Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Akshay Bist on January 5, 2012 at 10:50pm

Humans started living under a roof, primates didn't. Humans discovered fire to keep them warm, primates didn't. Humans walk upright & use other materials to cover themselves, primates don't.

You have a brain right? How about you use it from time to time

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:29pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Off topic. Please advance the conversation by discussing what are the strongest arguments for "atheism", which I presume to mean the best arguments for why arguments for a god fail.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 4, 2012 at 12:14pm

That certainly is the theory, however genetic drift and mutation from cosmic rays is mindless and happens whether or not a species is well suited for it's environment. In the limited the  theory of evolution must deem continous speciation over the course of time with the rule survival of the fittest keeping some pedigree of the former species alive.  However these living fossils defy that rule and are unchanging even as God himself their sustainer (alledgedly).

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 5, 2012 at 11:05pm

Humans started living under a roof, primates didn't. Humans discovered fire to keep them warm, primates didn't. Humans walk upright & use other materials to cover themselves, primates don't.

You have a brain right? How about you use it from time to time

Letting your insults aside, how about you to explain, how this constitutes a argument , why the fact that humans seek protection under a roof , does help sexual reproduction of humans , and eliminates the need of women to have their body covered with hair ? and, why is the mens body only partly covered , and not complete, as at primates ? and why do some primates have their body completely covered, and others don't, and some have no hair at all ?

And: why are the humans sexual organs covered with hair ? 

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 4, 2012 at 3:29pm

and some do, have you seen the ads for hair removal shavers? mostly women talking about their moustaches and beards and sideburns... might want to do some research before attempting too much sarcasm Angelo!

just sayin...

if that would be the norm.....

just sayin too .....

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on January 5, 2012 at 10:23pm

"Following the logic of your website, all primates, chimpanzes, gorillas, and all other sort of monkeys, should have gone the same evolutionary direction, and the females lost their body hair . why do they have not, if that is a sexual advantage ??? "

Not necessarily true. It would depend on the branch of evolution. Those other primates you mentioned are other branches of the primate 'tree', if you will. So it doesn't mean they had to made the same adaptations that were done with man's development.. 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:31pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Letting your insults aside, how about you to explain, how this constitutes a argument , why the fact that humans seek protection under a roof , does help sexual reproduction of humans , and eliminates the need of women to have their body covered with hair ? and, why is the mens body only partly covered , and not complete, as at primates ? and why do some primates have their body completely covered, and others don't, and some have no hair at all ?

 

And: why are the humans sexual organs covered with hair ?

 

Again, off topic.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:27pm

Hey Michael,

 

Suppose the Theory of Evolution is completely, flat wrong. Then what does that do to advance your argument for the existence of a god, an entity no one has yet to even define?

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 8, 2012 at 6:10am

Suppose the Theory of Evolution is completely, flat wrong. Then what does that do to advance your argument for the existence of a god, an entity no one has yet to even define?

Who told you we cannot define God ? We cannot comprehend God in its full magnitude, but he has revealed us several aspects of his character, and constitution :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 8, 2012 at 11:42pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Who told you we cannot define God ?

 

Please go back and read the thread. I would just repost here but I don't think that should be necessary. I've posted a proof that you cannot define "God". It is now incumbent upon you to challenge that proof. Otherwise, you surrender the argument. So, no one "told me" that I cannot define "God", I told you that.

 

We cannot comprehend God in its full magnitude, but he has revealed us several aspects of his character, and constitution :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

 

The rest of your post is meaningless as you are discussing something you cannot even define.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Artor on January 3, 2012 at 7:35pm

Science has provided a great number of data, which leads us logically to conclude God. No God of the Gap needed. 

It's funny you should say that, since the vast majority of the scientists who generate that data, that is the ones who actually understand it, don't agree with your conclusion. There might be something wrong with your logic.

The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Unfounded assumption. Quantum theory, and physical experiments prove that there need be no cause for matter to spontaneously exist. Hard to believe, I know, but it can be demonstrated and measured.

The universe is finely tuned to life, therefore a tuner.

To our knowledge, there is exactly one tiny point of life in all of the unimaginably vast universe, and you consider that finely-tuned for life? Also, if the universe were tuned differently, then life would adapt to fit it, or not exist at all to observe it. Try again.

Complex, specified codified information as contained in DNA comes always from a mind. Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind.

The first observers of millisecond pulsars were certain they had found an alien signal. Perfectly regular, focused pulses of radio waves don't exist in nature. They MUST be sent by aliens, right? Wrong. If you want your conclusion to have credibility, please show evidence to prove it. You can't? Funny how that you-can't-prove-a-negative bites you in the ass sometimes.

Matter cannot produce something essentially different, like conscience, information, intelligence.

Yet it does all the time. Look at the development of a child. It grows, pops out, grows up, and wow! A new person! If you wish to posit a miraculous moment of divine endowment in the process, please show the moment it happens.

biological diversity cannot be explained through evolution. Many biological systems are irreducibly complex, like the eye, blood , the cell. All this is positive evidence for a intelligent designer.

It would be if that were true. Too bad it's not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP3AY0iHEUA

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 3, 2012 at 8:41pm

It's funny you should say that, since the vast majority of the scientists who generate that data, that is the ones who actually understand it, don't agree with your conclusion. There might be something wrong with your logic.

Faith in God is essentially something , that is based on emotion and will, and not on the intellect. If someone does not wish to live a life with God, then the best argument for Gods existence will not produce faith.

 Unfounded assumption. Quantum theory, and physical experiments prove that there need be no cause for matter to spontaneously exist. Hard to believe, I know, but it can be demonstrated and measured.

Many atheists believe, they got the golden answer, to cancel out god, with the virtual particle nonsense argument. 

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause." 

"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever." 

"As Barrow and Tipler comment, "It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum 'creation ex nihilo,' for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true 'creation ex nihilo' would be the spontaneous generation of everything--space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter--at some time in the past."([1986], p. 441)." 

To our knowledge, there is exactly one tiny point of life in all of the unimaginably vast universe, and you consider that finely-tuned for life? 

absolutely. Extremely finely tuned for life. 

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-...

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. 
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. 
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. 
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. 
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. 
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. 
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. 
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. 
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. 
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. 
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Yet it does all the time. Look at the development of a child. It grows, pops out, grows up, and wow! A new person! If you wish to posit a miraculous moment of divine endowment in the process, please show the moment it happens.

A baby comes from , guess what ? existing life....... not dead matter. Wann a try again ?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page