Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Now he's onto his

Now he's onto his anti-evolution hobby-horse, gramster is beginning to sound like a polite version of 'Mind over Matter'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:What is

Indeterminate wrote:

What is third grade logic anyway? 

I think it must be the same logic that insists santa delivers presents.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3437
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Indeterminate

robj101 wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

What is third grade logic anyway? 

I think it must be the same logic that insists santa delivers presents.

ah, well in that case i'm waaay ahead.  i was already a fierce, evangelical "a-sant-ist" when i was in second grade.  i ruined many children's christmases, including my little sister's, with my pitiless, razor-like logic.  heh heh heh...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Trouble is St Dis

StDissonance wrote:

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

Man created god and our nature shapes his good qualities as well as his vicious and intemperate nature. It's not possible to ascribe to god any characteristic that's beyond our comprehension and so he conforms to our behaviours as he must do. He loves, he forgives, he is merciful, he is enraged, he punishes, he makes war. If there's any non-human quality or behaviour god has that you'd like to point out for us, please do so, including definitions and comprehensible measurements for characteristics including but not limited to: Holy, almighty, eternal, omniscient, etc, etc, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fuck, I hate this argument.

 

gramster wrote:

Now for pineapples. Please, I'm amazed you dragged up that one. To imply that the fact that we share D.N.A. with a pineapple is evidence we have a common ancestor, is like claiming that my house is related to the public library since they both contain materials from the same batch and manufacturer. It simply shows that the designer used the same building materials.

 

If we found bugs on Mars the god-people would find a way to sneak around the edges of the precipice like Alfred Hitchcock and Three Investigators in the Mystery of the Green Ghost. Just to ratchet things up a notch, as well as being genetically related to a pineapple you're 60 per cent banana, 48 per cent virus (bananas have viral code, too) and your brain cells are probably a corral of highly evolved bacteria cells in a soup containing an identical chemical signature and salinity to the ocean. Recent studies suggest brain cells communicate by 'singing' in electrical frequencies. I didn't believe that till I heard Tim Buckley yowling at the end of Get on Top of Me Woman.

Funky. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Now for pineapples. Please, I'm amazed you dragged up that one. To imply that the fact that we share D.N.A. with a pineapple is evidence we have a common ancestor, is like claiming that my house is related to the public library since they both contain materials from the same batch and manufacturer. It simply shows that the designer used the same building materials.

 

If we found bugs on Mars the god-people would find a way to sneak around the edges of the precipice like Alfred Hitchcock and Three Investigators in the Mystery of the Green Ghost. Just to ratchet things up a notch, as well as being genetically related to a pineapple you're 60 per cent banana, 48 per cent virus (bananas have viral code, too) and your brain cells are probably a corral of highly evolved bacteria cells in a soup containing an identical chemical signature and salinity to the ocean. Recent studies suggest brain cells communicate by 'singing' in electrical frequencies. I didn't believe that till I heard Tim Buckley yowling at the end of Get on Top of Me Woman.

Funky. 

 

I would say it would be like finding that 90% of the materials were identical, and they used the exact same construction methods, and so on, or better, that the plans had been copy-pasted from the same set of standard drawings with just the dimensions being changed. Even better analogy if one was a house and one was a bus, yet they used the same basic set of materials, IOW, like us and a pineapple, they looked nothing like each other, yet used the same construction materials,.

DNA is not the building materials, it is the specifications for the building materials and the way they are to be assembled. If the plans are identical in format, and the building materials are the same, with only the quantities and dimensions changed, it would be reasonable to guess that they have been based on the same fundamental building plan.

Here's another analogy - gramster is comparing two buildings using the same brand of bricks and mortar, whereas a far better analogy would be a model house and a model car both made out of Lego blocks, using plans from the same book.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Q

Yes, I understand that evolution is basically based on "small accumulating changes to the sequences of a standard set of normal chromosomes". Let's for the sake of simplicity put an analogy to it. Tell me if this pretty much fits the picture.

Let's simply use the alphabet to represent various living things. Let's assume for illustration purposes that A is about a far from Z as you can get, and that A evolves to B, which evolves to C etc. If for example A were a dog, and B were a cat, there would be probably millions of changes along the way before a dog would evolve into a cat. Ok so far?

What one would expect to see in abundance is a pretty smooth chain of transitional life forms along the way. There should be overwhelming observable examples of this "gradual" transitioning" going on. As an example we will say an A.1, A.2 ... until you came to B the cat. That is not what we see in living creatures, or the fossil record.

So as you say, science "comes up" with a "fix" for this problem. They call it the "island effect". This is as I understand, the seperation or isolation of a living thing after some significant change takes place that prevents it from having that particular change diluted by "breeding" with the existing unchanged "colony" that it came from.

This still seems to be quite problematic since these changes are quite gradual as you say. This isolated colony would than need to produce a beneficial or at least not significantly harmful change, and for that change to also become isolated. This would have to happen what a million or so times to produce a significantly varied life form?

If this is how evolution occures to get from A to B to C etc, there should be countless millions of transitional examples even with the island effect. The fossils, and living things here on earth should clearly show this gradual transitioning in great abundance.

The problem is that this is not what we observe to be the case. What we see in abundance, is groups, families, kinds, or whatever you want to call them that seem to have the ability to adapt within a particular "family". We see "kind" producing "kind", and do not see the abundance of gradual changes one would expect.

I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation to this. Maybe you can give me one? One that makes logical sense on an intuitive level. Why do we not see all of the gradual transitional life forms that would have been necessary in abundance to make the evolutionary model work.

Gramps


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Yes, I

gramster wrote:

Yes, I understand that evolution is basically based on "small accumulating changes to the sequences of a standard set of normal chromosomes". Let's for the sake of simplicity put an analogy to it. Tell me if this pretty much fits the picture.

Let's simply use the alphabet to represent various living things. Let's assume for illustration purposes that A is about a far from Z as you can get, and that A evolves to B, which evolves to C etc. If for example A were a dog, and B were a cat, there would be probably millions of changes along the way before a dog would evolve into a cat. Ok so far?

What one would expect to see in abundance is a pretty smooth chain of transitional life forms along the way. There should be overwhelming observable examples of this "gradual" transitioning" going on. As an example we will say an A.1, A.2 ... until you came to B the cat. That is not what we see in living creatures, or the fossil record.

So as you say, science "comes up" with a "fix" for this problem. They call it the "island effect". This is as I understand, the seperation or isolation of a living thing after some significant change takes place that prevents it from having that particular change diluted by "breeding" with the existing unchanged "colony" that it came from.

This still seems to be quite problematic since these changes are quite gradual as you say. This isolated colony would than need to produce a beneficial or at least not significantly harmful change, and for that change to also become isolated. This would have to happen what a million or so times to produce a significantly varied life form?

If this is how evolution occures to get from A to B to C etc, there should be countless millions of transitional examples even with the island effect. The fossils, and living things here on earth should clearly show this gradual transitioning in great abundance.

The problem is that this is not what we observe to be the case. What we see in abundance, is groups, families, kinds, or whatever you want to call them that seem to have the ability to adapt within a particular "family". We see "kind" producing "kind", and do not see the abundance of gradual changes one would expect.

I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation to this. Maybe you can give me one? One that makes logical sense on an intuitive level. Why do we not see all of the gradual transitional life forms that would have been necessary in abundance to make the evolutionary model work.

Gramps

So you're defining kind based on looks alone?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: I have yet

gramster wrote:

I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation to this. Maybe you can give me one? One that makes logical sense on an intuitive level. Why do we not see all of the gradual transitional life forms that would have been necessary in abundance to make the evolutionary model work.

Gramps

 

The island effect is only one reason why species evolve.  I think it is one of the easier ones to understand and conceptualize.  There are many reasons a species may need to evolve.  The climate for whatever reason changes - warmer/wetter/drier/cooler.  A volcano erupts.  A earthquake.  A river changes course or dries up.  It could be that another species moves in because their environment changed.  The new species may be a direct competitor for the same prey, a predator of the species we are examining, or it could be a new prey species.  Any and more of these changes could cause a change.  The species may evolve, it may go extinct or it may move to another area. 

Species do not evolve if there are no changes in the environment.  Sharks are the same as they were millennium ago because the ocean has not changed that much.  Crocodiles have have not changed because the ones that exist today live in areas similar to what crocodiles have lived in for millennium.  Dinosaurs changed a lot - they either went extinct, or survived and evolved to become what we today call "birds".

A lovely and informative coffee table book that was available at my library: Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds by John Long.

And you must not have looked at Donald Prothero's book.  He has pages and pages of transitional fossils.  His specialty is herd animals in what is now the US.  A.1, A.2, A.3, etc until I was tired of looking.  He says you haven't seen the transitional fossils because most people don't have access to laboratories and museum store rooms where lots of them are kept.  So he wrote this book with the intention of showing what is only a small fraction of the transitional fossils available for study.

"Convergent evolution" is when species that are not genetically related to each other share similar characteristics.  Is this a dog?

 

 

Not even close.  When I was a child, hyenas were considered to be closely related to dogs.  When they analyzed the genome - hyenas are in a family separate from but are most closely related to mongooses and meerkats.  Would you have put hyenas in the "mongoose kind"?  As our knowledge about analyzing DNA has increased and our methods have become faster, biologists have had to revise many of their assumptions about relatedness. 

The picture is from Yahoo.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyaenidae for more information on hyenas.

As we learn more about the species on this old planet, the ideas we used to have about "kind" and then "species" are showing just how outdated they are.  So, "this is this and that is that and a dog is not a cat".  How about "civit cat"? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civit_cat  There are six different species mentioned as being commonly called "civit cat" only two of which are true cats.  Saying a particular living thing belongs to some arbitrary "kind" is as outdated as rotary dial phones, gramps.

It is not possible for anyone to make anything but a small dent in your ignorance about evolution here on this forum.  The subject is too broad and there is too much information to put in one or two posts.  I am not an expert.  I have had one college level course in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.  I enjoy reading about evolution and ecology and so I occasionally pick up a book on the subject and read it.  Try starting with the two books I have mentioned here.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Yes, I

gramster wrote:

Yes, I understand that evolution is basically based on "small accumulating changes to the sequences of a standard set of normal chromosomes". Let's for the sake of simplicity put an analogy to it. Tell me if this pretty much fits the picture.

Let's simply use the alphabet to represent various living things. Let's assume for illustration purposes that A is about a far from Z as you can get, and that A evolves to B, which evolves to C etc. If for example A were a dog, and B were a cat, there would be probably millions of changes along the way before a dog would evolve into a cat. Ok so far?

What one would expect to see in abundance is a pretty smooth chain of transitional life forms along the way. There should be overwhelming observable examples of this "gradual" transitioning" going on. As an example we will say an A.1, A.2 ... until you came to B the cat. That is not what we see in living creatures, or the fossil record.

Yes and no, using your example A - B A1 looks no different than A2 except for a minor change, say slightly smaller ears, A2 looks no different than A3 except for slightly smaller ears than A2, skip a few numbers A999,999 - A1,000,000 looks no different except for minor change in coat colour. A1,000,000 - B looks no different except for we now have the modern cat genetically speaking, however A1,000,000 wouldn't really look any different than B. However this is really not a great example as Dogs and Cats are not in the same family, keeping it in the cannine family would be a far better example. However the other issue is that bones don't tend to become fossils every time and there are so many variables to play, including where to excavate and find fossils, how long between species etc, etc, etc. But there have been tons and tons of transitional fossils found, we are a species in transistion, but again, your ignoring the evidence that we already have.

Quote:

So as you say, science "comes up" with a "fix" for this problem. They call it the "island effect". This is as I understand, the separation or isolation of a living thing after some significant change takes place that prevents it from having that particular change diluted by "breeding" with the existing unchanged "colony" that it came from.

This still seems to be quite problematic since these changes are quite gradual as you say. This isolated colony would than need to produce a beneficial or at least not significantly harmful change, and for that change to also become isolated. This would have to happen what a million or so times to produce a significantly varied life form?

First off science comes up with the answer to the questions posed or the problems that arises, it has to be able to explain a phenomena, it doesn't come up with and answer by merely guessing, those explanations have to have a way of verifying it. Hence why evolution is a proven fact, as well as a scientific theory (there is a difference here and I expect you to know the difference)

Quote:

If this is how evolution occurs to get from A to B to C etc, there should be countless millions of transitional examples even with the island effect. The fossils, and living things here on earth should clearly show this gradual transitioning in great abundance.

of course if everything that died became a fossil or remained safe from decay sure, however nature isn't that kind.

Quote:

The problem is that this is not what we observe to be the case. What we see in abundance, is groups, families, kinds, or whatever you want to call them that seem to have the ability to adapt within a particular "family". We see "kind" producing "kind", and do not see the abundance of gradual changes one would expect.

Again please see my example, A1-A2 are still A, they look nearly identical, A2-A3 look identical except for a minor change, A3 looks nearly identical to A1, A3 looks nearly identical to A4, A4 looks very close to identical to A1, A4 looks identical to A5 (again minor change) however A5 may look similar to A1 but not nearly identical. and evolution gradually continues on. It would still be in the same family, just like humans are apes and we are all in the same family Hominidae or great ape family. But a gorilla isn't a human and a human isn't a chimpanzee although we are classified in the same family. But again, I assume your trying to make the case of a dog producing a cat....doesn't work that way.

Quote:

I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation to this. Maybe you can give me one? One that makes logical sense on an intuitive level. Why do we not see all of the gradual transitional life forms that would have been necessary in abundance to make the evolutionary model work.

Gramps

We do, you don't that a big difference, and the evidence to back it up is there, you haven't provided a satisfactory answer or provided a scientific evidence contrary to what has been proven to be true with evolution. As well you haven't proven god either. You fail to understand how the process of evolution functions, you want a cat to come from a dog, doesn't work that way.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe Noah's myth is true?

Gramps,

Science has identified over 2 million species.  How could they fit into Noah's Ark? I have read that the Ark would only have capacity for 40,000 animals.  The primitive world was not aware of how many "kinds" there were so they didn't see a need for a much larger solution to preserve all the species who had to be above water. The odd question is how could these animals live in the Ark for 1 year without the predators attacking the prey? Somebody offered me a solution that God put them to sleep, which is not in the Bible but you got to make up some answer to make it believable. OK. So, the door opens and all the animals come pouring out with everything destroyed. How does the lion not take down one of the two gazelles thus eliminating the species?

Another question how is it that Marsupials only live in Australia? Why are there no kangaroo fossils found anywhere else in the world? If they were on the Ark they would have to migrate quite a distance and some would die along the trek. Why did they settle on Australia only? How did they cross the oceans? Evolution explains this simply. It is a major twist and stretch to have it make sense using the Bible.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Noah's Ark

First let me congratulate you for leaving the ministry. I am so glad that you have not "just hung around" like others sometimes do. There are more that should follow suit. I would guess that your "faith" must have been of the baseless type that atheists believe in if you let such a trivial matter "take you down".

First let me point out a couple of obvious facts that I am sure many will not like. It stands to reason that a God that could inundate the entire earth with water could also "keep the peace" among the animals, as well as make sure they all ended up where He wanted them to reside. It would not be rational to believe otherwise. If God were to explain in detail just how He accomplished all the things He did, the bible would not be a book, but an encyclopedia.

Second let me point out an error in your thinking process. For someone to make a case that something is reasonable, or believable, they do not need to come up with concrete evidence, but merely a possible way that it "could have happened". Conversely, to prove that something did actually happen requires a much more rigid standard.

Some people, even many creationists will not like this, but Grandpa does not have a problem with the possibility of God placing the animals where He wanted them after the flood, or at least helping them along. It would not be rational to believe He could not have done that if He is indeed God.

That being said, fortunately we do not have to resort to that. If you are interested, there is a good article by Nozomi Osanai who wrote a thesis on the genesis account of the flood. Includedare some answers to your above questions. So often critics of a certain view point will simplify, and make assumptions that are not necessarily valid.

It is not unlikely that God created just the original "parents" of all the life forms we have now. That would be the original ancestors that had the genetic information to pass along that would enable us to get the rest. In the flood scenario, He would probably have admitted only that group, cutting the number down considerably.

Again the bible does not give an extravagant detailed account of how God did it. We have only a brief accounting of the early events in this earth's history.

This article was published in "Creation Magazine" vol 19, issue 2, Mar 1997. It can be found on their website for easy access and reading. Just Google Creation Magazine. You will get there easily.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:First let me

gramster wrote:

First let me congratulate you for leaving the ministry. I am so glad that you have not "just hung around" like others sometimes do. There are more that should follow suit. I would guess that your "faith" must have been of the baseless type that atheists believe in if you let such a trivial matter "take you down".

First let me point out a couple of obvious facts that I am sure many will not like. It stands to reason that a God that could inundate the entire earth with water could also "keep the peace" among the animals, as well as make sure they all ended up where He wanted them to reside. It would not be rational to believe otherwise. If God were to explain in detail just how He accomplished all the things He did, the bible would not be a book, but an encyclopedia.

Second let me point out an error in your thinking process. For someone to make a case that something is reasonable, or believable, they do not need to come up with concrete evidence, but merely a possible way that it "could have happened". Conversely, to prove that something did actually happen requires a much more rigid standard.

Some people, even many creationists will not like this, but Grandpa does not have a problem with the possibility of God placing the animals where He wanted them after the flood, or at least helping them along. It would not be rational to believe He could not have done that if He is indeed God.

That being said, fortunately we do not have to resort to that. If you are interested, there is a good article by Nozomi Osanai who wrote a thesis on the genesis account of the flood. Includedare some answers to your above questions. So often critics of a certain view point will simplify, and make assumptions that are not necessarily valid.

It is not unlikely that God created just the original "parents" of all the life forms we have now. That would be the original ancestors that had the genetic information to pass along that would enable us to get the rest. In the flood scenario, He would probably have admitted only that group, cutting the number down considerably.

Again the bible does not give an extravagant detailed account of how God did it. We have only a brief accounting of the early events in this earth's history.

This article was published in "Creation Magazine" vol 19, issue 2, Mar 1997. It can be found on their website for easy access and reading. Just Google Creation Magazine. You will get there easily.

 

In other words, suspend all logic, suspend reality, insert your own illogical, supernatural, and of course unrealistic version to make god a possibility, heck with that type of logic Poseidon could have been the real cause, since he is the god of the sea's and storms, and a flooding caused by 40 days and 40 nights of rain storms seems perfectly up his alley, of course Artemis couldn't allow all the animals to perish become Poseidon was pissed off, and decided to get the humans to build a ship that would save them all, since she is the goddess of animals and hunters she would have been able to control the animals and make them docile enough so the natural predators of the preys wouldn't kill each other, as well suspended their hunger so they wouldn't need to eat for all that time, i mean after all meat goes bad quickly and lions, wolves, cheetahs, jaguars, pumas, and various other meat eating animals require well for their numbers on the ark a heck of a lot of meat.......of course when they got of the ark Artemis granted them the ability to multiply faster than bunny rabbits so that the food chain would be back to normal.......yes this is the way it actually happened.

Of course now just like your version, there is zero evidence to back any of our claims up....as such logic and reality deny either event of actually occurring.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Evolution

Aside from dealing with some "Grandpa" issues, I have been looking into some of the "science" issues and claims made about evolution. It was a real eye opening experience. The so called "science" of origins is "remarkable" indeed. 

I looked up information on fossils, the ice age, plate tectronics, dating, and other subjects. What I found was a field of "science" that has standards lower than I could possibly have imagined. I will give a few examples of what I found.

Example: Whale evolution - Gingerich (an evolutionary scientist) published some "information", including "pictures" showing the evolutionary steps from land animals (mesonychid) to whales. His article included an imaginative drawing of Pakicetus swimming and catching fish. He claimed it had an inner ear like a whales, and boldly called it a perfect intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later full fledged whales. What he did not mention is the fact that at that time, only skull fragments had been found. There was no evidence that Pakicetus had an inner ear like that of a whale, no evidence that it swam at all, no bones below the skull to show what type of body it had, and it was found buried with other "land animals". This supposedly remarkable find of a transitional "link", turned out to be nothing more than a fast running land mammal. Later finds of more complete specimens confirms this as whale expert Thewissen points out. Miller (another evolutionary scientist) made claims that Ambulocetus could move easily on both land and water using a diagram made artistically using also only a few bone fragments. The rest was purely artistic speculation. Gingerich also made exaggerated claims of Basilosaurus having functioning pelvis, leg bone, and knee cap. This was  also pure speculation from bone fragments that could not possibly lead to that conclusion. Than we note that the evolutionary diagram "artistically" showing the transition from land mammals to whales fails to mention that Basilosaurus is 10X the size of Ambulocetus. They are all drawn to look the same size.

Next I start looking up information on "feathered dinosaurs", and find more hoax's and fabrications than all of the "Noah's ark" finds put together. The "greater scientific community" was quick to confirm the apparent validity of the feathered dinosaurs found in China, even before they were made readily available to western scientists. These have since been proven to be fraudulent.

Evolutionary scientists quickly became excited at the prospect of extracting DNA from well preserved soft tissue in dinosaur bones, but blatantly overlooked the impossibility of DNA surviving 70 million years. These fresh bones do not fit the long age myth, but perfectly fit the 4,500 yr model. (seeing the pattern)

Fossils in pristine condition were also found with their original iridescence and original ligaments. These amazingly fresh specimens were estimated to be 165 million years old. This is amazing indeed.

When so called science starts with a conclusion that is doggedly held to by "faith", than holds this to be the "gospel truth", and try's to make everything observed fit into this mold, reason breaks down and insanity follows.

So what is a reasonable person to do? Am I expected to believe that since I do not have a degree in science, or possess extensive and detailed knowledge of the "science" backing the evolutionary model the only choice is to accept the conclusions of these "blind guides" as fact by "faith". Now that's a scary thought. That would be very similar to the dark ages when the bible was available only in latin and the people were told they were too ignorant to understand it. Therefore, they were to depend on "the church" to interpret it, and pass the "truths" on to them. I believe the results would probably turn out about the same also.

No. I will stick to the belief that a simple old man like myself can and must rely on common sense and reason, examining the evidence for myself and accepting only what makes sense.

As for references, I have made this easy for you. All of the above information you can find on the Creation Magazine website, each article complete with detailed references of it's own. Just Google creation magazine. Look up the following:

A '165 million year surprise" by Andrew Snelling" vol 19 issue 2 march 1997.

Also "seeing the pattern", "a whale of a tale", "feathered fossils" and much more. Most of the article's have links to click on that take you to more detailed information. It is a real easy site to navigate.

Gramps

 

 

 


 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:That being

gramster wrote:

That being said, fortunately we do not have to resort to that. If you are interested, there is a good article by Nozomi Osanai who wrote a thesis on the genesis account of the flood. Includedare some answers to your above questions. So often critics of a certain view point will simplify, and make assumptions that are not necessarily valid.

 

How does Nozomi Osanai account for the fact that many countries do NOT have a story or history of a global flood?  China and Egypt for example.  Both countries have very long written histories - no global flood story.  No evidence that a global flood ever occurred.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:A '165

gramster wrote:

A '165 million year surprise" by Andrew Snelling" vol 19 issue 2 march 1997.

Also "seeing the pattern", "a whale of a tale", "feathered fossils" and much more. Most of the article's have links to click on that take you to more detailed information. It is a real easy site to navigate.

Gramps  

 

You call this research?????  Did you look at any real science?  No?  You just took the word of some people who are also not scientists.  And you call that common sense.  I call it pathetic.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Evolution continued

It has been stated that "evolution is a proven fact". This is a common claim among atheists and evolutionists. Yes, that can be said, but is really nothing more than playing with semantics. Evolution is a very broad term. It is in fact so broad, that it has almost lost it's meaning altogether. Evolution in it's broadest sense is indeed a proven fact (things do change, adapt, degrade, etc) that is a fact. What is not a proven fact, is that lower and simpler life forms have evolved into higher, and more complex life forms, and that is a viable explanation for our origins. That is not a proven fact.

There are many problems and unanswered or unanswerable questions with the evolutionary model. I will give just a few examples.

First we will start at the bottom. During the "Cambrian period" life was supposed to have "exploded", with a multitude of "phyla" or basic blue prints being formed. It does seem odd that the trend seemed to virtually stop there with few if any new "blue prints" being formed since. Where are all the "new" body plans that should have continued to "crawl out" of the evolutionary cauldron since during the past 100 million years or so?

Living fossils - Contrary to evolutionary expectations "living fossils" have been found that are virtually unchanged over the past 100 million years. These include sea turtles, salamanders, algae, and many other life forms. Given that information degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things generation after generation this seems to be simply unbelievable. Are we to believe that this is simply due to a static habitat? They just appear in the fossil record with no explanation where they came from, no known ancestors, fully formed and recognizable? Hmm.

Than we have examples of massive "faunal mixing" Sea, land, and lake creatures buried together in massive fossil deposits. It is commonly accepted that fossils found together under the uniformitarian model are believed to have coexisted in time and place. That would mean that all these creatures lived and interacted with each other on one environment. Were they all on land, in the ocean, or in the lake? There is a convoluted set of "just so" scenarios thrown out that could not possibly give a sufficient answer to the problem. The logical answer is the flood model. One would expect to find just that following a global flood crisis.

I always had a problem with finding a good explanation for all of the millions of well preserved fish fossils discovered around the world. let's consider what happens when a fish dies. Hmm, it floats to the top and is either eaten by a predator, or decomposed rapidly by bacteria. How than do we get countless well preserved imprints of fish in rocks? The model of a dead fish lying on the bottom and being slowly buried by sediment does not seem to make any sense at all. Local catastrophes could hardly account for the widespread global millions of specimens in existence today. There is one model that does fit. That is rapid burial by a world wide flood. That is the only feasible answer to this one.

What about rock formation, petrified wood, oil and coal deposits, and other "long age" issues. There are examples of "young" petrified wood, rapid rock formations, young coal, etc. All easy to find on the creation magazine website with plenty of references provided. So much of this fits so nicely into the flood model and the conditions that would  likely to have been in existence at that time.

For information on the above look up Fast Fossils 19 (4):24-25 Sept 97, Fascinating French Fossils 11 (2) : 44-47 March 89, Clock in a rock, Exploding Evolution, and other related articles. I am making it real easy to find and read this information online by using articles found on one website. Just Google creation magazine.

There is also information on the site also that sheds light on the alleged design flaws such as the inverted retina, and prostate gland.

Gramp's will be continuing to study into these topics on the internet, Dawkins website, and maybe even go to the library and get a "picture book" or two.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Aside from

gramster wrote:

Aside from dealing with some "Grandpa" issues, I have been looking into some of the "science" issues and claims made about evolution. It was a real eye opening experience. The so called "science" of origins is "remarkable" indeed. 

I looked up information on fossils, the ice age, plate tectronics, dating, and other subjects. What I found was a field of "science" that has standards lower than I could possibly have imagined. I will give a few examples of what I found.

Example: Whale evolution - Gingerich (an evolutionary scientist) published some "information", including "pictures" showing the evolutionary steps from land animals (mesonychid) to whales. His article included an imaginative drawing of Pakicetus swimming and catching fish. He claimed it had an inner ear like a whales, and boldly called it a perfect intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later full fledged whales. What he did not mention is the fact that at that time, only skull fragments had been found. There was no evidence that Pakicetus had an inner ear like that of a whale, no evidence that it swam at all, no bones below the skull to show what type of body it had, and it was found buried with other "land animals". This supposedly remarkable find of a transitional "link", turned out to be nothing more than a fast running land mammal. Later finds of more complete specimens confirms this as whale expert Thewissen points out. Miller (another evolutionary scientist) made claims that Ambulocetus could move easily on both land and water using a diagram made artistically using also only a few bone fragments. The rest was purely artistic speculation. Gingerich also made exaggerated claims of Basilosaurus having functioning pelvis, leg bone, and knee cap. This was  also pure speculation from bone fragments that could not possibly lead to that conclusion. Than we note that the evolutionary diagram "artistically" showing the transition from land mammals to whales fails to mention that Basilosaurus is 10X the size of Ambulocetus. They are all drawn to look the same size.

Again why isn't the Pakicetus part of the whale family in your books? I mean aside from the fact that it is a land animal, which it is expected since whales evolved from land animals (as did Dolphins and Porpoises) Oh and discoveries in 2001 also show that the inner ear part was correct, so your statement of course is one ignorance, which you have latched onto by a very bias website that omits just that small detail. But if scientists were looking for a land mammal from which whales evolved from why would they be looking for only animals that could swim and not land mammals from which the whale may have evolved from? Oh and the Pakicetus is still considered part of the whale chain of evolution so yeah your wrong to date. As for your artistic impressions you do realize that these are not done just as mere guesses, but after studying what fossiles they do find make a far better educated guess of how the creature looked like or most like the formation of the creature.

As for for Basilosaurus everything states that was 18 meters long and that the Ambulocetus was 3 meters long, nothing deceptive there, even if an artist drawing was just showing them side by side was it mean't as a comparison of size of just of features....hmmm i wonder. Who looks just a the pictures and makes guess of the size of creatures? Last time I checked those that take science seriously use those pictures mainly to understand the features, and if it is about size comparison then there would be one of size comparison much like this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Cetaceans.svg which wow has comparison of size of the creatures.....see what happens when you actually do research and don't use a biased website out to disprove evolution (and never actually doing that, never using common sense either and of course never proving god as the only other option....or proving god exists at all) oh and the Basilosaurs have been found in Egypt, the US and Germany, and probably has the most of all fossils found as well, well makes me see that you still have no clue what your talking about. The Ambelocetus has had various fossils found in Pakistan pretty much a complete skeleton, so why do you think scientists made up wild stories about this creature again?

Quote:

Next I start looking up information on "feathered dinosaurs", and find more hoax's and fabrications than all of the "Noah's ark" finds put together. The "greater scientific community" was quick to confirm the apparent validity of the feathered dinosaurs found in China, even before they were made readily available to western scientists. These have since been proven to be fraudulent.

considering your track so far of using a completely biased and uninformed website, I am just going to say is that your will most likely disregarding any things shows to the contrary, so I will just state that you sir are again ignorant on this topic.

Quote:

Evolutionary scientists quickly became excited at the prospect of extracting DNA from well preserved soft tissue in dinosaur bones, but blatantly overlooked the impossibility of DNA surviving 70 million years. These fresh bones do not fit the long age myth, but perfectly fit the 4,500 yr model. (seeing the pattern)

Fossils in pristine condition were also found with their original iridescence and original ligaments. These amazingly fresh specimens were estimated to be 165 million years old. This is amazing indeed.

When so called science starts with a conclusion that is doggedly held to by "faith", than holds this to be the "gospel truth", and try's to make everything observed fit into this mold, reason breaks down and insanity follows.

Nope I wouldn't believe it either and in truth it was not dinosaur flesh or soft tissue at all, if of course your would do some non biased research this would have been known, yes Schweitzer did make that claim of finding flesh, it wasn't until they actually examined it and independent scientists also examined it and determined to be bacteria. Of course you would have known this if you bothered to actually follow the story or done a weeeeee bit of research.

Quote:

So what is a reasonable person to do? Am I expected to believe that since I do not have a degree in science, or possess extensive and detailed knowledge of the "science" backing the evolutionary model the only choice is to accept the conclusions of these "blind guides" as fact by "faith". Now that's a scary thought. That would be very similar to the dark ages when the bible was available only in latin and the people were told they were too ignorant to understand it. Therefore, they were to depend on "the church" to interpret it, and pass the "truths" on to them. I believe the results would probably turn out about the same also.

No. I will stick to the belief that a simple old man like myself can and must rely on common sense and reason, examining the evidence for myself and accepting only what makes sense.

the great thing is we don't live in the dark ages any more and information is widely available for all to examine, if you like you can also talk with so called scientists, yes some of it is hard to understand and I get lost trying to understand it as well, however just because you don't understand doesn't make it false, your common sense so far has been well that of someone not willing to look at the evidence provided and simply deny it all.

Quote:

As for references, I have made this easy for you. All of the above information you can find on the Creation Magazine website, each article complete with detailed references of it's own. Just Google creation magazine. Look up the following:

A '165 million year surprise" by Andrew Snelling" vol 19 issue 2 march 1997.

Also "seeing the pattern", "a whale of a tale", "feathered fossils" and much more. Most of the article's have links to click on that take you to more detailed information. It is a real easy site to navigate.

Gramps

I see, using a very biased website, that has never disprove evolution nor proven god to exist......somehow I am supposed to believe them with their so called facts, even those they don't bother properly examine the evidence.....and yes there has been more evidence to prove evolution since 1997.

 

 


 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Gramp's will

gramster wrote:

Gramp's will be continuing to study into these topics on the internet, Dawkins website, and maybe even go to the library and get a "picture book" or two.

 

Try this one for an example of just how biased some christians are:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Living Fossils" are

"Living Fossils" are perfectly consistent with evolution. They rely on evolutionary selection pressure to keep their genome from 'degrading' the way you describe. They are species that have found a very stable ecological niche.

An 'explosion' at an early period is also entirely unremarkable, since if you are starting from a very low number of variants, there are plenty of viable options unused, so lots of opportunity for 'staking a claim' on a new body-plan.

But there are only a finite number of basic options, so as they become taken up, the rate of new ones inevitably slows down to the situation dominated mainly be re-shuffling of the viable possibilities.

It is awfully simple, really. 

Any more anti-evolutionist myths we can sort out for you, gramps?

I think latincanuck covered the rest pretty well, I just couldn't resist pointing out those two really basic misunderstandings.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Q

While I am looking into some of the above issues (as there is much to look in to), maybe you can give me your perspective on why there are so many well preserved fish fossils. I do realize there are many types of fossils. I am specifically referring to the ones where we have a mold, or imprint. From the information I was able to obtain online, the commonly accepted method of formation of these is rapid burial. There seems to have been a whole lot of this going on.

On another unrelated note, "granny" mentioned above, a "Christian" family that let their children die because they did not believe in doctors. I was uncertain what point she was trying to make since she did not make the relevance clear. My best guess would be the "assumption" that Christians tend to be irrational, or do potentially harmful things based on this extreme example. Atheists and Theists alike make this mistake. We can all find extreme examples of "people behaving badly" from any group in society. Yes, there are Christian extremists that do "dumb and bad things". There are also countless millions that do helpful and good things. Let's not ignorantly pigeon  hole  each other based on isolated incidents.

Looking online at this site, Dawkins site, Creation sites, and looking up topics in general, I made a rather interesting observation. This should come as no shock. There seems to be a great lack of unbiased or objective thinking people. This seems to be just as true in the scientific community as it is in the general population. I would suppose a oxymoron better stated would be "unbiased or objective thinking human being". That would include I must admit even Gramps. If you or I flatter ourselves into thinking we are a rare exception to this we are deluded indeed.

Keeping this in mind, it would make sense for a rational individual to look at the evidences and arguments from both creationist's and evolutionist's on their own sites. I will continue to pursue this course. Hopefully knowing and accepting the fact that I (like most) am biased will help me to keep these tendencies in check.

As for the claim that Grandpa referring to himself in the third person being a sign of mental illness I will say two things. First, I do not defend my mental soundness. "Grampa" believes that once one starts doing this, they have already lost the battle. Second,  by passing judgment on Gramps in this matter one is also indicting millions of grandparents around the world who do the same. "Come to Grandma", "Give Grandpa a hug", "Grandma doesn't feel well today", etc. This is just fjm flack thrown around to give "character" to the site. Not a problem.

Gramps


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:While I am

gramster wrote:

While I am looking into some of the above issues (as there is much to look in to), maybe you can give me your perspective on why there are so many well preserved fish fossils. I do realize there are many types of fossils. I am specifically referring to the ones where we have a mold, or imprint. From the information I was able to obtain online, the commonly accepted method of formation of these is rapid burial. There seems to have been a whole lot of this going on.

First off no not all fish rise to the top when they die, most tend to sink, second, not all get eaten, some simply again sink, and either their flesh get eaten by bacteria or smaller prey but the bones tend to not be eaten, third underwater volcano or an underwater land slide can also cause rapid burial, but however the most common explanation i find, why there are so many marine fossils...very simply put water covers over 70 percent of the earth.....most life is in the oceans......and well it has a far better ideal environment for preservation than on land. Since in the ocean the sediment tends to be far better for preservation than land due to the fact that the sediment on ocean floors tend to be more on the soft stone or loose sediment side rather than hard ground, or rock, movement in the ocean, especially by creatures than live on the ocean floor will disturb, that sediment will again fall down usually covering anything laying on the ocean floor. There are various species of marine creatures that do live on the ocean floor and use this loose sediment to cover themselves up until a prey comes around to which they then rise up, of course disturbing the sediment can causing a skeletal remains to be covered, of course this is my simply explanation, and I know there are tons of more explanations regarding how and why there are an abundance of marine fossils.....of course the fact that 70 percent of the world is covered in water I would expect there to be more fossils in water areas or in areas that were covered in water at one point in time or another. As well creatures of hard shells like oysters, snails and carious other hard bodied creatures are found more in abundance that fish, the reason again is due their composition of a hard outer body which is far better for it to become a fossil. However again, there are far better explanations other than the one you gave....which i only really found in the creationist websites that used rapid burial as the most common type. However I have found that there are various explanations, such are permineralization, cast and molds (this occurs as an imprint from inside of the creature usually, like the shell of a snail for example, replacement and recrystallization, compression fossils and bioimmuration. Of course you can use this site http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/166 which gives even more examples of causes for marine fossilization, I would personally avoid creationist sites unless the person running it is a geologist or better yet works as a paleontologist. However from the scientific side speak or study those that actually work in that field....they tend to understand this topic far far better than those with mere opinions, like the majority of creationists sites I have seen so far regarding this topic.

Quote:

Keeping this in mind, it would make sense for a rational individual to look at the evidences and arguments from both creationist's and evolutionist's on their own sites. I will continue to pursue this course. Hopefully knowing and accepting the fact that I (like most) am biased will help me to keep these tendencies in check.

I am not going to address the rest of what you posted, in reality, the creationist sites and their opinions hold no ground to the scientific evidence and method, to date, no creationist papers regarding evolution or the discredit of evolution has ever held up, not even in court, second unlike the scientific community which has various ways to provide evidence against a theory, creationist only provide opinion and zero evidence, most of the time the so called creationist scientist that are providing this so called evidence aren't even biologists, or even have a doctorate degree in any related field. With that said, even if evolution is discredited, it does not mean that it proves god created everything, all it means is that the explanation of the theory of evolution (which by the way is how evolution is both a fact and a theory...which is a fact because it has been proven and observed to have occurred, and a theory which is the explanation of the event of phenomena, this is the problem creationists have, you can discredit the theory, you cannot discredit the fact, you still have to provide a logical, rational and of course proper explanation of the phenomena that is occurring, simply saying god did it doesn't provide the proper explanation nor is there any evidence that god did anything, nor is there any evidence that god exists which is where the biggest of all problems lies in the creationist camp, they have yet to prove god exists, and is therefore a possibility in the explanation of life on this planet), there are tons and tons of more explanation to go through, ways to re-evaluate the evidence and only once you have disproved all other explanations, can you then some how start to use god as a possibility, and even which god is another topic altogether.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: On another

gramster wrote:

On another unrelated note, "granny" mentioned above, a "Christian" family that let their children die because they did not believe in doctors. I was uncertain what point she was trying to make since she did not make the relevance clear. My best guess would be the "assumption" that Christians tend to be irrational, or do potentially harmful things based on this extreme example. Atheists and Theists alike make this mistake. We can all find extreme examples of "people behaving badly" from any group in society. Yes, there are Christian extremists that do "dumb and bad things". There are also countless millions that do helpful and good things. Let's not ignorantly pigeon  hole  each other based on isolated incidents.

 

I meant this to point out that not believing in science can kill you and your children.  Not exactly a positive outcome.  Medicine is science - a lot of science.  If you want to pick and choose which science you believe in, you will shortly run into problems.  Medicine deals with evolution every day - that no one is perfect, that bacteria and viruses evolve, that all living things depend on the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to live, that increasing complexity happens constantly as living organisms grow, that mutations happen good and bad, that all living organisms grow and thrive based on energy inputs and expenditures. 

 

gramster wrote:

Keeping this in mind, it would make sense for a rational individual to look at the evidences and arguments from both creationist's and evolutionist's on their own sites. I will continue to pursue this course. Hopefully knowing and accepting the fact that I (like most) am biased will help me to keep these tendencies in check.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly have.  A bigger bunch of bullpucky I have never seen.  and this was before I became an atheist.  I never understood how people could believe creationist crap - and I was 12 years old attending Foursquare Gospel church when I came to this conclusion.

Since the internet took off, and everyone felt free to post any old crap, I have read - or attempted to read - a lot of creationist and other woo-woo sites.  I don't always make it through because I can't stand the way some people talk - "the creator loves us and shows this by" the way s/he/it kills off millions of innocent children every year.  I have no patience.  You may have noticed this particular character flaw of mine.

Here you go:  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Every last thing you have brought up has been said by someone else.  You aren't saying anything new in this argument.  And you wonder that we get a little dismissive?  Where is the creationist or intelligent designer who scientifically proved god/s/dess created the universe and humans?  They could win a lot of prize money and fame if they could do it.  When early scientists (natural philosophers) first started examining the world, they were looking for evidence of god/s/dess handiwork.  And in all the centuries they looked, not once has anyone found anything that didn't have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation - no gods required.

This should be a clue.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


xSilverPhinx
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-07-10
User is offlineOffline
How and why did you reach

How and why did you reach the conclusion that whatever caused the universe to exist is an intelligent being?

 

 

Also, I should just add: if you think that evolutionary theory doesn't hold much water or doesn't make sense, it's because you don't understand it. I suggest you don't get your 'facts' from online creationist websites.


xSilverPhinx
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-07-10
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:"Convergent

cj wrote:

"Convergent evolution" is when species that are not genetically related to each other share similar characteristics.  Is this a dog?

 

 

Not even close.  When I was a child, hyenas were considered to be closely related to dogs.  When they analyzed the genome - hyenas are in a family separate from but are most closely related to mongooses and meerkats.  Would you have put hyenas in the "mongoose kind"?  As our knowledge about analyzing DNA has increased and our methods have become faster, biologists have had to revise many of their assumptions about relatedness.

 

Including the biblical false idea that whales are fish. And that's the book creationists resort to to explain life.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
xSilverPhinx wrote:How and

xSilverPhinx wrote:

How and why did you reach the conclusion that whatever caused the universe to exist is an intelligent being?

 

 

Also, I should just add: if you think that evolutionary theory doesn't hold much water or doesn't make sense, it's because you don't understand it. I suggest you don't get your 'facts' from online creationist websites.

Yea we could all make an online creationist website, pulling facts out of thin air doesn't take genius, only a little imagination. There are a few people left who think the earth is flat so obviously there are plenty who are willing to believe anything and are stupid enough to not look into these "facts".

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: If God were

gramster wrote:

 

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

 

 

Defying huh, you are another one who can't comprehend the coin has two faces.  I don't defy or blast any god, only the idea of one whom men have concocted.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Inquisitus
Inquisitus's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-07-05
User is offlineOffline
Alright Gramps, I'll

Alright Gramps, I'll bite.

Let's just for the sake of argument assume that all of your premises to date are completely accurate and that as a Christian you're willing to provide evidence to back up your claims.  You've proved that your six thousand year old god exists (he doesn't), he created life through some bizarre mixture of evolution and creations (when he really wouldn't need to other than to retroactively shoehorn creationism into systems that are demonstrably provable), that prophecy exists (and that your god has a monopoly on it), and that (for some reason) hell isn't consistent with Christian theology.  You've completely stomped all of us logically deficient atheists.  Wonderful.

I suppose I just have one last question for you.  How is your god not still an all-powerful, genocidal monster?

I mean at the point that you're willing to concede that you believe that, say, Noah's flood is a historical event (regardless of the fact that China seems to have weathered it pretty well) and that it utterly obliterated all life that wasn't present on the ark, don't you still have to offer some proof as to how this was a just action?  Personally, that seems a little harsh for an entity that can supposedly do whatever it wants up to and including administering perfect justice in the alleged afterlife.  Especially if you're a baby.

But hey, babies can be pretty wicked, right?  Maybe that example was a little too loaded to be fair.  Shall we try another?  God kills every firstborn Egyptian to convince the pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt.  While its good to see those pesky babies getting their due comeuppance from the almighty, isn't killing people to prove a point sort of hard to justify?  Doesn't it become harder to justify when god can just poof the Israelites to any other part of the of the world he wants a la the spontaneous post-flood animal movement hypothesis you advanced a couple of posts ago?

This is to say nothing of gang rapes, forced incest, murdering his own children for things he didn't actually do, and the destruction of multiple cities and cultures that may or may not have had it coming.

If he exists, why would anyone willingly follow this monster?  Wouldn't it instead make much more sense for every non-smited man, woman, and child to spend every waking moment feverishly trying to figure out ways to neutralize this killer before he inevitably finds fault with them and smites them too?  Or maybe it's the very fear of being smote (smited? smitten?) that allows him to retain followers?  But then how is that consistent with the omni-merciful god you've postulated?

And, you know, with all of this smiting going on would you care to explain how Lot's wife was more deserving of it than, say, Pol Pot? 

Magnets, how do they work?


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Bullpucky

While I am in the process of looking much deeper into the science issues, and this will take some time, I will answer some of the other more basic and simple issues brought up here earlier. So far the science has been anything but conclusive, but has brought up many points of interest for me to look into.

I have found an abundance of overwhelming evidence that strongly suggest that an unbiased or objective human probably does not exist. Granny was sneering about bias creationists and Christians. That's a hoot. If you think you are unbiased and objective you are deluded indeed. From what I have read on this site, there is plenty of bias to go around. That is not a theist or atheist trait, that's a human trait. It's best we all acknowledge it. That way we can at least have a chance to deal with it in a constructive manner. Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

As for not bringing up anything new, I can't imagine that anything I have heard from the atheist's is original material.

Now as for all the moaning about God killing millions of babies, that just shows how ignorant you are about the facts. Yes millions of people die all the time, but it is not God that is killing them. We must keep in mind that this is a planet in rebellion against it's creator. All of the death, sickness and suffering is the result of this rebellion. Man has chosen another master. The claim is that man would be better off without God. Well, we can surely see the results.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3685
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
gramster wrote:  If you

gramster wrote:

 

 If you think you are unbiased and objective you are deluded indeed. From what I have read on this site, there is plenty of bias to go around. That is not a theist or atheist trait, that's a human trait. It's best we all acknowledge it. That way we can at least have a chance to deal with it in a constructive manner. Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

   When it concerns the claims of Christianity and the existence of "God" I could never be accused of anything resembling a consistent bias as my beliefs have come full circle regarding that topic.   If you were to have asked me at the age of 14 if I would accept Christ as my Savior I would have laughed in your face.  Guess what ?  I became a Christian at age 15 and remained faithful to those beliefs for a large portion of my adult life.  If you would have asked me during my time as a Christian if I ever felt there was a possibility of walking away from my faith I would have been deeply offended and answered with an emphatic "no!"

  Now in my early fifties, I have done what I thought I could never do, renounced my religious faith and remained an atheist.  Additionally, in spite of your accusation of bias, I still do not find the concept of a caring, benevolent, Divine being unappealing in the least ,  I find it unrealistic, ....and therein lies the difficulty.

   ps, I anticipate the typical rebuttal that I was never a real believer yet the majority of Christian apologists still regard "apostasy" as a relevant concept and a possible outcome in regards to their faith.    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/025.apostate.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Let me know

gramster wrote:

Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

 

Of course I'm biased.  I hate deliberate ignorance.  Ignorance happens to everyone - we don't know everything about everything.  But, when someone deliberately turns from knowledge because it might upset their worldview, that is a person I will have nothing to do with.

 

gramster wrote:

As for not bringing up anything new, I can't imagine that anything I have heard from the atheist's is original material.

Now as for all the moaning about God killing millions of babies, that just shows how ignorant you are about the facts. Yes millions of people die all the time, but it is not God that is killing them. We must keep in mind that this is a planet in rebellion against it's creator. All of the death, sickness and suffering is the result of this rebellion. Man has chosen another master. The claim is that man would be better off without God. Well, we can surely see the results.

 

god/s/dess had his/her/its chance to heal - good god/s/dess fearing people -

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/judge_sends_message_with_priso.html

Quote:

Dozens of the Follower's children have died of treatable conditions since the 1950s, and a few mothers died in childbirth. The deaths led the Oregon Legislature to modify state law in 1999 to eliminate legal immunity in some cases for parents who treat their children solely with faith healing. The change did not effect the criminally negligent homicide statute.

 

Quote:

The Beagleys knew Neil was ill two weeks before he died in June 2008 from complications of a urinary tract blockage, they testified. Despite the boy's failing health, the Beagleys didn't take Neil to a doctor. Instead, they decided to honor the boy's wish to put his fate in God's hands.

The Beagley's son-in-law, Carl Brent Worthington served 60 days in jail last year for criminal mistreatment in the death of his 15-month-old daughter, Ava, who died of a blood infection.

If god/s/dess existed or gave a damn, you would think these people would be the healthiest around.  But they aren't.  These people have chosen god/s/dess as their master, and look where it got them.  Dead and ill children.  Such a caring god/s/dess who looks after his/her/its own.  </sarcasm>

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I have found

gramster wrote:

I have found an abundance of overwhelming evidence that strongly suggest that an unbiased or objective human probably does not exist. Granny was sneering about bias creationists and Christians. That's a hoot. If you think you are unbiased and objective you are deluded indeed. From what I have read on this site, there is plenty of bias to go around. That is not a theist or atheist trait, that's a human trait. It's best we all acknowledge it. That way we can at least have a chance to deal with it in a constructive manner. Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

 

This kind of makes me wish that there existed fields of study in which bias were removed through some sort of review process carried out by some sort of qualified group of peers...

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
So, becoming an atheist

So, becoming an atheist creates disease and natural disasters? How does this work, exactly?

Viruses feed off of the energy left from deconversions? Oh oh oh, the lack of Godliness creates turbulence in the atmosphere, which makes extreme weather more likely. Or, the energy seeps into the ground and "agitates" plate boundaries, causing earthquakes!

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
. . . . . .

First I want to say that it does not bother me at all when atheists are dismissive, sarcastic, or even profane. This is what adds character to this site. It is rather refreshing to be able to express oneself without having to worry about offending someone, and hopefully have a little fun along the way.

Also, if I were raised in a church where we were taught that "sinners" would burn in hell for all eternity, I would probably have defected before the age of 12 myself. I would strongly advise anyone who wishes to be a rational Christian that they seek out a church or group of believers that do not teach this terrible lie. The wages of sin is death (not eternal life in hell fire). And the gift of God is eternal life. We do not have eternal life within ourselves, and God will not eternalize sin and suffering. Therefore the wages of sin must be death.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
But, Gramps, Christianity

But, Gramps, Christianity converts and keeps a lot of its flock by scaring the pants off of people by telling them that they're going to have their skin peeled off with a vegetable peeler, then thrown into a giant vat of boiling feces while ten foot tall demons with spears will stab them in their privies over and over again for all eternity. It's not good for sales if you take that away. What atheist would rather put up with the Christian God and all those Christians for an eternity rather than just be dead?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The God Monster

Now for all those FJM's that stick their thumbs up their noses, slobber all over themselves, call God all kinds of names, laugh like idiots slapping each other on their butts, and generally wasting time and space. Let's take a look at your claims and the "logic" behind them.

When sin came into existence, God had some choices to make. He could have just "zap" wiped the offenders out of existence. He could have "white washed" their brains, and taken away their ability to rebel. He could have just turned a blind eye, and let sin and suffering continue forever. Or He could take the hard road, let sin run it's course so all could see the results, and make a plan to take a people on a journey down through time allowing for eventual redemption for those who desire it. God did the later. Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

From all the moaning and complaining about God's choices I can only assume that you are either too ignorant or bias to be able to see clearly what God was facing, or that you would choose to "kill" the millions of healthy, leaving the sick to suffer 5 more days and die. Man are you ever warped! What kind of sicko are you anyway.

The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever. Thank God you are not in control.

This old world that has rebelled against it's creator is in some ways like a stage. You, like Lucifer, have made the  claim that God is a monster and that man would be better off without Him (if He indeed does exist). What we see now going on in the world is the result of that choice. It is not God's doing. It is the result of Lucifer, and people like you who have rebelled against God. Thank God He does have a plan to put an end to sin and death. It is indeed the "better" plan.

 

Gramps

 


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Now for all

gramster wrote:

Now for all those FJM's that stick their thumbs up their noses, slobber all over themselves, call God all kinds of names, laugh like idiots slapping each other on their butts, and generally wasting time and space. Let's take a look at your claims and the "logic" behind them.

When sin came into existence, God had some choices to make. He could have just "zap" wiped the offenders out of existence. He could have "white washed" their brains, and taken away their ability to rebel. He could have just turned a blind eye, and let sin and suffering continue forever. Or He could take the hard road, let sin run it's course so all could see the results, and make a plan to take a people on a journey down through time allowing for eventual redemption for those who desire it. God did the later. Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

From all the moaning and complaining about God's choices I can only assume that you are either too ignorant or bias to be able to see clearly what God was facing, or that you would choose to "kill" the millions of healthy, leaving the sick to suffer 5 more days and die. Man are you ever warped! What kind of sicko are you anyway.

The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever. Thank God you are not in control.

This old world that has rebelled against it's creator is in some ways like a stage. You, like Lucifer, have made the  claim that God is a monster and that man would be better off without Him (if He indeed does exist). What we see now going on in the world is the result of that choice. It is not God's doing. It is the result of Lucifer, and people like you who have rebelled against God. Thank God He does have a plan to put an end to sin and death. It is indeed the "better" plan.

 

Gramps

 

All I see here is a lot of your beliefs and your opinions. I don't see a single mention of the Bible or anything that God says. The only thing I hate worse than a devil worshipping atheist, is a false prophet. That's because you false prophets mislead the ones who are trying to do good by the Lord, but instead of doing good by the Lord as He sets forth in the Bible, they just do good by you. I defy you to show where any of your mumbo-jumbo is backed up in scripture.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Since you are

gramster wrote:
Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

Lol. We don't claim to be wiser and more rational than God. We don't believe in God.

If he does exist and is running this world though, I would do things much differently. I would create everyone with free will, but with a far greater willingness to do things that I consider good and not so much evil. I would keep some negative stuff to preserve "humanness" and individuality. But, overall, people should be kinder, smarter, and more open-minded. It'd be sort of like taking the 5% of people that I like the most in the world and making that everybody. It's like moving the middle of the gene pool a bit. Non-human evils seem rather pointless, so I'd just eliminate pretty much all of those things. The weather would be more constant and tuned for the best crop yield. No diseases. No earthquakes. Etc. Oh, I think I also want to make it so that people can live to be about 200 years old. But, of course, after they die, they disappear. 

I would reveal to the world that I exist, such that there will be no doubt that I exist. Not just some 2000 year old compilation of ignorant religious ramblings, but I would physically show myself in the sky and speak to them. However, I would not require them to worship me. I think I would allow them to elect a Congress which has the power to override my decisions, given a large enough majority opposed (2/3?). Of course, I would be God, so ultimately, the power of this Congress would rest only my willingness to allow them to override me. So, it would be very problematic if I was ever corrupted by power. But, at this point, I'm not God yet, so I can only make a plan and hope for the best.

gramster wrote:
For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

Well, that's easy. I have to let the 100 ill people die.

I don't see how this is relevant though. God is omnipotent; he doesn't have to deal with such silly choices. He can just save everybody.

gramster wrote:
The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever. Thank God you are not in control.

Uh....no.

If there was a God, I would certainly want him to intervene and stop all this suffering. Where is he?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:All

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:
All I see here is a lot of your beliefs and your opinions. I don't see a single mention of the Bible or anything that God says. The only thing I hate worse than a devil worshipping atheist, is a false prophet. That's because you false prophets mislead the ones who are trying to do good by the Lord, but instead of doing good by the Lord as He sets forth in the Bible, they just do good by you. I defy you to show where any of your mumbo-jumbo is backed up in scripture.

Lol. He doesn't believe in hell, Billy Bob. He believes after I die, I just disappear. What do you think about that?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Billy Bob

butterbattle wrote:

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:
All I see here is a lot of your beliefs and your opinions. I don't see a single mention of the Bible or anything that God says. The only thing I hate worse than a devil worshipping atheist, is a false prophet. That's because you false prophets mislead the ones who are trying to do good by the Lord, but instead of doing good by the Lord as He sets forth in the Bible, they just do good by you. I defy you to show where any of your mumbo-jumbo is backed up in scripture.

Lol. He doesn't believe in hell, Billy Bob. He believes after I die, I just disappear. What do you think about that?

So he's just an atheist? What do you two even have to argue about? You ought to get together and trample a crucifix some time. It sounds like Gramster is on the fast track to Hell.

Edit: I accidentally wrote "Fonzie" instead of Gramster. I hope the reason is obvious.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
But God has done precisely

But God has done precisely nothing, since all the evil and death continues as before, often inspired by the very beliefs you advocate, and the only major reductions in the impact of disease , and extension of life expectancy, have come through the application of Science.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: I have

gramster wrote:

 

I have found an abundance of overwhelming evidence that strongly suggest that an unbiased or objective human probably does not exist. Granny was sneering about bias creationists and Christians. That's a hoot. If you think you are unbiased and objective you are deluded indeed. From what I have read on this site, there is plenty of bias to go around. That is not a theist or atheist trait, that's a human trait. It's best we all acknowledge it. That way we can at least have a chance to deal with it in a constructive manner. Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

True everyone has a bias. The hard part is to take a hard look and study what you so vehemently adhere to and to consider where the weak points are in it. It is really hard for a believer to set aside his belief structure and consider it in the same light as any other god belief or disbelief because for many this is doubt and is sinful or in their opinion damning.

gramster wrote:

As for not bringing up anything new, I can't imagine that anything I have heard from the atheist's is original material.

Perhaps you should follow the example that the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas suggests: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." Perhaps you are too quick to dismiss any and all things that may contradict your hard fast beliefs. As you say, all have a bias it is an extremely hard thing to stand back and place your belief to the side and examine the fine details. I have no idea based on your Internet posts what examinations you have given to your beliefs. If you can't set it aside to scrutiny, it is not unlike trying to patch a Windows OS while it is in use, you will fail.

gramster wrote:

Now as for all the moaning about God killing millions of babies, that just shows how ignorant you are about the facts. Yes millions of people die all the time, but it is not God that is killing them. We must keep in mind that this is a planet in rebellion against it's creator. All of the death, sickness and suffering is the result of this rebellion. Man has chosen another master. The claim is that man would be better off without God. Well, we can surely see the results. 

Actually this misunderstanding comes from those who accept your beliefs not from those that consider all gods to be a human desire for justification of existence. Death and illness is but part of the cycle of life and has no need for an imagined god as an explanation. When atheists throw the comment at you that your god is a schizophrenic serial killer it refers to the writings by men who so documented their ideas and stories in such a way that when read the god appears to have need of mental health treatment or at least Prozac or Zoloft.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Now for all

gramster wrote:

Now for all those FJM's that stick their thumbs up their noses, slobber all over themselves, call God all kinds of names, laugh like idiots slapping each other on their butts, and generally wasting time and space. Let's take a look at your claims and the "logic" behind them.

When sin came into existence, God had some choices to make. He could have just "zap" wiped the offenders out of existence. He could have "white washed" their brains, and taken away their ability to rebel. He could have just turned a blind eye, and let sin and suffering continue forever. Or He could take the hard road, let sin run it's course so all could see the results, and make a plan to take a people on a journey down through time allowing for eventual redemption for those who desire it. God did the later. Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

Since you accept the great flood story as true this sort of contradicts the god allowing man's free will to be execised and allow people to run through a nomal course for eventual redemption. Those who were alive when An and Enlil (I mean God) supposedly flooded the world would have been denied their exercise of free will.

gramster wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

As everyone dies, "Let's Kill Them All" - Xena

gramster wrote:

From all the moaning and complaining about God's choices I can only assume that you are either too ignorant or bias to be able to see clearly what God was facing, or that you would choose to "kill" the millions of healthy, leaving the sick to suffer 5 more days and die. Man are you ever warped! What kind of sicko are you anyway.

The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever. Thank God you are not in control.

This old world that has rebelled against it's creator is in some ways like a stage. You, like Lucifer, have made the  claim that God is a monster and that man would be better off without Him (if He indeed does exist). What we see now going on in the world is the result of that choice. It is not God's doing. It is the result of Lucifer, and people like you who have rebelled against God. Thank God He does have a plan to put an end to sin and death. It is indeed the "better" plan. 

Gramps

 

What I don't see is how your god is any different than every other created by man deity.

The comments you get in regards to god's choices and actions are simply snarky comments made to wake you up to the point your god has human like emotions and is created in the image of man.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


famlydoctr
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-07-17
User is offlineOffline
Come again?

gramster wrote:

Now for all those FJM's that stick their thumbs up their noses, slobber all over themselves, call God all kinds of names, laugh like idiots slapping each other on their butts, and generally wasting time and space. Let's take a look at your claims and the "logic" behind them.

When sin came into existence, God had some choices to make.

 

Didn't he know sin was going to come into existence?  Didn't he in fact design mankind knowing that sin would come into existence? 

 

gramster wrote:
He could have just "zap" wiped the offenders out of existence. He could have "white washed" their brains, and taken away their ability to rebel. He could have just turned a blind eye, and let sin and suffering continue forever. Or He could take the hard road, let sin run it's course so all could see the results, and make a plan to take a people on a journey down through time allowing for eventual redemption for those who desire it. 
  

How exactly is flooding the entire Earth....killing multitudes of Innocent people/animals....taking the latter?

 

gramster wrote:
God did the later. Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

Again, the worldwide flood seems to show that your god would choose to just kill everyone.

 

gramster wrote:
From all the moaning and complaining about God's choices I can only assume that you are either too ignorant or bias to be able to see clearly what God was facing,

Are you suggesting that god suffers from stress? I mean, I know that he has a lot on his proverbial plate, but come on!

 

gramster wrote:
The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity.

No, it would be much better to destroy the world you made "perfectly" and then remake it exactly the way you did the first time.  Unless, you are suggesting that sin, suffering and death have been eradicated, Gramps? 

 

gramster wrote:
But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever.

As opposed to the perfect like we have now!  Thank god we are not in control!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So just to reinforce the

So just to reinforce the point, gramster, it would appear that God has indeed made the choice to let things go as they are, and "let sin, suffering, and death continue ".

So he has made that "monstrous choice".

And if you accept the flood story, he made a much more "monstrous' choice when he did intervene, in the crudest and most destructive way possible, when he could have chosen back then to just zap the evil ones, who presumably were beyond redemption, out of existence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I had hoped "gramps" would

I had hoped "gramps" would really have a new twist as he seemed to promise initially but he seems to be pulling the same answers of out the same magic hat.  /yawn

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:While I am in

gramster wrote:

While I am in the process of looking much deeper into the science issues, and this will take some time, I will answer some of the other more basic and simple issues brought up here earlier. So far the science has been anything but conclusive, but has brought up many points of interest for me to look into.

I have found an abundance of overwhelming evidence that strongly suggest that an unbiased or objective human probably does not exist. Granny was sneering about bias creationists and Christians. That's a hoot. If you think you are unbiased and objective you are deluded indeed. From what I have read on this site, there is plenty of bias to go around. That is not a theist or atheist trait, that's a human trait. It's best we all acknowledge it. That way we can at least have a chance to deal with it in a constructive manner. Let me know if you really consider yourself unbiased. I can use a good laugh.

As for not bringing up anything new, I can't imagine that anything I have heard from the atheist's is original material.

Now as for all the moaning about God killing millions of babies, that just shows how ignorant you are about the facts. Yes millions of people die all the time, but it is not God that is killing them. We must keep in mind that this is a planet in rebellion against it's creator. All of the death, sickness and suffering is the result of this rebellion. Man has chosen another master. The claim is that man would be better off without God. Well, we can surely see the results.

 

Biased sure people can be biased, which is why the scientific method tends to eliminate that, when you have to provide all the evidence and show all the steps you took to come to a conclusion and provide how your statements/experiments validate a hypothesis (which then can become a theory). See the difference is that even if people are biased towards an opinion or scientific field, scientific method is there to eliminate that bias so that only truth stands. Which is where the creationist websites fail at in a horrific manner. Opinions and half truths do not stand to scientific method. which is why creationist websites rarely ever give actual published scientific paper works or evidence to back up their claims. So far ZERO evidence for god. No need to believe in god.

As for the killing part, re-read the bible, god kills or orders the death of millions, the devil, only kills on gods orders, go figure.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone knows god allows evil to 'entertain' her Brigade.

gramster wrote:
For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying.

Ah the Sadistic Choice argument, the most retarded analogy in history, which fails utterly on all accounts.  Personally, I would try to Take a Third Option, or Fourth option in this case, since I guess the third option would be to do nothing.  Even if I fail and everyone dies, at least I Tried to make the planet a better place, something your god apparently cannot say for himself.  But this analogy is flawed on a deeper level, the same level the tired old 'Good Parent' 'analogy' is flawed on, namely that there is a very very big difference between a good parent and god, or me and god.

 

God is omnipotent, humans are not.

 

Humanity can find themselves in situations where our actions are restricted to only shades of good and justice with no clearly 'perfect' solution only because humans are themselves finite, limited beings.  Your god is not either of those things.  He is an omnipotent, infinite unbound consciousness, and thus can have no restrictions on any of his actions, not even restrictions he himself placed upon he himself.  But apparently, god doesn't even try to find a third option, he just goes with the crappy options he's got and expends no effort or ingenuity.

This is the point of what Epicurus was saying.  If god is neither willing or able, then why call him god?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
God Monster ...

First, Yes, Gramps has gotten a little "snarky" at times. But that has not been directed at cj, mr Spence, or others who are debating in good faith. I did make some rather sharp comments towards those jokers who are here just to make dumb "God Jokes". I will just ignore them in the future for the sake of us all.

As for giving numerous bible references at this point, while we are discussing the God issue from a position of logic, I am not wasting the time. I am trusting what I have been told, that the readers here have a better knowledge of scripture than I. Therefore I am assuming that you at least are familiar with the basics. Sorry, Grampa does not have the time to hold your hand on this one. You can question any biblical statement on an individual basis and Gramps will than lead the way there.

Epicurus' statement would be relevant if God were not doing anything to clean up this earth mess. But, according to the bible God is doing something. He does have a plan. To insure that sin and it's resulting pain and suffering never arises again, God is simply taking mankind on a journey. Man has chosen another master. The claim has been made that Satan's way is better. When this journey is over all created beings will have had a belly full of sin and death. Oh how impatient we all are. A few thousand years is just a blink of the eye in the vast ages of eternity. All you "long ager's" should be able to understand that.

Now as for claims that God destroyed millions of "innocent" people during the flood. The bible specifically states that man's thoughts were "continually evil". I can't imagine the kinds of horrors that must have been going on at that time.

We also need to "get real" about statements like God having his people rape women, and impale babies. We could use some references here please. 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jesus prophecies

gramster wrote:

First, Yes, Gramps has gotten a little "snarky" at times. But that has not been directed at cj, mr Spence, or others who are debating in good faith. I did make some rather sharp comments towards those jokers who are here just to make dumb "God Jokes". I will just ignore them in the future for the sake of us all.

As for giving numerous bible references at this point, while we are discussing the God issue from a position of logic, I am not wasting the time. I am trusting what I have been told, that the readers here have a better knowledge of scripture than I. Therefore I am assuming that you at least are familiar with the basics. Sorry, Grampa does not have the time to hold your hand on this one. You can question any biblical statement on an individual basis and Gramps will than lead the way there.

Epicurus' statement would be relevant if God were not doing anything to clean up this earth mess. But, according to the bible God is doing something. He does have a plan. To insure that sin and it's resulting pain and suffering never arises again, God is simply taking mankind on a journey. Man has chosen another master. The claim has been made that Satan's way is better. When this journey is over all created beings will have had a belly full of sin and death. Oh how impatient we all are. A few thousand years is just a blink of the eye in the vast ages of eternity. All you "long ager's" should be able to understand that.

Now as for claims that God destroyed millions of "innocent" people during the flood. The bible specifically states that man's thoughts were "continually evil". I can't imagine the kinds of horrors that must have been going on at that time.

We also need to "get real" about statements like God having his people rape women, and impale babies. We could use some references here please.