all.

Do you have some sort of inferiority complex skdander?

___


Its not my word...for the tenth time.  I'm just passing along some facts of science to a complete moron. 

You can keep repeating over and over that any time a scientist questions some aspect of how evolution works, it could mean there is no evolution at all...but you only make yourself look stupid....and you already look pretty stupid.

How about finding something that says any of the data I have posted is incorrect....you know...the fact that evolution has been observed and...is a fact.?

I know, you cant do it, because there is no evidence that supports your stupidity.  In any event, it is page 7.....care to enter the scientific debate?  I am wondering when you might begin.

Got any evidence whatsoever that supports your notion evolution is not a fact?  One would think you would have presented it by now.




 “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute."  They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” 
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #215
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 08:56:48

wale63 to Bogus0Pomp:
          Were too may drugs tested on you today?
 


Model 1. (cryptii)
  Settings for this reply:
    Rotors:
      1. VI, initial setting - 6
      2. I, initial setting - 6
      3. III, initial setting - 6
    Reflector: UKB B
    Plugboard patches: bq cr di ej kw mt os px uz gh

[Begin reply text]

bbaql odjae fomur bjqyq qagit juedy ujiwe ocblu fxlql thtnv cslch nmfua hrlbn u

[End reply text]

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 #216
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-04-2018 09:12:07

  “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute."  They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” 

___

The Margulis quote yet again.

You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you are an idiot. We question natural selection all the time, if we didn't, we never would have learned about may other aspects like epigenetics and polyploidy....two other things relevant to evolution for which you are wholly ignorant.

Here is the Margulis quote that you never commented on.

"vital structures within animal and plant cells evolved from bacteria hundreds of million of years ago, after bacterial cells started to collect in interactive communities and live symbiotically with one another"

Her questioning of the mechanisms is something we still do today.

BUT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

The person you continue to quote says it is a fact.

If you have any evidence whatsoever Walnut...now might be a good time to enter the discussion.

"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 #217
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 12:34:25

Reply to skwanderer

  “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute."  They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” 

___

The Margulis quote yet again.

You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you are an idiot. We question natural selection all the time, if we didn't, we never would have learned about may other aspects like epigenetics and polyploidy....two other things relevant to evolution for which you are wholly ignorant.

Here is the Margulis quote that you never commented on.

"vital structures within animal and plant cells evolved from bacteria hundreds of million of years ago, after bacterial cells started to collect in interactive communities and live symbiotically with one another"

Her questioning of the mechanisms is something we still do today.

BUT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

The person you continue to quote says it is a fact.

If you have any evidence whatsoever Walnut...now might be a good time to enter the discussion.


You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you (skdander) are an idiot. You can't say THIS THEORY is fact when some, and Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more, question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER?
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #218
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 12:36:02

Reply to Bogus0Pomp


 


Model 1. (cryptii)
  Settings for this reply:
    Rotors:
      1. VI, initial setting - 6
      2. I, initial setting - 6
      3. III, initial setting - 6
    Reflector: UKB B
    Plugboard patches: bq cr di ej kw mt os px uz gh

[Begin reply text]

bbaql odjae fomur bjqyq qagit juedy ujiwe ocblu fxlql thtnv cslch nmfua hrlbn u

[End reply text]


Maybe they'll also take the straightjacket off you one day soon.
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #219
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 04:20:05


Model 1. (cryptii)
  Settings for this reply:
    Rotors:
      1. VI, initial setting - 4
      2. I, initial setting - 5
      3. III, initial setting - 15
    Reflector: UKB B
    Plugboard patches: bq cr di ej kw mt os px uz gh

[Begin reply text]

uktjb zhezz ujgld rlqbg roioq esovq myrwc mscvq wlkzm lkctk rcuac jrvax cqsks wzifd bsylz jsxsy

[End reply text]

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 #220
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 05:41:49

Reply to Bogus0Pomp


Model 1. (cryptii)
  Settings for this reply:
    Rotors:
      1. VI, initial setting - 4
      2. I, initial setting - 5
      3. III, initial setting - 15
    Reflector: UKB B
    Plugboard patches: bq cr di ej kw mt os px uz gh

[Begin reply text]

uktjb zhezz ujgld rlqbg roioq esovq myrwc mscvq wlkzm lkctk rcuac jrvax cqsks wzifd bsylz jsxsy

[End reply text]


Hey, if we looked up the word retarded in the dictionary, most likely we'll find YOUR picture.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #221
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 05:43:04

Reply to Yobbo

I  wrote the following in reply to Tom's writing out Psalm 26...

Religions prefer their adherents to act like sheep. 
Keep original thought to a minimum, preferably eliminated completely.
Just obedience.


I think it applies to wale's unthinking response to the theory of evolution.


 “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute."  They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” 
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #222
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 05:53:08


 You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you (skdander) are an idiot. You can't say THIS THEORY is fact when some, and Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more, question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER?

_____

I have posted no meaningless comments.  I have posted direct observations of the fact of evolution that you have ignored, because you are a retarded dumbass who couldn't respond to them in a technical manner to save your worthless soul.

You are correct about Margulis however, she is representative of many more just like her...as in scientists who accept the fact of evolution as FACT (as does Margulis), but will always question the details.  That is how science works dear idiot.

The theory and the fact are two different things as has been explained to you countless times now.

The fact of evolution that we have observed and is without question a reality is that species population genetics changes over time resulting in different expressions (phenotype) after many generations.  These different phenotypes eventually become so different they could not have interbred with their ancestors (a new species).  This is the fact part.  It wont go away no matter how much a complete imbecile like you stomps your feet.

WE HAVE OBSERVED IT DIRECTLY.

You are seriously arguing that because we haven't worked out the theory of gravity in its entirety, then gravity is not proven.  Great...then you should be able to jump off abridge and be fine.

Evolution, the fact, is proven.  Proven fact. If you disagree then you can show me where our direct observations of evolution are false.  But you cannot.

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The theory is the body of knowledge about the fact of evolution operates.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html 

National Academy of Sciences

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


In summary.  You lose.  You have presented nothing.  The best you can do is to quote a scientist who also accepts evolution as fact but merely questions some mechanisms.

"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 #223
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:08:10

Reply to skwanderer


 You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you (skdander) are an idiot. You can't say THIS THEORY is fact when some, and Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more, question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER?

_____

I have posted no meaningless comments.  I have posted direct observations of the fact of evolution that you have ignored, because you are a retarded dumbass who couldn't respond to them in a technical manner to save your worthless soul.

You are correct about Margulis however, she is representative of many more just like her...as in scientists who accept the fact of evolution as FACT (as does Margulis), but will always question the details.  That is how science works dear idiot.

The theory and the fact are two different things as has been explained to you countless times now.

The fact of evolution that we have observed and is without question a reality is that species population genetics changes over time resulting in different expressions (phenotype) after many generations.  These different phenotypes eventually become so different they could not have interbred with their ancestors (a new species).  This is the fact part.  It wont go away no matter how much a complete imbecile like you stomps your feet.

WE HAVE OBSERVED IT DIRECTLY.

You are seriously arguing that because we haven't worked out the theory of gravity in its entirety, then gravity is not proven.  Great...then you should be able to jump off abridge and be fine.

Evolution, the fact, is proven.  Proven fact. If you disagree then you can show me where our direct observations of evolution are false.  But you cannot.

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The theory is the body of knowledge about the fact of evolution operates.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html 

National Academy of Sciences

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


In summary.  You lose.  You have presented nothing.  The best you can do is to quote a scientist who also accepts evolution as fact but merely questions some mechanisms.

TRANSLATION

" I skdander will continue to declare myself the winner"

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #224
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:09:21

Reply to skwanderer


 You can keep posting this meaningless comment but it only shows you (skdander) are an idiot. You can't say THIS THEORY is fact when some, and Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more, question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER?

_____

I have posted no meaningless comments.  I have posted direct observations of the fact of evolution that you have ignored, because you are a retarded dumbass who couldn't respond to them in a technical manner to save your worthless soul.

You are correct about Margulis however, she is representative of many more just like her...as in scientists who accept the fact of evolution as FACT (as does Margulis), but will always question the details.  That is how science works dear idiot.

The theory and the fact are two different things as has been explained to you countless times now.

The fact of evolution that we have observed and is without question a reality is that species population genetics changes over time resulting in different expressions (phenotype) after many generations.  These different phenotypes eventually become so different they could not have interbred with their ancestors (a new species).  This is the fact part.  It wont go away no matter how much a complete imbecile like you stomps your feet.

WE HAVE OBSERVED IT DIRECTLY.

You are seriously arguing that because we haven't worked out the theory of gravity in its entirety, then gravity is not proven.  Great...then you should be able to jump off abridge and be fine.

Evolution, the fact, is proven.  Proven fact. If you disagree then you can show me where our direct observations of evolution are false.  But you cannot.

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The theory is the body of knowledge about the fact of evolution operates.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html 

National Academy of Sciences

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


In summary.  You lose.  You have presented nothing.  The best you can do is to quote a scientist who also accepts evolution as fact but merely questions some mechanisms.

Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more,who question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #225
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:20:02

 Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more,who question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER.

____

It is a fact.  We have observed it directly.  You are free to present data that says it is not a fact.  Margulis agrees it is a fact.

Gravity is a fact.  Do you agree?  We haven't worked out every detail of how gravity works.  Does this mean gravity is not a fact?

Answer the questions loser.

And yes, science wins, you lose.  It has nothing to do with skwanderer.

If you got any evidence, now might be a good time to present it.

"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 #226
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:24:31

Reply to skwanderer

 Marguilis is REPRESENTATIVE of many more,who question exactly how it works. In other words, THIS IS FACT BUT WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS LATER.

____

It is a fact.  We have observed it directly.  You are free to present data that says it is not a fact.  Margulis agrees it is a fact.

Gravity is a fact.  Do you agree?  We haven't worked out every detail of how gravity works.  Does this mean gravity is not a fact?

Answer the questions loser.

And yes, science wins, you lose.  It has nothing to do with skwanderer.

If you got any evidence, now might be a good time to present it.


Here is your problem. YOU place science at a higher place than it actually is in the GRAND scheme.


Science can only observe and understand what has been created.
Science hasn't even begun to completely understand the totality of what has been created, or even less than half.
What has been created comprises the entire universe.
Science is good. Science is A discipline but not the final one nor the complete one.
Human nature is SO arrogant as to believe that he can use finite tools and understanding to attempt to understand that which
is infinite and beyond the scope of science (in the grand scheme a discpline with limitations).
In other words, there is an arrogance that humans engage in where they feel that they, as the flawed and limited beings
(as compared to ALL creation-The universe) can superimpose their understanding upon that which is much greater in scope and comprehension.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #227
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:28:49

 Lovely non answer.  Facts are facts no matter where you "place science".  There is NO EVIDENCE anything has been created as you seem to like to claim as a fact.  It is not.  Evolution is a fact.  We have observed it.  If we had observed matter being created, that too would be a fact, but it is not.

Does science know that gravity is a fact?  How can the theory not be fully worked out if gravity is a fact?


If you believe evolution is not a fact, present your evidence as to why our direct observations that I posted repeatedly are false?

Ready go.

Page 8 and you have posted NO EVIDENCE to support your position.  None.

Evidence = 1, Wale = 0

"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 #228
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 06:35:59

Reply to skwanderer

 Lovely non answer.  Facts are facts no matter where you "place science".  There is NO EVIDENCE anything has been created as you seem to like to claim as a fact.  It is not.  Evolution is a fact.  We have observed it.  If we had observed matter being created, that too would be a fact, but it is not.

Does science know that gravity is a fact?  How can the theory not be fully worked out if gravity is a fact?


If you believe evolution is not a fact, present your evidence as to why our direct observations that I posted repeatedly are false?

Ready go.

Page 8 and you have posted NO EVIDENCE to support your position.  None.

Evidence = 1, Wale = 0


You begin every conclusion of yours WITHOUT the CAUSE of ALL that exists.

case in point. YOU claim that everything that was needed in the Big bang existed in the ball of mass, yes? non living material, living material, etc.

YOU claim that the universe in not ordered ( because it doesn't fit YOUR preconceptions). Science doesn't explain, for example how man got the ability to think , or REASON. Science doesn't explain that quality that makes man "SPARK" or makes him alive and thinking. Yet here you are falling back on Science as if it is omnipotent and answers ALL questions when it cannot answer, fundamentally, WHY man exists as he does, why a RANDOM explosion settled into a pattern that supports life, WHAT is man's purpose in this life and beyond, etc.

Yet you fall back as if SCIENCE, a good discipline, is OMNIPOTENT, a kind of RELIGION that suits YOU.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #229
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 07:01:46

 There is no evidence of a supernatural cause of all that exists.  Matter is neither created nor destroyed.  It is always here.

I never claimed the universe is not ordered or that living matter was in the big bang.  There is disorder and order in the natural world.  Natural selection creates order. Matter in its elemental form and energy were in the big bang and all previous big bangs and other universes etc.

Mass and energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed.

Some of the universe is ordered...Molecular structure creates order in many things.  How elements interact is not always random.  There is just no evidence of any supernatural force behind it. Science does explain how neurons formed and evolved actually.  The things you dnt know about evolution is a list that could fill volumes of encyclopedias.

PS...I don't have to answer any of those questions to prove evolution is a fact.  Your God may have made the first spark of life  or waved his wand to make the big bang happen (although evidence doesn't support it)...but from there...evolution, the fact...Happened.



"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 #230
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 07:10:13

Reply to skwanderer

 There is no evidence of a supernatural cause of all that exists.  Matter is neither created nor destroyed.  It is always here.

I never claimed the universe is not ordered or that living matter was in the big bang.  There is disorder and order in the natural world.  Natural selection creates order. Matter in its elemental form and energy were in the big bang and all previous big bangs and other universes etc.

Mass and energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed.

Some of the universe is ordered...Molecular structure creates order in many things.  How elements interact is not always random.  There is just no evidence of any supernatural force behind it. Science does explain how neurons formed and evolved actually.  The things you dnt know about evolution is a list that could fill volumes of encyclopedias.

PS...I don't have to answer any of those questions to prove evolution is a fact.  Your God may have made the first spark of life  or waved his wand to make the big bang happen (although evidence doesn't support it)...but from there...evolution, the fact...Happened.




In other posts YOU said the universe is not planned out, in order and the like. Since you can't and won't consider the first cause, and that which sits above all else, you cannot then use partial observation to rule out the GRAND picture, which is in a nutshell what you attempt but are unsuccessful. Keep repeating evolution, with it's unknown factors STILL, is a fact, when it is not, Maybe that helps YOU to justify some preconceptions undertaken BEFORE you observe anything BUT until you BEGIN by considering ALL possibilities and THEN proceeding from there, your "pronouncements" will be taken in that light.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #231
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 07:16:19

 It isn't planned out.  That doesn't mean some things don't have order.  Good christ man you are fucking idiot.

The water molecule has a 104 degree bond angle based on the electrons in the atom.  That creates ice that floats.  The only solid that floats on its liquid form.  If that were not true, life as we know it would not likely have evolved.There is no God who did that.  It is a property of the atoms. 

Evolution is a fact.  We have observed it. If you have evidence that refutes the observations of evolution I posted, now would be a good time to present it.

You still haven't answered this question.

Is gravity a fact?  How can that be when we don't understand all the mechanisms of gravity?

PS:  We understand far more of the mechanisms of the fact of evolution than gravity.


"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
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #232
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 07:35:49

Science is work in progress.  It is being reexamined all the time.

Religion is completed.  It demands total obedience and no investigation.

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #233
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 07:41:11

 They found the right man for no investigation.  Wale is on page 8 and has yet to post a single piece of evidence that says the direct observations of evolution are false.
"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 #234
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 10:43:09

Reply to skwanderer

 It isn't planned out.  That doesn't mean some things don't have order.  Good christ man you are fucking idiot.

The water molecule has a 104 degree bond angle based on the electrons in the atom.  That creates ice that floats.  The only solid that floats on its liquid form.  If that were not true, life as we know it would not likely have evolved.There is no God who did that.  It is a property of the atoms. 

Evolution is a fact.  We have observed it. If you have evidence that refutes the observations of evolution I posted, now would be a good time to present it.

You still haven't answered this question.

Is gravity a fact?  How can that be when we don't understand all the mechanisms of gravity?

PS:  We understand far more of the mechanisms of the fact of evolution than gravity.


YOUR quote:

"The water molecule has a 104 degree bond angle based on the electrons in the atom.  That creates ice that floats.  The only solid that floats on its liquid form.  If that were not true, life as we know it would not likely have evolved. There is no God who did that..."

YOU do not know that BUT you want to convince yourself of that from the outset. Once again, you make flat statements when you don't really comprehend. Your disproportional faith in science is Disproportional. Science is a PART of the WHOLE/ Grand picture. YOU place science ABOVE the whole totality with a religion like fervor and yet you cannot account for certain aspects. YOU still haven't answered certain questions either, so let's not pretend you do not slant towards your pre conceived answers.Since you can't and won't consider the first cause, and that which sits above all else, you cannot then use partial observation to rule out the GRAND picture, which is in a nutshell what you attempt but are unsuccessful. Keep repeating evolution, with it's unknown factors STILL, is a fact, when it is not, Maybe that helps YOU to justify some preconceptions undertaken BEFORE you observe anything BUT until you BEGIN by considering ALL possibilities and THEN proceeding from there, your "pronouncements" will be taken in that light.


wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #235
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-04-2018 10:44:22

Reply to Yobbo

Science is work in progress.  It is being reexamined all the time.

Religion is completed.  It demands total obedience and no investigation.


WRONG, as usual, on both counts.
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #236
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-04-2018 02:39:15

Reply to wale63

Reply to Yobbo

Science is work in progress.  It is being reexamined all the time.

Religion is completed.  It demands total obedience and no investigation.


WRONG, as usual, on both counts.

Explain how and why you believe those two sentences are wrong.
"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #237
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-04-2018 12:37:46

Reply to Yobbo

Reply to wale63

Reply to Yobbo

Science is work in progress.  It is being reexamined all the time.

Religion is completed.  It demands total obedience and no investigation.


WRONG, as usual, on both counts.

Explain how and why you believe those two sentences are wrong.


Nope. YOU are always making dumb statements with no proofs and then want others to prove what you don't understand.

But here we go. If SCIENCE is a work in progress, that means that MANY errors in conclusions will take place and those who take the word of PRESENT day science, won't allow , as YOU say for the work in progress that just may upend what is agreed upon TODAY. It could be revised or discarded, TOMORROW. A review of the history of SCIENCE will show that. Do we bleed people with leeches anymore? SCIENCE is not omnipotent and MANY, in the name of SCIENCE exaggerate it's position as omnipotent pronouncements, not to be questioned.

Religion, in GENERAL, is simply a body of thought which contains a deity at it's core. Many religions are just incorrect and not all equal.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #238
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-04-2018 04:34:08

 Nope. YOU are always making dumb statements with no proofs and then want others to prove what you don't understand.

__


I provided proof that evolution is a fact.  We have observed it.  I provided published observations of actual evolution witnessed by man.  Now would be a good time for you to enter this debate for the first time and show me either 1) proof that the data I provided is wrong, or 2) proof that a God created anything.

You have provided nothing Wale.  Not one fucking thing.

Get an argument, or not....no skin off my back if you want to keep looking like an 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 #239
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-04-2018 04:55:22

 Wale:

All your meaningless diatribe is just that. Meaningless.

"Science might be wrong because it is a work in progress".  "You place science above all else but it is only a part, blah blah fucking blah."

You are saying absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion.  It is very convenient to conclude that since science is always a work in progress, and always will be for all time because that is how it works, that you can conveniently deny facts you don't like.  It doesn't work that way.  Science will always be a work in progress, but a rock will always be a rock.  A water molecule will always be a water molecule.  No matter how long science remains a work in progress....which is forever because that is how science works...there are still facts.   Evolution is one of them.

I provided factual data on actual observations of evolution.  OBSERVATIONS OF GENETIC CHANGE AND SPECIATION.

Any time you are ready to join this discussion, you can refute that if you like.  It is nearly page 9.  Now would be a good time to enter this discussion about evolution that you argue so vehemently is incorrect.



"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 #240
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-04-2018 07:16:31

Reply to skwanderer

 Wale:

All your meaningless diatribe is just that. Meaningless.

"Science might be wrong because it is a work in progress".  "You place science above all else but it is only a part, blah blah fucking blah."

You are saying absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion.  It is very convenient to conclude that since science is always a work in progress, and always will be for all time because that is how it works, that you can conveniently deny facts you don't like.  It doesn't work that way.  Science will always be a work in progress, but a rock will always be a rock.  A water molecule will always be a water molecule.  No matter how long science remains a work in progress....which is forever because that is how science works...there are still facts.   Evolution is one of them.

I provided factual data on actual observations of evolution.  OBSERVATIONS OF GENETIC CHANGE AND SPECIATION.

Any time you are ready to join this discussion, you can refute that if you like.  It is nearly page 9.  Now would be a good time to enter this discussion about evolution that you argue so vehemently is incorrect.




Not meaningless at all, only to YOU because you have fabricated your OWN reality, which means it is false.

What caused the MECHANISM IN the water molecule to act as it does? AGAIN, Where does human consciousness and the ability to think originate from?


" Amir Dan Aczel (November 6, 1950 – November 26, 2015) was an Israeli-born American lecturer in mathematics and the history of mathematics and science, and an author of popular books on mathematics and science.......When Aczel was 21 he studied at the University of California, Berkeley. He graduated with a BA in mathematics in 1975, and received a Master of Science in 1976. Several years later Aczel earned a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of Oregon." - Wikipedia


From Amir Aczel:

"...But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim?

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang.

Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries...

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?

 This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics.

Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos....We know that 13.7 billion years ago, a gargantuan burst of energy, whose nature and source are completely unknown to us and not in the least understood by science, initiated the creation of our universe...

Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life?

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the

(The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)...But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are...."

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/


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