- This topic has 282 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I believe what you experienced to be called ‘Sleep Paralysis’ which is closely related to Lucid Dreaming.
I’ve experienced sleep paralysis in the past but it felt more like a claustrophobic sensation and my heartbeat was fast on awakening … and it was a dream.
I’ve also had lucid dreams too (one involving a very nice woman … but I won’t go into that LOL). Yes, the experience appeared quite real but I knew it was a dream on awakening. Still, the effect of that lucid dream seemed to charge me with a great sense of wellbeing that stayed with me for the rest of that day.
The OOBE was different because my consciousness didn’t allow me to feel that it was a dream. My sense of awareness was acute and it appeared as real as anything I’ve felt in the mundane world … if not sharper. The difference being that my body had lost its density and the thought of being ‘dead’ was enough to send me back to where I lay. I’m convinced that what I experienced was my soul released for a very brief period.
It sounds like the scary one that surprised me – even though I’d been hoping for it!
"Is English your first language JBale"
Yes.
You said Einstein was a "theist" then said he was an "panentheist", he was actually agnostic, possibly a deist. He believed the existence of God couldn’t be proved or disproved during his lifespan. You contradicted yourself by saying Einstein was a "theist". A theist believes that a PERSONAL God intelligently designed and can intelligently intervene in the universe, Einstein did not believe in a personal God as you correctly pointed out. You doubt my English, yet make contradictory statements :/. You don’t get evolution and thought a lightyear was a measurement of time so I doubt your ability to understand elementary science. You could argue he was a deist (look it up in a dictionary) but even if he was it wouldn’t be evidence God exists.
"Einstein also remarked that people were always trying to cast him as an atheist, and that he was definitely not.
And don’t be coy about Godel. He was a Christian; a Lutheran to be precise."I never claimed Godel was an atheist I said he was an theist, I also said Einstein was agnostic I never said he was an atheist. Why are other people beliefs important to you?
Again more definitions after you thought atheism was a "religion of it’s own".
Theism
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.Einstein did not believe in a personal God as you mention, your either misinformed or trying to change a dead mans beliefs.
Panentheism
the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.He may have thought a God created the universe but did he believe a God was greater then the universe? Would this be your evidence of a God? Someone who is now in a state oblivion who previously existed, who was considered clever and might of possibly believed in the possibility of the universe being created. Is that your evidence for creation? Weak and instantly dismissible.
" It’s no coincidence that the religious schools in this country tend to have a vastly superior educational record"
I went to a Church of England school, I actually liked going to the school’s Church until I got to the age of nine when I stopped believing in supernatural nonsense. I hear Christianity is massively on the decrease in this country so hopefully we end up with a secular state rather then a state governed by sharia law. The Americans are extremely lucky to have their 1st Amendment.
"Read this, and particularly note the first and last paragraphs:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … day-at-ud/"
You keep mentioning this blog, I don’t think you’ve ever investigated anything against your position. In the 21st century scientists don’t believe in Christianity because it contradicts their particular field of work (biologists, astronomers, geologists etc).
"But in any case, the thing to bear in mind is that all of those great had been educated in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and, with the exception of Godel, who remained a Lutheran (though a very timid witness), were at least part Jewish (bearing in mind my comment about the effect of WWII on the faith of Jewish believers."
Does it matter what upbringing they had or what they believed? Again is this your evidence for the existence of your God?Adolf Hitler had a religious upbringing, it doesn’t matter.
"And you didn’t come form nowhere, J, not from nothing. You came from your mother and father.."
"You came from your mother and father", I’m glad you’ve accepted my point that a God didn’t create me or gave me life, my parents did.
"The universe came from its father, the Creator. Nothing cannot be a potential creator of anything. It’s nil, zilch, bupkis, nada, zero, etc."
I said the universe didn’t come from nothing, again you believe nothing turned itself into an intelligent God who turned nothing into everything, where did the father come from? Why imply father and not mother? Are you claiming your God is a male?
Your religion attempts and fails at answering "why" and "what" questions such as;
"What is the meaning of life"
"Why is the universe the way it is"
"Why is there objective morality" <—– William Lane Craig’s favourite
"Why do people die"
"what’s the purpose of Earth"
"What’s the purpose of the universe"
"Why is there intelligence in the universe"Science successfully answers questions like;
"How does the universe work"
"How did the Earth form"
"How did life originate"
"How old is time and matter"
"How Animals evolved their features"
"How forces effect each other"
"How do animals die"
"How animals evolved intelligence"I recommend you see your friend William Craig get destroyed in a debate with Dawkins, I’m sure in William Craig’s response he admit’s he HOPES jesus did exist because it gives HOPE for an afterlife. Take note of the last 40 seconds and the it’s a silly question answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUYBI
‘You said Einstein was a "theist" then said he was an "panentheist", he was actually agnostic, possibly a deist.’
Well, don’t you understand the nature of a correction. It elucidates something erroneous – hence my specification that, actually, he was a panentheist. The following paragraph is from the fist definition of ‘panentheism’ I googled:
‘In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos.
While pantheism asserts that ‘All is God’, panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.
(Notice, no mention of ‘design’ or ‘creation’ in the text! Wikipedia is as bent as nine-bob watch – in your side’s favour.
You are partly correct though. There was some ambiguity, having erroneously lumped Einstein, the panentheist(deist) in with Planck, Bohr and Godel, even the correction contains the misleading word-part ‘theist’. I mean ‘panendeist’ would have been a more apt designation. Incidentally, the life-long Christian, Godel, seems to have been pretty much to Maths what Einstein and Planck were to Physics.
The reason why I alluded to these giants of the history of empirical science, is because their belief that the universe was designed by a massively-superior divine intelligence, is in such stark contrast to the lesser lights of the subsequent history of physics.
Did you notice that the better part of a century ago, Planck stated that mind is primary, and matter secondary? And that has been proved again and again in experiments.
If it’s good enough for Einstein, Planck, the daddies of them all, on the basis of whose paradigms they earn their daily bread, and common sense to 95% of mankind, it should be good enough for them and you.
And where did you get the idea I was trying to prove Christianity, theism or deism to you? Impossible. Our core beliefs are quite literally, ‘wishful thinking.’ However, unsurprisingly, God had made the world in such a way that it corresponds with his teachings and inspiration.
The reason our religious beliefs (yes, including atheism) are wishful thinking is that the deepest truths are not accessible to the unaided, analytical intelligence. Consequently, our basic assumptions are either informed by wisdom (spiritual) or wilful blindness (materialsim/naturalism). The reason why the latter is folly has been empirically demonstrated by multiple experiments. Read Uncommon Descent and you’ll be able to find out about them. But you won’t do that, because it would mean changing your world-view, and nobody turns that around on a sixpence; certainly not the atheist, materialist scientists.
Your crowd talk about ‘cold, hard science’, etc, etc, when the reality is that knowledge is vibrant and dynamic. And re the wishful thinking, why should the truth be cold and hard, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable? The main reason
I think that motivates most atheists is the one that Aldous Huxley ascribed to himself in his younger years, namely most mainstream religions would have inhibited his sex life. Ironically, kinda cold and hard, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, to them! So sex for them corresponds with religion for the believer. The source of their jollies.
Anyway, as I say, it’s pointless arguing with you, as I don’t believe you’re interested in the realities of current science. You can take a horse to the water….
Not good enough for me, I can’t see any rational reasoning in accepting beliefs of men born in the 19th century to support your creationism argument, just because they are considered abnormally clever. Steven Hawking is also considered highly intelligent, I would’nt use his views on religion as evidence for God not existing.
"More later"
Your not an atheist yet?
Not good enough for me, I can’t see any rational reasoning in accepting beliefs of men born in the 19th century to support your creationism argument, just because they are considered abnormally clever. Steven Hawking is also considered highly intelligent, I would’nt use his views on religion as evidence for God not existing.
"More later"
Your not an atheist yet?
I must come back on this! The reason why it would be rational to accept the beliefs of those men born in the 19th century, is because those two alone initiated revolutions the results of which, particularly Planck’s quantum mechanics, rule supreme to this very day, no longer challenged after innumerable experiments, and in that sense, accepted as the most powerfully successful paradigm ever in physics.
On the other hand, Einstein’s discovery of space-time, alone, could not have been more radically innovative. Both dealt with total paradoxes. But you know what. Atheists don’t like the idea of not being able to understand anything, so, instead of calling them ‘counter-rational’, the talk about them being (no, don’t laugh) ‘counter-intuitive’!
Well if they have to rely on their intuition to tell them that a subatomic particle being simultaneously a wave and a particle at the same time, jist don’t sound right, they must have an IQ in single figures. It’s a veridical paradox… logically impossible, but true. ‘There’s something jist ain’t right about that boy, Myrtle.’
Incidentally, I found this concise refutation of Evolution I’d saved. It was posted by Bornagain77 to Uncommon Descent:
1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.Don’t be so gullible Grimes.
The woman in the You Tube clip has written a book. She’s promoting it.When did you complete your studies in advanced neuropsychiatry, Ginge? (I’m one to talk…!)
The woman in question did more than one You tube clip Grimes. On one of these other clips they mentioned her book. So she has a vested interest in making her story as sensational as possible. As does what looked like the Christian TV station it was featured in. So although it is possible she is giving what she sees as a truthful account – it is very doubtful. Evidence, evidence, evidence, there is none.
Value Is EverythingBarmy as ever, Mark. You’re an incorrigible nutter. That was her commission form God – to spread the word. As was the case with all of them.
Well, a few seem dubious to me, and one struck me as outright fraudulent. The woman concerned was very glib and showed none of the deep emotion many often do when recollecting their experience; a level of emotion not even the best actor or actress could put on.
Look here’s one about a millionaire, financial advisor, who gave up his high life as CEO of the Year, for a more modest life-style, as a counsellor.
Grimes, I agree with you on near death experiences. The part I will disagree on is it’s not supernatural. Nat Geo did a documentary on the ‘moment of death’, a very interesting account of people who reported NDE’s and gave exactly the same accounts as people who have experienced blackouts in NASA’s G-20 centrifuge. This video explains why people experience NDE’s and out of body experiences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvd3PJYpxO4"Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed"
So you accept evolution is a fact, what your attempting to disprove is evolution by natural selection? Evolution has been demonstrated and observed.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist and I can’t give you detailed answers but I can see that 1,2,3 and 6 are wrong.A quick search of bornagain77 and it looks like he’s an avid prolific anti- Darwin troll, it would appear he has a personal vendetta against a dead biologist.
Evolution has been demonstrated: Mammalian auditory ossicles, evolution of the horse, circulatory system, respiratory system, photosynthesis, evidence of common descent and thousands of other examples,
and can be observed:
Drug resistant bacteria, Pesticide resistant insects and
most animals/organisms/plant life with extremely short lifespansYou need to understand that one species won’t suddenly or abruptly lead to a brand new species, each generation’s genes differs slightly to the last, to observe a major variation would take a very, very long time. It’s a gradual process that takes thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of generations. Not from one generation directly to their offspring, if cows suddenly gave way to a new animal that would disprove evolution. Ageing is a gradual process of minor changes and so is evolution. You’ve obviously never heard of the Miller–Urey experiment that proved the theory of Abiogenesis, this video will answer your 2+3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo. Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Can I turn the tables on creationism?
1. If God is the creator what created the creator? What was before God if he didn’t come from nothing?
2. If God created the universe, why is the universe not created but in a state of constant transformation/expansion?
3 If God intelligently designed life, why intelligently design errors? Like cancer, heart disease, TB, polio or meningitis? Is God retarded or just plain cruel?
4. How would it be possible for a God to acquire the ability to create everything out of nothing?It’s a shame you two avoided eachother in the daylight cup draw. I had a cracking joke lined up about a group of death…….
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
‘You need to understand that one species won’t suddenly or abruptly lead to a brand new species, each generation’s genes differs slightly to the last, to observe a major variation would take a very, very long time. It’s a gradual process that takes thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of generations. Not from one generation directly to their offspring, if cows suddenly gave way to a new animal that would disprove evolution. Ageing is a gradual process of minor changes and so is evolution. You’ve obviously never heard of the Miller–Urey experiment that proved the theory of Abiogenesis, this video will answer your 2+3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo. Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.’
Unfortunately, J, Darwinists have been unable to show evidence of a one single transitional form between species. In other words, Evolution and the fabled ‘tree of life’ have been unambiguously revealed as pure fantasy. You’ve been swallowing whole an endless stream of bullsh*t.
Yes, I believe in ‘evolution’ as a synonym for ‘development’, but not for change from one species to another. Predictably, Darwinists use the whole spectrum of meanings of ‘evolution’ in their arguments, to wriggle out of the embarrassing corners they paint themselves into.
‘Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.’
No, he doesn’t, as that list of points that demolish Evolution he drew up, demonstrate. Only the kind of evolution of the chaffinches’ beaks, to better deal with a drought – but which then reverted to their old size.
This article from here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/irreduci … ent-453325
… emphatically exposes the fraudulent claims by the Darwinists that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum had been disproved.
‘DonaldM April 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Andre writes in #14:
Mr Matzke
Anything? Do you have the evidence or data on how this irreducible complex system evolved step by step?
Interesting to phrase the question this way to Nick M. In October 2006, Matzke along with Mark Pallen of the Univ. of Birmingham, had an article published in Nature entitled From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. (Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (October 2006)) The article was a review article rather than a research study attempting to refute Dr. Michael Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity with respect to this particular biological system. Behe originally made the claim in his groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box published in 1996, some 10 years prior to this article.
One of the main claims that Behe made, and the one that really roiled the waters in the Darwinian camp was that there was not a single peer reviewed research study in any relevant scientific journal providing any sort of step-by-Darwian-step explanation for how Darwinian evolution accounted for the bacterial flagellum. Many Darwinists, including Matzke (as well as Ken Miller and others) wrote books and articles and made posts on the internet not only saying that Behe was dead wrong, but also providing lists of supposed studies that…oopsies…Behe somehow missed. Of course, it was rightly pointed out that all this was little more than literature bluffing, as none of the studies in these lists provided the explanation to which Behe was referring.
So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. But Nick, along with all his fellow Darwinists know in their bones that such an explanation will be forthcoming…someday…some decade…some century…some millenium.’
As regards your four concluding questions, if you had listened to William Lane Craig, he explains the answers to them and much else at great length on those YouTube clips.
Are you one of those atheists who say, ‘I don’t believe in God, because he’s horrible’? One of those Darwinist university lecturers on UD pretty much said that. It’s a big assumption that God has to be good, anyway. But it is a Christian belief, and Western atheists seem to have been indoctrinated by it. Tally Ho!
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I’ve always believed that the consciousness survives after death. Let’s face it, for life to exist, energy has to already be present. For example, take the brain. If someone is suffering from dementia it means that their memory is impaired and some brain cells are dead or damaged. This makes it harder for the mind to navigate the brain (did you know that scientists still don’t know where about in the brain the mind resides) … but then the mind exists on another level. When someone says "that person is losing his mind", I don’t buy that because it’s not the mind being lost but the brain itself for whatever reason it may be. The mind wants to navigate the brain but the dead or deceased areas won’t allow it hence why that person’s personality changes. And so I’ve always felt that when our body dies or no longer exists, the energy within us (etheric form) is released and goes to a place of higher understanding.
You might be interested in this, Rob Roy blurb just short of half-way down the page, about Dianne Morrissey:
‘Eventually, after twenty years of researching the subject of near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences, Dianne developed a program to enable almost anyone, in a very short period of time, to initiate an out-of-body experience quickly and safely.’
Here is the website:
‘You need to understand that one species won’t suddenly or abruptly lead to a brand new species, each generation’s genes differs slightly to the last, to observe a major variation would take a very, very long time. It’s a gradual process that takes thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of generations. Not from one generation directly to their offspring, if cows suddenly gave way to a new animal that would disprove evolution. Ageing is a gradual process of minor changes and so is evolution. You’ve obviously never heard of the Miller–Urey experiment that proved the theory of Abiogenesis, this video will answer your 2+3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo. Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.’
Unfortunately, J, Darwinists have been unable to show evidence of a one single transitional form between species. In other words, Evolution and the fabled ‘tree of life’ have been unambiguously revealed as pure fantasy. You’ve been swallowing whole an endless stream of bullsh*t.
Yes, I believe in ‘evolution’ as a synonym for ‘development’, but not for change from one species to another. Predictably, Darwinists use the whole spectrum of meanings of ‘evolution’ in their arguments, to wriggle out of the embarrassing corners they paint themselves into.
‘Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.’
No, he doesn’t, as that list of points that demolish Evolution he drew up, demonstrate. Only the kind of evolution of the chaffinches’ beaks, to better deal with a drought – but which then reverted to their old size.
This article from here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/irreduci … ent-453325
… emphatically exposes the fraudulent claims by the Darwinists that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum had been disproved.
‘DonaldM April 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Andre writes in #14:
Mr Matzke
Anything? Do you have the evidence or data on how this irreducible complex system evolved step by step?
Interesting to phrase the question this way to Nick M. In October 2006, Matzke along with Mark Pallen of the Univ. of Birmingham, had an article published in Nature entitled From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. (Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (October 2006)) The article was a review article rather than a research study attempting to refute Dr. Michael Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity with respect to this particular biological system. Behe originally made the claim in his groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box published in 1996, some 10 years prior to this article.
One of the main claims that Behe made, and the one that really roiled the waters in the Darwinian camp was that there was not a single peer reviewed research study in any relevant scientific journal providing any sort of step-by-Darwian-step explanation for how Darwinian evolution accounted for the bacterial flagellum. Many Darwinists, including Matzke (as well as Ken Miller and others) wrote books and articles and made posts on the internet not only saying that Behe was dead wrong, but also providing lists of supposed studies that…oopsies…Behe somehow missed. Of course, it was rightly pointed out that all this was little more than literature bluffing, as none of the studies in these lists provided the explanation to which Behe was referring.
So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. But Nick, along with all his fellow Darwinists know in their bones that such an explanation will be forthcoming…someday…some decade…some century…some millenium.’
As regards your four concluding questions, if you had listened to William Lane Craig, he explains the answers to them and much else at great length on those YouTube clips.
Are you one of those atheists who say, ‘I don’t believe in God, because he’s horrible’? One of those Darwinist university lecturers on UD pretty much said that. It’s a big assumption that God has to be good, anyway. But it is a Christian belief, and Western atheists seem to have been indoctrinated by it. Tally Ho!
Grimes, wether you accept it or not, wether you like it or not your only here because of evolution by natural selection, if God created everything in six days and gave himself a day off why didn’t we walk with the Dinosaurs? If we did walk with dinosaurs, we would not exist.
"’Adaptation is part of natural selection, so this bornagain77 first accepted evolution but not evolution by natural selection and now agrees with evolution by natural selection.’
No, he doesn’t, as that list of points that demolish Evolution he drew up, demonstrate. Only the kind of evolution of the chaffinches’ beaks, to better deal with a drought – but which then reverted to their old size."I’m not arguing over adaptation, if you went to school you would know about natural selection and survival of the fittest. ADAPTATION IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION. He completely destroys his own argument, first he agrees evolution is present but disagrees with evolution by natural selection, then agrees with natural selection (Adaptation is defiantly part of natural selection!!!).
"Anything? Do you have the evidence or data on how this irreducible complex system evolved step by step"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo this goes into step by step abiogenesis. I see you haven’t disputed abiogenesis, which is weird because abiogenesis destroys the theory of creation.
I can give you experiments that won noble prizes, will you disagree with noble prize winning evidence? To support your argument you need Abiogenesis not to work, and it does work. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
The Miller–Urey and the Luria–Delbrück experiments is your evidence.
We’ve gone over irreducible complexity, this theory has been destroyed by tens of thousands of individual pieces of evidence. You ask for evidence yet when it’s presented you don’t accept it."… emphatically exposes the fraudulent claims by the Darwinists that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum had been disproved."
It has been disproved Grimes, are you still living in the 1800’s?
"One of the main claims that Behe made…was that there was not a single peer reviewed research study in any relevant scientific journal providing any sort of step-by-Darwian-step explanation for how Darwinian evolution accounted for the bacterial flagellum"
This is from Wikipedia, Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof".[n 9] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".
"Unfortunately, J, Darwinists have been unable to show evidence of a one single transitional form between species. In other words, Evolution and the fabled ‘tree of life’ have been unambiguously revealed as pure fantasy. You’ve been swallowing whole an endless stream of bullsh*t."
Wow, G, so now your saying common ancestry is a "pure fantasy", an incredible statement to make, either your misinformed or plain stupid. DNA proves we are all cousins, your related to every living thing on Earth, again wether you like it or not, wether you accept it or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent.
You’ve failed to supply any answers, not one to my questions, why?, because you are unable to answer thee unanswerable. Wether you accept it or not, your caught up in the biggest and largest fraudulent hoax in the history of mankind.
"As regards your four concluding questions, if you had listened to William Lane Craig, he explains the answers to them and much else at great length on those YouTube clips."
William Lane Craig has no answers, he is an idiot, he doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand basic laws of physics, chemistry or biology. He actually believes the universe will last for eternity and believes in an eternal afterlife, nothing can last for eternity G. William Lane Craig believes in the impossible, he believes in God, Jesus, miracles, Devine intervention, eternal afterlife, something from nothing, everything from nothing, he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, he believes in utter crap, can’t you see that?
"Are you one of those atheists who say, ‘I don’t believe in God, because he’s horrible’?"
If I believed God was horrible I would believe in his existence, I’m one of the atheists who has read the evidence for and against the existence of creation and I can see no actual evidence on one side and an overwhelming support of evidence for the other side. It’s all about evidence Grimes, not one prayer has ever been answered, no evidence for any God’s not any, not a shred. There is as much evidence for the existence of Thor then for your particular God. Can you supply any measurable evidence for the existence of creation? If we were created we would be extinct by now, fact! You give the impression of someone who has never investigated anything against your position.
What you believe is everything was created at once, so why is there a massive gap between dinosaurs and humans? Do you accept this? Or are you actually going to claim humans existed hundreds of millions of years ago?
Your uncommondescent blog offers no credible evidence, the fact you rely on others to make your point demonstrates your ability to be easily lead, fooled and make misinformed statements about evolution, science and the universe.
This is the creationist answer to the dinosaur contradiction,
"The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible
What crap, do you go along with this? That Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs, only eating vegetation, only 6000 years ago. Ha ha ha.
Here it is lads, all neatly laid out for you:
‘If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact. Lewontin confirms this suspicion by explaining why "we" (i.e., the kind of people who read the New York Review) reject out of hand the view of those who think they see the hand of the Creator in the material world:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
That paragraph is the most insightful statement of what is at issue in the creation/evolution controversy that I have ever read from a senior figure in the scientific establishment. It explains neatly how the theory of evolution can seem so certain to scientific insiders, and so shaky to the outsiders. For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
The prior commitment explains why evolutionary scientists are not disturbed when they learn that the fossil record does not provide examples of gradual macroevolutionary transformation, despite decades of determined effort by paleontologists to confirm neo-Darwinian presuppositions. That is also why biological chemists like Stanley Miller continue in confidence even when geochemists tell them that the early earth did not have the oxygen-free atmosphere essential for producing the chemicals required by the theory of the origin of life in a prebiotic soup. They reason that there had to be some source (comets?) capable of providing the needed molecules, because otherwise life would not have evolved. When evidence showed that the period available on the early earth for the evolution of life was extremely brief in comparison to the time previously posited for chemical evolution scenarios, Carl Sagan calmly concluded that the chemical evolution of life must be easier than we had supposed, because it happened so rapidly on the early earth.
That is also why neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins are not troubled by the Cambrian Explosion, where all the invertebrate animal groups appear suddenly and without identifiable ancestors. Whatever the fossil record may suggest, those Cambrian animals had to evolve by accepted neo-Darwinian means, which is to say by material processes requiring no intelligent guidance or supernatural input. Materialist philosophy demands no less. That is also why Niles Eldredge, surveying the absence of evidence for macroevolutionary transformations in the rich marine invertebrate fossil record, can observe that "evolution always seems to happen somewhere else," and then describe himself on the very next page as a "knee-jerk neo-Darwinist." Finally, that is why Darwinists do not take critics of materialist evolution seriously, but speculate instead about "hidden agendas" and resort immediately to ridicule. In their minds, to question materialism is to question reality. All these specific points are illustrations of what it means to say that "we" have an a priori commitment to materialism.
The scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment frankly to the public. Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as "RESOLVED, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism." Everyone would see what many now sense dimly: that a methodological premise useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute. Of course people who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished scientific theory is to define "science" as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing, when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism.’
From here:
http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9711/arti … hnson.html
I don’t profess to understand all of it. 2 paragraphs are Greek to me, but the gist is clear enough – especially when supplemented by the words of Bohr, as quoted in Wikiquotes:
You’ve failed to realise you have quoted a moron, a simple search of the author Phillip E. Johnson reveals he’s a radical creationist, widely known and criticised for confusing people over the facts of science, particularly evolution. His controversial literature is riddled with contradictions and is accepted as biased towards his position and supply’s no supporting evidence for his extreme claims. His book is unanimously rejected by all scientists and is simply creationist propaganda, Hitler’s propaganda most likely contained more truths then ‘Darwin on trail’. Interesting to read he is an avid AIDS denier, denying AIDS exists is an extraordinary claim to make, I hope you don’t share such views Grimes.
I take it you do believe Adam and Eve lived and walked with T-Rex’s in perfect harmony eating only fruit and vegetables just six thousand years ago.
Bohr was born two century’s ago in the last millennium, most physicists today have a better understanding of the universe then Bohr, Planck or Einstein could ever possibly behold thanks in part to their work.
I’ll give you one of the best examples of evolution, you have three small bones in your ear called the Hammer, Anvil and Stirrup. These bones used to be part of your ancestors jaws, but over time animals have evolved from sensing vibration to hearing sounds (evolution of the mammalian auditory ossicles). Another example, the bones in your arm have the same formation as bat wings, dolphin fins, whales, cats and dogs (Homologous structures). Your DNA is 96% the same as a chimpanzee, the four percent difference is what makes you a human, 90% similarity to the DNA of a cat (common ancestry). The distribution of animals is huge evidence as we don’t find polar bears in Australia or Elephants in Scotland, if creationism is true then why don’t we find Crocodiles in France?
When we dig up the Earth, why don’t we find human skeletons with Therapsids? We can see a timeline of life from fossils and we can also see massive gaps in the period those animals lived, so why are their massive gaps if God created everything?
The reason you attack Darwin’s, Wallace’s and Dawkins’s work is because you know it’s the biggest threat to your fictional tyrant of a God. Which can be made comparable with the North Koreans believing Kim II-Sung is their eternal God except Kim actually existed in the planes of reality.
You believe in something of which there is none, nothing, nil, absolutely sweet FA to support yet dispute a fact supported by more evidence then nearly every other scientific theory.
The fact you rely on others to make your point demonstrates your ability to be easily lead, fooled and make misinformed statements about evolution, science and the universe.
You’ve failed to realise you have quoted a moron, a simple search of the author Phillip E. Johnson reveals he’s a radical creationist, widely known and criticised for confusing people over the facts of science, particularly evolution. His controversial literature is riddled with contradictions and is accepted as biased towards his position and supply’s no supporting evidence for his extreme claims. His book is unanimously rejected by all scientists and is simply creationist propaganda, Hitler’s propaganda most likely contained more truths then ‘Darwin on trail’. Interesting to read he is an avid AIDS denier, denying AIDS exists is an extraordinary claim to make, I hope you don’t share such views Grimes.
I take it you do believe Adam and Eve lived and walked with T-Rex’s in perfect harmony eating only fruit and vegetables just six thousand years ago.
Bohr was born two century’s ago in the last millennium, most physicists today have a better understanding of the universe then Bohr, Planck or Einstein could ever possibly behold thanks in part to their work.
I’ll give you one of the best examples of evolution, you have three small bones in your ear called the Hammer, Anvil and Stirrup. These bones used to be part of your ancestors jaws, but over time animals have evolved from sensing vibration to hearing sounds (evolution of the mammalian auditory ossicles). Another example, the bones in your arm have the same formation as bat wings, dolphin fins, whales, cats and dogs (Homologous structures). Your DNA is 96% the same as a chimpanzee, the four percent difference is what makes you a human, 90% similarity to the DNA of a cat (common ancestry). The distribution of animals is huge evidence as we don’t find polar bears in Australia or Elephants in Scotland, if creationism is true then why don’t we find Crocodiles in France?
When we dig up the Earth, why don’t we find human skeletons with Therapsids? We can see a timeline of life from fossils and we can also see massive gaps in the period those animals lived, so why are their massive gaps if God created everything?
The reason you attack Darwin’s, Wallace’s and Dawkins’s work is because you know it’s the biggest threat to your fictional tyrant of a God. Which can be made comparable with the North Koreans believing Kim II-Sung is their eternal God except Kim actually existed in the planes of reality.
You believe in something of which there is none, nothing, nil, absolutely sweet FA to support yet dispute a fact supported by more evidence then nearly every other scientific theory.
The fact you rely on others to make your point demonstrates your ability to be easily lead, fooled and make misinformed statements about evolution, science and the universe.
—————————-
Read posts 18, 19 and 20 of Philip Cunningham, aka Bornagain77, here, J:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/educatio … ent-453867
….and weep for your and nescience and folly
ALL MATTER FINALLY REDUCES TO INFORMATION, as in software.
You Materialist dolts can’t come to terms with the empirically-proven fact that your 19th century science has been definitively eclipsed by Quantum Mechanics, which is not only the most successful paradigm ever, but it has been empirically proven that it can never be superseded.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.