If God created...

[gcthomas]

@Lon, of course love makes sense in a universe without any gods. You have disappointed me here, I thought that such a shallow standard of reasoning was beneath you.

From my point of view, the feeling of love is the conscious self-awareness of the pair bonding attachments that many large vertebrates experience. You would expect evolution to provide a mechanism to provide for the raising of children via long lived partnerships, and emotional attachments would be the easy way to go about it, and humans have the ability to observe their own emotions. It is obvious really of you'd taken a moment to think about it.

But knowledge of the ultimate cause does not diminish the value or meaning of the proximate causes of the emotion one bit. Giddidit is so unsatisfying, ignoring the physical mechanisms as it does.

 

[patrick jane]

@Lon, of course love makes sense in a universe without any gods. You have disappointed me here, I thought that such a shallow standard of reasoning was beneath you.

From my point of view, the feeling of love is the conscious self-awareness of the pair bonding attachments that many large vertebrates experience. You would expect evolution to provide a mechanism to provide for the raising of children via long lived partnerships, and emotional attachments would be the easy way to go about it, and humans have the ability to observe their own emotions. It is obvious really of you'd taken a moment to think about it.

But knowledge of the ultimate cause does not diminish the value or meaning of the proximate causes of the emotion one bit. Giddidit is so unsatisfying, ignoring the physical mechanisms as it does.

Wow !! Another interesting post from the most interesting man in the world. You are the first and only TOL member I will put on my Ignore List.



From gc The Interesting:
"I don't usually even see your posts (you're on ignore since you say nothing interesting), so I actually have no idea what you have been writing about."

 

[6days]

Ok, now tell me how beauty, order, design in the universe and nature came to be that way.

The same way it came to be in the watch you used as an example. There was a designer.

Since you don't mean entropy in the scientific sense...

It was meant in the scientific sense, but not the box you want.

]Does (Dawkins) employ vague assertions ...

Yes, Dawkins OFTEN uses vague assertions against Christianity, and against science. For example he asserts that genetic evidence of common ancestry is never contradictory. (Or billions of earth like planets)

That's not very many, (mutations) from a genome that contains 3 billion base pairs

It would seem insignificant if you don't understand the problem.

And slightly deleterious is really a nonsense concept ,,,

You should try argue that with geneticists who use that, or similar terms, such as 'near neutral'. While you are straightening out geneticists on terminology, you should also tell them to stop 'worrying' about genetic load.

Some (psuedogenes are functional), not all.

Maybe more... maybe most...we don't know. Researchers are now, not ingnoring what is now shown to be a misnomer, 'psuedogenes'.

But equally don't discount that there are vast tracts of DNA that should be called junk...

Science continues to find functionality in things evolutionists of the past dismissed as junk. Several thousand years of mutations has damaged some of our DNA; but, the problem in the past is research was hindered by evolutionists who start with the conclusion of biological remnants.

(Liberty) it's not a real university.

Yes... and any Scotsman who does not wear a kilt is not a true Scotsman.

I can think of Michael Behe. Can you name any others (who are creationist professors?)

Behe is not a creationist. But yes, I can think of others. For example I have a friend who is a prof. teaching veterinary medicine and conducts research. She teaches biology without teaching common ancestry beliefs, nor her own beliefs of a common Designer.

I agree that creationists should be allowed in to meetings with real research biologists

Likewise, I agree that evolutionists should be allowed in to meetings sometimes, with real research biologists.

 

[6days]

There is no fact that contradicts evolution by natural selection

Of course not...it is a non falsifiable belief. As you have demonstrated, the belief can incorporate functionalty, and non functionality. Design can be dismissed as an illusion. Definitions of words are rubbery, and sometimes changed.

But the claim that the appendix is somehow a mutated-down version of something that was grander in the past, due to mutations, is completely inconsistent with the fact that over the same time period other organs have become bigger and more functional than in the past, the most obvious example being the brain

. Uh.... the human brain is shrinking. "the human brain has been shrinking at an alarming rate and no one really knows why" http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...ists-are-alarmed-shrinking-human-brain-001446

But why would the kiwi have the structures (wings) at all?

Good question Stuu. So do you think Kiwi's are evolving wings? Or, have tbey lost their wings? I would suggest they are a bird, designed as a ground dweller, like some other birds are. (or some as ocean dwelling birds)

The kiwi is still a bird, a descendant of theropod dinosaurs

Genetics shows us it is impossible a reptile can transition into a bird, but I do realize you believe it possible.

Good design is a sign of a good designer.

We agree. But the question you keep avoiding is to name an example of something in nature (or our universe) that is good design.

It's not a matter of liking anything. It's a matter of whether the word conveys the concept accurately. In one sense it (our eye) is optimal...

Optimal suggests it can't be improved upon. Our eyes can detect a single photon of light. There isn't a smaller unit than a photon; therefore the ability of our eyes to detect the smallest possible unit of light is optimal...period.

All I am doing is critiquing the creationist claim that there is perfect design in nature.

If any creationist says such a thing, you can discuss it with them. What creationists really claim, is that creation was perfect, but has become corrupted.

I can see (creation) is not perfect design...

I don't thonk you do see that Stuu. What you see, is evolutionist arguments of the past proven wrong by science. You seem to have a notion that the inverted retina design can be improved upon, but no idea how... and little understanding of eye anatomy.

However, I'm sure there are surgeons out there who could not only fix, but actually reorganise the plumbing that stupidly has been run straight through the prostate gland if they wanted.

Stuu... I suppose everything seems stupid until you have knowledge and understand it.
"The positioning (of the prostate) makes a great deal of sense. Rather than the urethra going through the prostate, it is more accurate to consider the prostate as a thickening of the urethral wall. It produces a major component of semen (other than the sperm, which come from the testicles; the testicles have to be outside the body for cooling purposes; much of the liquid is produced by the seminal vesicles). The prostate’s secretions have to be injected into the urethra at the right time to join up with the spermatozoa from the testicles. The prostate arrangement means that its 30–50 glands secrete into 16–32 ducts that open independently into the urethra. The whole prostate contracts during ejaculation, and its smooth muscle quickly empties its contents and forces the semen along. The prostate also contains nerve plexuses, and is responsible for much of the pleasure of male sexual activity.
So why did the designer not simply place the prostate alongside the urethra? Presumably because it would require a new duct system, and extra systems to propel its secretions and propel the semen along.
The prostate also acts as a spacer between the bladder and the urogenital diaphragm. This provides a support for the bladder, and prevents the urethra kinking when the bladder is full. Otherwise extra ligaments and attachment structures would be required. This positioning could also be necessary to shut off urine flow during ejaculation".https://creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed

similar to case of the ridiculous recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Things seems stupid AND ridiculous? Grays's anatomy says "However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: “The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery” .
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_recurrent_laryngeal_nerve_/

An optimum design wouldn't leave a blind spot where the optic nerve ploughs through the retina to lead to the rest of the brain.

The 'blind spot' is another myth created by evolutionists who did not understand the design of the eye. There are a couple reasons why there is no blind spot. One reason is that our eye sees clearly only through the fovea centralis. It allows us to focus. Anything outside the area of the fovea centralis is not what we are focusing on. That is one reason why the blind spot is a myth... It is outside the area of focus. Another reason is that the tiny 'blind spot' is only 1/4 of 1% and our one eye always compensates for the other eye... People with 2 eyes couldn't ever notice the 'spot'. Another reason why there is no blind spot is because of a super cool design... our eye has muscles that cause it to slightly oscillate at a high rate of speed. If the eye did not shimmer like this, we would have trouble seeing anything unless it moved. But because the eye moves we do see everything that is not moving. The awesome part of this design is that we can not see the blood vessels or the blind spot... because they move with the eye... so the eye can not detect it. (Stuu..... I think you have a blind spot, accepting poorly designed arguments)

On the other hand, there is big selection pressure against having eyes for cave dwellers.

Loss of a sophisticated vision system is consistent with the Biblical model; and, the opposite direction that Darwinian common ancestry beliefs require.

How does biological stuff like an eyespot magically get 'created' from non-living stuff?

Evolutionists admit they start with the complexity of an eye spot as a "given". I guess they think it's magic? "The simulation, therefore, does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. To begin with, it takes light sensitive cells as given"
Matt Ridley, Evolution, p. 261 (http://www.exploreevolution.com/exp...te/2010/03/response_to_the_ncses_reply_to.php)

Evolution by natural selection is a belief about the past, and the present, and the future, based on unambiguous evidence.

Natural selection is an observable process that causes a loss of genetic variation in a gene pool. We can extrapolate data , and have conclusions / beliefs about the past and future. The emperical data contradicts the uphill diection Darwinism needs.

Does this author cite any eyewitness accounts of Jesus?

Yes. Author is Josh McDowell.

 

[Stuu]

I've tried looking at the world from your atheist perspective. The world literally stops making logical sense. I actually love my kids. That doesn't make sense. Stop. I'm saying 'love' makes no sense. Beauty makes no sense. From an atheist perspective, it CANNOT make sense. It is all random and no point to the universe or living. I KNOW, per fact, that there is meaning to my existence. I KNOW it. Why? Because it is the definition and evidence of itself. You just don't pay attention to daily qualifiers that ENSURE life 1) continues existence, 2) has purpose and meaning 3) and is enjoyable and worth living. You are the man living in denial. THINK for a change. YOUR worldview doesn't add up. It is beyond anti-intelligence.

The meme inside your brain that is operating the controls says this sort of thing quite often.

Are you saying that in the Czech Republic or Sweden, where rates of irreligion exceed 75%, the world cannot make sense, that people cannot love their kids, that beauty cannot exist, that life simply does not have meaning or worth, and there is no way of attributing purpose to those skeptics' existence? I'd call that a pretty extreme position, one that shows almost a sociopathic lack of empathy. How can you possibly love other humans if your own personal prejudices are the only basis for anyone being allowed to be considered a normal human?

Have you asked Jupiter into your life yet? That was the condition I expected you to meet in exchange for me considering your invisible friend. If you dismiss my offer, then I would like you to understand that the way you feel about my request is exactly the same as the way I feel about yours.

And, thereby, you might start to see how much of a wall made of strawmen you have built. I have done no wall building myself, because it is you who has the outrageous claims of magic that goes so far beyond our common observation, and therefore you have the burden of proof for them. Why do you continue to build? Well, we know the answer is the meme operating your controls. And you are one of the most intractable cases I have discussed it with.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: Ok, now tell me how beauty, order, design in the universe and nature came to be that way.

The same way it came to be in the watch you used as an example. There was a designer.

So beauty, order and design in the universe comes into existence the same way a watch comes into existence. Firstly, an engineer qualifies in a mechanical or electronic specialisation, then joins a company that already makes watches, then if she is really good she will try out some modifications, keep the ones that improve the watch and perhaps discard things that stakeholders no longer want. She will inevitably make some mistakes along the way, but that is all part of learning and of being human, of course.

Is that what you have in mind with your creator?

It was meant in the scientific sense, but not the box you want.

I think you've lost that one as well. There aren't two different scientific senses of entropy.

For example he asserts that genetic evidence of common ancestry is never contradictory. (Or billions of earth like planets)

So then, provide one unambiguous trend in scientific data that disproves common ancestry.
I don't think anyone asserts the number of earth-like planets, I think they conclude that based on the evidence of the ones we know about.

Science continues to find functionality in things evolutionists of the past dismissed as junk. Several thousand years of mutations has damaged some of our DNA; but, the problem in the past is research was hindered by evolutionists who start with the conclusion of biological remnants.

So you don't want to call the 'damaged' pieces junk? Your garage must be full of things that don't work anymore but must nevertheless be respected as still useful.

Yes... and any Scotsman who does not wear a kilt is not a true Scotsman.

No, I really think that Liberty University is not a real university. And my main criterion would be that a university would stimulate students to think in any mode and encourage expression of that process. Does the non-university Liberty allow it's students to express freedom of expression, for example not participating in community religious events? I'll think you find they don't allow that.

Behe is not a creationist.

Yes he is. He is an ID advocate. That's as moronic a kind of creationism as any is.

But yes, I can think of others. For example I have a friend who is a prof. teaching veterinary medicine and conducts research. She teaches biology without teaching common ancestry beliefs, nor her own beliefs of a common Designer.

So you can't name someone I could look up, or might already have heard of.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: There is no fact that contradicts evolution by natural selection

Of course not...it is a non falsifiable belief. As you have demonstrated, the belief can incorporate functionalty, and non functionality. Design can be dismissed as an illusion. Definitions of words are rubbery, and sometimes changed.

Good, so we agree that no fact contradicts evolution by natural selection.

I should quote you saying that in my footer, shouldn't I.

Stuu: ...fact that over the same time period other organs have become bigger and more functional than in the past, the most obvious example being the brain

Uh.... the human brain is shrinking. "the human brain has been shrinking at an alarming rate and no one really knows why"

Sure. What has that got to do with my point?

Good question Stuu. So do you think Kiwi's are evolving wings? Or, have tbey lost their wings? I would suggest they are a bird, designed as a ground dweller, like some other birds are. (or some as ocean dwelling birds)

I see. Well you would be completely wrong.

Genetics shows us it is impossible a reptile can transition into a bird, but I do realize you believe it possible.

It is a fact of history that birds are descendants of therapod dinosaurs, as in proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Birds are the only living descendants of any species of dinosaur.

But the question you keep avoiding is to name an example of something in nature (or our universe) that is good design.

My watch! What was wrong with that example I gave you?

Optimal suggests it can't be improved upon. Our eyes can detect a single photon of light. There isn't a smaller unit than a photon; therefore the ability of our eyes to detect the smallest possible unit of light is optimal...period.

That's a ridiculous definition of an optimal eye. You could have an eye that detects single photons but has no way of determining what direction that photon came from. I don't think you could call that eye 'optimal'.

You seem to have a notion that the inverted retina design can be improved upon, but no idea how...

By wiring the retina so the light doesn't have to travel through layers of tissue that give the nervous and blood supplies, also causing a blind spot, and necessitating correction mechanisms that go some way to compensating for the bad effects of the poor wiring. That's how the design could be improved. But it's not designed, so in the end it is irrelevant. Unless you want to claim it as a perfect design, in which case this is how it could have been designed better.

"...So why did the designer not simply place the prostate alongside the urethra? Presumably because it would require a new duct system, and extra systems to propel its secretions and propel the semen along.The prostate also acts as a spacer between the bladder and the urogenital diaphragm. This provides a support for the bladder, and prevents the urethra kinking when the bladder is full. Otherwise extra ligaments and attachment structures would be required.

See? Even the shower of lying bastards at creation.com can suggest how the design could be better!

Grays's anatomy says "However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: “The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery” .

...which is exactly how evolution by natural selection does things.

The 'blind spot' is another myth created by evolutionists

Ok, so the blind spot is a myth.

who did not understand the design of the eye.

Were these particular evolutionists staggered to discover their ignorance? Were they amazed to learn this? Was it shocking because they were in the dark completely?

There are a couple reasons why there is no blind spot.

You don't know what a blind spot is, do you.

One reason is that our eye sees clearly only through the fovea centralis. It allows us to focus. Anything outside the area of the fovea centralis is not what we are focusing on. That is one reason why the blind spot is a myth... It is outside the area of focus. Another reason is that the tiny 'blind spot' is only 1/4 of 1% and our one eye always compensates for the other eye... People with 2 eyes couldn't ever notice the 'spot'.

So the blind spot does exist?

Another reason why there is no blind spot

Er, so the blind spot doesn't exist!?

is because of a super cool design... our eye has muscles that cause it to slightly oscillate at a high rate of speed. If the eye did not shimmer like this, we would have trouble seeing anything unless it moved. But because the eye moves we do see everything that is not moving. The awesome part of this design is that we can not see the blood vessels or the blind spot... because they move with the eye... so the eye can not detect it.

So the eye has to do some special activity to fix the problem, right? If it had been designed properly, it could just stay still and record information as it came in.

Well, natural selection does provide fixes to make up for poor 'design'.

But anyway, it is wrong that you can't see your blood vessels. If you stare at a cloud for a while, eventually you will start to notice the blood cells moving across your visual field. If you take your pulse while you stare, you will notice that the little blurry dots move in time to your heartbeat.

Stuu: How does biological stuff like an eyespot magically get 'created' from non-living stuff?

Evolutionists admit they start with the complexity of an eye spot as a "given". I guess they think it's magic? "The simulation, therefore, does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. To begin with, it takes light sensitive cells as given"
Matt Ridley, Evolution, p. 261

So, do you have an answer? How does biological stuff like an eyespot magically get 'created' from non-living stuff?

Stuu: Does this author cite any eyewitness accounts of Jesus?

Yes. Author is Josh McDowell.

So, Josh McDowell saw Jesus and wrote about the experience?

Strange, doesn't sound like an ancient Palestinian, or Roman name.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

Genetics shows us it is impossible a reptile can transition into a bird,

Citation to the scientific literature, please.

 

[Jonahdog]

I've tried looking at the world from your atheist perspective. The world literally stops making logical sense. I actually love my kids. That doesn't make sense. Stop. I'm saying 'love' makes no sense. Beauty makes no sense. From an atheist perspective, it CANNOT make sense. It is all random and no point to the universe or living. I KNOW, per fact, that there is meaning to my existence. I KNOW it. Why? Because it is the definition and evidence of itself. You just don't pay attention to daily qualifiers that ENSURE life 1) continues existence, 2) has purpose and meaning 3) and is enjoyable and worth living. You are the man living in denial. THINK for a change. YOUR worldview doesn't add up. It is beyond anti-intelligence.

Are you suggesting that as an atheist I either cannot or do not love my children?

 

[gcthomas]

Are you suggesting that as an atheist I either cannot or do not love my children?

Yes, I think he actually is. Funny how my life seems to have meaning to me when Lon says it can't.

 

[patrick jane]

[h=2]This message is hidden because gcthomas is on your ignore list.[/h]

 

[6days]

I should quote you saying that in my footer, shouldn't I.

Yes... that would be great, so long as you don't quote mine it.

organs have become bigger

the human brain has been shrinking

What has that got to do with my point?

Are we having fun?

I see. Well you would be completely wrong.

What does that have to do with my point? I asked you if kiwis are in the process of evolving wings or if they are in the process of evolving to a wingless creature? They seem like a flightless bird, very well adaped to their environment, as a ground dweller.

It is a fact of history that birds are descendants of therapod dinosaurs

You have difficulty seperating your false beliefs from science and history.

My watch! What was wrong with that example I gave you?

As I said earlier... you failed the simple test I gave. Your watch is not a result of nature....it was designed.

I don't think you could call that eye 'optimal'

I did call that eye optimal. Researchers have called the design optimal. Evolutionists, who don't understand the eye anatomy call it ridiculous.

By wiring the retina so the light doesn't have to travel through layers of tissue that give the nervous and blood supplies, also causing a blind spot, and necessitating correction mechanisms that go some way to compensating for the bad effects of the poor wiring. That's how thedesign could be improved.

As I said... you state the eye is wired poorly, but have no idea of the eye antomy. You have bought into Dawkins (or some other) failed arguments. He has not bothered to update his knowledge on the eye in many years, so he keeps repeating his same failed beliefs... as do you.


You state you would re-wire the eye, but don't tell us how. (I can also state I can improve the wiring on the space station). You didn't tell us if you are keeping the inverted retina, and the fibre-optic type technology that goes along with it. You didn't tell us where you will place the blood vessels you will move. (They can't go behind the eye, and can explain why if you wish).


Also... re an earlier point. You said that evolution can't create systems better than we are capable of using. And yet our eyes can detect a single photon, whe our brain does not register light until there are 5 photons. So, did our eye evolve technogy waiting for the brain to catch up? Or, does the evidence suggest our brains may not be as efficient as they once were? Or, is there evidence, your belief was wrong?

See? Even the shower of lying bastards at creation.com can suggest how the design could be better!

Wow Stuu.... The article explained the design, and unable to refute it, you answer with anger, and name calling. Can you name that fallacy?

...which is exactly how evolution by natural selection does things.

I hope during our little discussion, you are recognizing how illogical your 'reasoning' is. You suggested the long looping nerve was poor design. When Grays Anatomy tells you there is purpose to that design, you flip to 'evolution did it'.

So the blind spot does exist?

No... its essentially a false description used by evolutionists . It would be similar to calling the frame on your glasses a blind spot. (Although we can easily see the frames of our glasses, without devising tricks to see it).

If it had been designed properly, it could just stay still and record information as it came in.

You aren't a very good designer, my friend. And as said before, you don't have a very good understanding of eye anatomy. Perhaps check Wiki and see how microsaccades help improve vision and process what we see. The fixed eye / no microsaccade movement happens in some people and they have vision problems.

How does biological stuff like an eyespot magically get 'created' from non-living stuff?

Your question must be to evolutionists? (evolutionists rely on what you call magic..The Bible tells us there was a Creator)

So, Josh McDowell saw Jesus and wrote about the experience?

Your question was "Does this author cite any eyewitness accounts of Jesus?" The answer was "Yes".

 

[Lon]

Are you suggesting that as an atheist I either cannot or do not love my children?

In one sense, yes. Your 'love' is anti-intuitive for an atheist set of [in]truths. So yes, I'm saying 'love' makes NO sense from an atheist perspective. "Before" you try and argue that point, you WILL be using reason, intelligence, and sensibility (borrowing from another's world view). You are living and logicking inconsistently. "IF" something matters, you are no longer an atheist. You too, would think 'there IS something to all of this.'

So yes, I'm trying to get you to realize that atheism is incredibly untenable for life. It just doesn't and never has worked. It isn't tenable on all of these fronts. You, yourself, are a conundrum 'loving' your kids AGAINST atheism. With love SOMETHING matters. Don't stop your intuitive analyzing. Atheists are dead to real thinking, feeling, or mattering at all.

 

[Lon]

The meme inside your brain that is operating the controls says this sort of thing quite often.

Are you saying that in the Czech Republic or Sweden, where rates of irreligion exceed 75%, the world cannot make sense, that people cannot love their kids, that beauty cannot exist, that life simply does not have meaning or worth, and there is no way of attributing purpose to those skeptics' existence? I'd call that a pretty extreme position, one that shows almost a sociopathic lack of empathy. How can you possibly love other humans if your own personal prejudices are the only basis for anyone being allowed to be considered a normal human?

Yes. They are living irrationally. They are denying the very thing they are enjoying. HOWEVER the numbers are made-up, in Sweden as well.
WHY would atheists pad their numbers? :think: I know why. It IS about living according to reality. You 'think' things are made-up but it is your horribly inconsistent worldview with lies mixed in that makes you a dupe. Mean? :nono: I really want to confront those lies so that you live by truth. Truth is QUITE something different than you presently hold. Wake up. Please. -Lon

Have you asked Jupiter into your life yet? That was the condition I expected you to meet in exchange for me considering your invisible friend. If you dismiss my offer, then I would like you to understand that the way you feel about my request is exactly the same as the way I feel about yours.

Nope, this is one of those 'lies' mixed in with your reality. It is "Excusing" behavior. 1 Question: "IF" truth is different than what you imagine, would you rather live as you are now, or live according to reality? It really is all about that.

And, thereby, you might start to see how much of a wall made of strawmen you have built.

YOU have built. lain:

I have done no wall building myself

lain:

because it is you who has the outrageous claims of magic that goes so far beyond our common observation

See, you mix in lies to help yourself sleep at night. I said, point blank '...or I'm magic. I'm not magic.'
You have an aversion to truth, preferring your worldview carries half-truths and mistruths.

and therefore you have the burden of proof for them.

:nono: EVERY last one of us met God one on one, one by one. You want to know God? You will not find Him arguing with me. Again, you are settling for less, not more. Worse? You are happier here on TOL than finding God. You MUST own that. There is nobody there but you and Him. I 'can' point the direction. "I'm not magic."

Why do you continue to build? Well, we know the answer is the meme operating your controls.

Reality? Yep, I'll take that meme or whatever contrivance you'd like to call it.

And you are one of the most intractable cases I have discussed it with.

Stuart

There are two ways (probably a few more) you can get somewhere: Ask, or check a map. GPS and mobile devices have eliminated that but I've been lost before the old way. I even have some friends who've been lost the GPS way! :noway: You'll have different abilities among those who have been there before you. Some will not be helpful, but you'd be wrong to assume none have been there. Some are just not as cogent in giving directions. Paul planted, Apollos watered. God gave the increase. To get to God, you will have to eventually come to Him over the matter. There is no way around that. It continues to beg the question of why a few of you prefer these TOL halls. Some will give better directions than others. Making fun of someone not as adept at directions? That's Jose Fly's modus operandi, by his reckoning. I've seen people stand on street corners, wasting time (for me) mocking, making fun. To each their own but I don't think they are doing anything especially 'human' worthy. It has no good intent. Some on here say they want others to 'see the light.' :nono: The atheist position is untenable on every front. It is illogical, inconsistent, lacking in explanation, lacking in purpose, lacking in 'love.' If you have any of these, you are living an inconsistent life. I'm happy for it, but it is AGAINST an atheist worldview. :e4e:

 

[6days]

So beauty, order and design in the universe comes into existence the same way a watch comes into existence. Firstly, an engineer ...

Yes... firstly an engineer, or as I said a Designer. Different 'engineers', but even your watch required intelligence.

As astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question". (From The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics- 1982).

There aren't two different scientific senses of entropy.

Correct sort of. The word entropy is used in a scientific sense in statistical info, biological systems, the universe and more. Ex. http://biology.anu.edu.au/research/labs/dewar-lab-entropy-biological-and-physical-systems

So then, provide one unambiguous trend in scientific data that disproves common ancestry.

We can discuss that further (youe new goalpost) if you wish, but you had asked for an example of Dawkins using vague assertions, which I answered, giving two examples.

I don't think anyone asserts the number of earth-like planets

That wasn't the question... it was about Dawkins making vague assertions. "A billion life-bearing planets" is another example though of the many vague assertions, that he makes.

So you don't want to call the 'damaged' pieces junk?

What I said was "science continues to find functionality in things evolutionists of the past dismissed as junk". Evolutionist should not be so eager to dismiss things as biological remnants. That hinders science.

No, I really think that Liberty University is not a real university.]/quote]I am so shocked you and Bill Maher use the same talking points.

So you can't name someone I could look up, or might already have heard of.

Are we playing dodgeball? You originally claimed that creationists don't even speak at biology departments. Now, the new goalpost is to name a professor of biology. https://www.uu.edu/dept/biology/about/faculty/JamesHuggins.html

Next goalpost?

 

[Stuu]

Yes... firstly an engineer, or as I said a Designer. Different 'engineers', but even your watch required intelligence.

Yes, that was indeed the point I was making. It takes an intelligent, skilful creator to make a wristwatch, but the appearance of the diversity of life on earth didn't take any intelligence or foresight. Just because watches need designers doesn't mean living species did. Your attempted link is the logical fallacy of false analogy.

As astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question". (From The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics- 1982).

As Douglas Adams said: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!"

What I said was "science continues to find functionality in things evolutionists of the past dismissed as junk". Evolutionist should not be so eager to dismiss things as biological remnants. That hinders science.

So you do think that pseudogenes that are recently inserted damaged copies of genes can be called junk then?

Are we playing dodgeball? You originally claimed that creationists don't even speak at biology departments.

They don't, they speak in churches. They also attempt to get lies taught to children by bypassing research and academic biologists (who have some influence over science curricula ultimately) to try to get straight into schools.

For example, here is the speaking schedule for Jonathan Sarfati of creation.com for the next few weeks, and here is the schedule for the liars of Answers in Genesis (current at today's date). I don't see any plan to present creationism in front of real biologists anywhere. But if you were in a position to invite one of them in to talk to a school, they would be in like a shot, I'm sure. Cowards.

Now, the new goalpost is to name a professor of biology. https://www.uu.edu/dept/biology/abou...esHuggins.html

Next goalpost?

I thought it was you who shifted that goalpost. Well, anyway, exactly what 'creation' stories does this James Huggins, with his additional theology training, teach to his students at this 'university' where the biology department 'strives for excellence as to the Lord '?

His list of graduate student research topics doesn't mention any creationism. Is it not possible that he just joins in with a bit of a prayer to keep the bosses happy then carries on maintaining his tenure but just by teaching evolution as he should be?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Yes... that would be great, so long as you don't quote mine it.

:thumb:

Are we having fun?

Often.

You have difficulty seperating your false beliefs from science and history.

Maybe, but it is a fact of both history and science that birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs.

As I said earlier... you failed the simple test I gave. Your watch is not a result of nature....it was designed.

How do you know it was designed?

I did call that eye optimal. Researchers have called the design optimal. Evolutionists, who don't understand the eye anatomy call it ridiculous.

You are calling an eye that is just a rudimentary light spot 'optimal', even though there are other eyes out there that have focusing lens systems that can form images?

You state you would re-wire the eye, but don't tell us how.

I think I did.

(I can also state I can improve the wiring on the space station).

I think you would probably be right about that. I would guess that the space station wiring is very similar in its development to evolution by natural selection. Once the space station is in orbit you probably can't turn it off, so you probably have to 'wire around' to fix problems or make new installations. If you were allowed to shut the whole thing down and rewire everything, no doubt a much more logical redesign would be possible.

You didn't tell us if you are keeping the inverted retina, and the fibre-optic type technology that goes along with it. You didn't tell us where you will place the blood vessels you will move. (They can't go behind the eye, and can explain why if you wish).

They could go behind the eye, along with the nerve supply, like they do in cephalopods. But they can't now, because redesign isn't feasible, not even rewriting the genome would do it. But, by all means, tell us what your creator god was unable to do.

Also... re an earlier point. You said that evolution can't create systems better than we are capable of using. And yet our eyes can detect a single photon, whe our brain does not register light until there are 5 photons. So, did our eye evolve technogy waiting for the brain to catch up? Or, does the evidence suggest our brains may not be as efficient as they once were? Or, is there evidence, your belief was wrong?

That's probably your best point so far. I think the answer is probably in quantum theory. There are processes with a quantum efficiency of 1, which is to say (I believe) that one photon produces one chemical change that triggers a signal to the brain. So the sensitivity is greater that would be needed by a great deal, just because quantum efficiency is common in chemical systems anyway: the sensitivity is already present in the system that natural selection stumbled upon.

It might actually be some processing trick that the brain doesn't respond to triggers until there is enough signal to be bothered with, or more likely that dealing with the volume of information from all those photons would be too much to cope with. That seems to be what this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831599/paper is saying.

Wow Stuu.... The article explained the design, and unable to refute it, you answer with anger, and name calling. Can you name that fallacy?

Yes, it's the well-known creationist lying bastard fallacy.

But did you not see how they refuted their own claim? They showed what could be done better by a perfect engineer!

You suggested the long looping nerve was poor design. When Grays Anatomy tells you there is purpose to that design, you flip to 'evolution did it'.

No, there is no purpose to the design, and they aren't claiming that. If you read it properly, they show you how natural selection may have found a use for the otherwise useless extra nerve tissue. But if the aorta actually needs support during its development, it would be much better just to build some connective tissue support, like many other blood vessels have, rather than using much more expensive (to build and maintain), specialised tissue like nerve tissue.

It's a bit like using a gold bracelet to hold up the radiator pipe under the bonnet of your car (or the 'hood' as you Americans amusingly call it). But, the body is stuck with that 'design' because it is stuck with certain embryonic sequences of development.

Stuu: So the blind spot does exist?

No... its essentially a false description used by evolutionists .

That's an even better conspiracy theory than flat-earthers claim!
Try this:

-Look at graphic of the cross and the circle at the top of this post.
-Sit at your computer with your nose pointing in between the cross and the black circle.
-Cover your LEFT eye and stare at the cross with your RIGHT eye.
-Now SLOWLY move towards the computer screen while still staring at the cross with your RIGHT eye.
-At somewhere around 10-14 inches from the computer screen – the black circle will disappear and the area where the black circle was…will now be all white – this is your BLIND SPOT.
If you move closer to the screen or farther away – the circle will re-appear. At just the right distance – the circle will disappear.
-Now try the OTHER eye…but this time cover your RIGHT eye and look at the CIRCLE with your LEFT eye…..move closer and you will see that the CROSS now disappears!!

You aren't a very good designer, my friend. And as said before, you don't have a very good understanding of eye anatomy. Perhaps check Wiki and see how microsaccades help improve vision and process what we see. The fixed eye / no microsaccade movement happens in some people and they have vision problems.

Can you justify all this as the optimum design? My perfect design wouldn't require all these work-arounds. You would be able to stare straight ahead and record information efficiently, with no jittery eyes needed. Don't forget, in this design scenario I am omnipotent. I can change the laws of physics if I need to. You seem to be making excuses for your perfect creator, or admitting its limitations.

The Bible tells us there was a Creator

So it tells you nothing interesting then. It's all just magic.

Your question was "Does this author cite any eyewitness accounts of Jesus?" The answer was "Yes".

That's not what you wrote. But anyway, who are these alleged eyewitnesses of Jesus? What are their names, and where are their eyewitness accounts?

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

In one sense, yes. Your 'love' is anti-intuitive for an atheist set of [in]truths. So yes, I'm saying 'love' makes NO sense from an atheist perspective. "Before" you try and argue that point, you WILL be using reason, intelligence, and sensibility (borrowing from another's world view). You are living and logicking inconsistently. "IF" something matters, you are no longer an atheist. You too, would think 'there IS something to all of this.'

So yes, I'm trying to get you to realize that atheism is incredibly untenable for life. It just doesn't and never has worked. It isn't tenable on all of these fronts. You, yourself, are a conundrum 'loving' your kids AGAINST atheism. With love SOMETHING matters. Don't stop your intuitive analyzing. Atheists are dead to real thinking, feeling, or mattering at all.

Based on this post and your history here, ""IF" something matters, you are no longer an atheist." leads to your particular deity? Really? Even you have to see that is total nonsense--unless of course you "NEED" that outside source to give your life meaning. I don't. I am perfectly happy loving my family the way things are.

And it is clear that atheism is not "untenable for life". Last I looked neither of my dogs had any particular religion, and it did not seem to interfere with their life.

 

[Stuu]

Yes. They are living irrationally. They are denying the very thing they are enjoying. HOWEVER the numbers are made-up, in Sweden as well.

Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for 24 years. In Sweden, that Holy Wikipedia page says 'One reason for the high membership might be the fact that until 1996 all newborns with at least one parent being member of the Church of Sweden were also registered as members of the church.
Although, 'Irreligion' can, bizarrely, include 'christians', according to Pew.

WHY would atheists pad their numbers?

I see no evidence of that. Can you provide it? Rates of declared atheism are usually relatively low. But that's often because the word 'atheist' is subject to prejudice in some countries, or is just not how non-believers like to refer to themselves. I wish there were no 'atheists' as such, because then no human would be identifying in terms of the religious delusions of others.

However, agnosticism is more popular, and I still don't think you are going to side with those with a vague feeling of something bigger than themselves, as they often put it.

I know why. It IS about living according to reality.

Hilarious. Have you ever seen this sky friend? No.

Truth is QUITE something different than you presently hold.

We all have Truth. For some people that may even involve believing things that are true.

It isn't true that any human has ever walked again after being executed.

Stuu: Have you asked Jupiter into your life yet?

Nope, this is one of those 'lies' mixed in with your reality. It is "Excusing" behavior. 1 Question: "IF" truth is different than what you imagine, would you rather live as you are now, or live according to reality? It really is all about that.

So, no, you haven't talked with Jupiter yet. Don't worry, I think he is quite patient. Although, the classical gods can get a bit angry as I understand it. Still, you will be used to that with your one too.

Stuu: because it is you who has the outrageous claims of magic that goes so far beyond our common observation

See, you mix in lies to help yourself sleep at night. I said, point blank '...or I'm magic. I'm not magic.'
You have an aversion to truth, preferring your worldview carries half-truths and mistruths.

It may be your Truth, but it is not true that humans walk again after being executed. Did that worry you in the past, that you were believing something ridiculous? How have you managed to suppress that nagging feeling that it's all just made up? It looks to me like you actually work very hard on that quite a lot, but not publicly.

Stuu: and therefore you have the burden of proof for them.

EVERY last one of us met God one on one, one by one.

That's not satisfying the burden of proof of hilariously absurd claims.

You want to know God? You will not find Him arguing with me. Again, you are settling for less, not more. Worse? You are happier here on TOL than finding God. You MUST own that. There is nobody there but you and Him. I 'can' point the direction. "I'm not magic."

And neither are you convincing.

Reality? Yep, I'll take that meme or whatever contrivance you'd like to call it.

Right, so it actually doesn't matter much whether it's true or not. It could be malicious code. I think actually it is exactly that, a meme that has evolved to exploit quite well-known weaknesses of the human brain, with quite ingenious methods of reproduction, but which is dependent on some degree of gullibility, as with flat earth memes, moon landing conspiracies, homeopathy, creationism and Nigerian email scams.

There are two ways (probably a few more) you can get somewhere: Ask, or check a map. GPS and mobile devices have eliminated that but I've been lost before the old way. I even have some friends who've been lost the GPS way! You'll have different abilities among those who have been there before you. Some will not be helpful, but you'd be wrong to assume none have been there. Some are just not as cogent in giving directions. Paul planted, Apollos watered. God gave the increase. To get to God, you will have to eventually come to Him over the matter. There is no way around that. It continues to beg the question of why a few of you prefer these TOL halls. Some will give better directions than others. Making fun of someone not as adept at directions? That's Jose Fly's modus operandi, by his reckoning. I've seen people stand on street corners, wasting time (for me) mocking, making fun. To each their own but I don't think they are doing anything especially 'human' worthy. It has no good intent. Some on here say they want others to 'see the light.' The atheist position is untenable on every front. It is illogical, inconsistent, lacking in explanation, lacking in purpose, lacking in 'love.' If you have any of these, you are living an inconsistent life. I'm happy for it, but it is AGAINST an atheist worldview.

My, we are going around the houses.

There is only one atheist position: there are no gods. There is no unambiguous evidence of any kind that contradicts that position. There is a great deal of wishful thinking for gods, but that shouldn't convince anyone.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

'Irreligion' can, bizarrely, include 'christians', according to Pew.

Christians who don't regularly gather in His name, probably? But who still identify as Christian?

It isn't true that any human has ever walked again after being executed.

I'll match your bald assertion: Easter is nonfiction.

it is not true that humans walk again after being executed.

Easter is nonfiction.

Did that worry you in the past, that you were believing something ridiculous?

Of course.

How have you managed to suppress that nagging feeling that it's all just made up?

Because Easter is either fiction, or Easter is nonfiction. No other option. My automatically derived estimate for Easter being fiction is not 100% certain, so I'm left with essentially Pascal's wager, and in the face of not being 100% certain that Easter is fictional, the only reasonable choice, according to game theory, is to choose to believe Easter is nonfiction.

Right, so it actually doesn't matter much whether it's true or not. It could be malicious code. I think actually it is exactly that, a meme that has evolved to exploit quite well-known weaknesses of the human brain, with quite ingenious methods of reproduction, but which is dependent on some degree of gullibility, as with flat earth memes, moon landing conspiracies, homeopathy, creationism and Nigerian email scams.

If Easter is a meme, then it is easily the most powerful meme we've ever been infected with. Good luck on your crusade. Vegas has your odds on the order of a trillion-to-1 against being successful, but good luck nonetheless.

There is only one atheist position: there are no gods. There is no unambiguous evidence of any kind that contradicts that position.

There's no unambiguous evidence of any kind that supports it either. You've made your choice, and the Church has made hers.