Does God exist?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
Darwinism doesn't allow for mammals to be the first life form so there was a jump of classes at one point, maybe even several. What was the last living animal to jump class?
If a soft animal dies in a mud-flow even the imprint of the soft tissues (like skin or feathers) would remain.
It is certainly not proof that links exist now is it, it means keep looking until you find one, if that is even possible.
People witness volcanoes all the time, that is one way mountains are built. Watching mountains wear down by erosion is never witnessed by one person, even though Job does mention that mountains do that.
Not according to the definition of species. Different species may be related but they cannot have offspring, if they can then they are the same species.
Call it 'a' cue then.
Bacteria is on the losing side of any such encounter.
Virus change due to changes in bacteria, they do not change just for the sake of change.
Why is that out of context, that is a very good indication that is the same number of bacteria around.
Ever hear of a solution called colloidal silver, it is very effective and you can produce it at home, anything it can kill will never become resistant to it.
Know why it isn't promoted, BECAUSE YOU CAN PRODUCE IT AT HOME FOR A FEW PENNIES PER GALLON AND IT IS TAKEN BY COUNTING TABLESPOONS FULL
Go read some European articles on phage medicine, one bacteria has one virus that will destroy it. That is about as selective as you can get.
Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Actually cows can give birth at about 2 years of age, that makes for 3,000 generations, they can be breed again 6 weeks after giving birth, in 17-20 years that is quite a few off-spring, each and every one would look a little bit different. That is not evolution, that is diversity.
And each is uniquely individual and all their offspring will be slightly different, all that means is they are not exact copies.
Are you calling any differences a mutation? What do you call it when each member of any species is just different, do all children of the same family look exactly like each other. Are fingerprints a mutation, is DNA?
If it is a lie, which it would be, then it is not based on truth.
If you could grasp this quickly you would have already done so.
Whatever.
Nature would seem to follow a path, if a brain was getting bigger all through history it would seem unlikely that at some point it would start to get smaller.
Goddidit is the way it is written. The bible might be extensive about topic subjects but it won't answer every question that can be brought up. There is a date specified that the 'mystery about God' is gone, it is there and then it is gone, for everybody all at the very same time. That does not mean that there will be a huge number of things that are mysteries at that time or that it was meant to be a mystery today, a day or so before that happens.
After 2,000 years the topic is still up for discussion apparently. are you kidding me? It would not matter if there was agreement on the wrong assessment, after that amount of time there should be some sort of discussion.
Wrong, it might be split up just to keep the topic alive. (that doesn't mean that is a fact) but really a 'movie ' that was nothing but re-runs more than 2,000 years is still running in part by that alone. If you really want to get a grip on the KJV you have to read their preface. They sound quite dedicated and quite sane to me, and they tell you right off the bat that when you start reading what follows you might be labeled insane by those that know you to be quite sane. If those names can be considered as testimony then their bios might be somewhat available. All of them BTW but even a few is better than nothing.
It's quite simple in reality. It can be summed up as quickly as it is in the book of Enoch as it is. The revealing of the Son of Man when He is the judge rather than the healer. You would almost think them quite unalike, but reality shows in the end that they are quite some alike , much to the betterment in general, can you imagine if God had not shown Christ how to kill when our population was still quite small. This way the actual dead are in the lower numbers, a shortest time allowed would also be indicated , just in case some might call God slack in the fulfillment of redemption. The fiery lake is a very big step for angelic beings and material worlds that a bit of time should be allowed, in reality the longer the better , that is how serious that turning point is. Still when the time is up, He makes the harvest swift for the sake of all.
The topic of the end-times is long and varied and no end in sight when it comes to agreement. I've read it for 20 years. Once online the subject came up more, insane that so many theories exist, much like some would think them mad. That would fulfill an event already long past so that is a bust.
I'm a bit rushed these days, but last year we touched on the subject of gravity and light and if there could be an effect. Science promoted that gravity could bend light an I think you went along with that moreor less. True there are pictures of objects (galaxies) that are 'bent' from their true position. Gravity is not a factor in a mirage. That is the observable effect of 'bent light'. Gravity does not factor into that in any way. that is caused by refraction via passing through another substance. Some form of water vapor will bend light, the rainbow is one proof of that.
The stars close to our vision of the sun appear to be a 'bit out of place', that is not the effect of gravity , no matter if Eisenstein says so or not? Before gravity can move to #1
Individuality is proof of God, in all this time known to exist and all the time that will exist there will never ever be more than one exact copy of any life-form that come under the name of flesh or that was created after time was established, the very start of those that have 'generations' (in that the earth also has generations just in case you might think god would not remember blades of grass.
The crush to evolution comes in the form of what the above touched on. The judgment of mankind is based on each and every individual that ever lived (which is more than 'drew breath'), that right there enforces Darwin, we are all different, there are no exact copies, we are all evolution in that we become part of the breath of life. The part that God plays in this is that everything is unique to every other thing. Even as close in genetics two things can be they can never be the same. God sees us as individuals, not as a species. Reading God's description is like looking at something at 400x when the first question asked is 'what does the x stand for'.
No two flesh have ever been the exact same, how many manifolds does that introduce to the equation?
Nor is a mirage constant, gravity is, if seen, it should always be seen from that point.
Again, for the 3rd time, diversity in any form comes under the jurisdiction of individuality, God demands that. Each sparrow is different to God, that is the same with all flesh
Lets add a few others. Regimentation, standardization and the most usefull of all, fear, all to entrench and consolodate the elite who as we can redily see and experiance are still plugging the top of the human pyramid and ****ing up the benevolent rational development of the species. When we pull the owners out from their white castles on the hills and destroy them we will begin the next step in our passage, but not before, they have to go and they have to stay gone.
You mean, when does a new class form. An animal doesn't jump from one class to another. It's a progression. And I have no idea what the last animal was, considering evolution is a recent discovery by humans. Why does that matter?
An imprint is not the same as a fossil. Fossilization is the reverse of ossification. Soft tissue doesn't ossify (isn't mineralized), so it can't fossilize either. Besides that, the preservation of soft tissues is very, very rare.
Of course not. That was a useless comment.
Ahhhhh, and we can witness evolution, just not the end product. Mountains and new species, both take periods of time longer than a human generation.
A horse and a donkey are two different species. The resulting offspring, mule or hinny, are not fertile. The domestic horse, and Przewalski's horses can mate, and the offspring will be fertile. Three different species, closely related. Two of them can produce a fertile offspring.
You don't really know what the definition of a species is...
It's a cue.
Yup.
Viruses change due to random errors in genetic replication. They are inert, they don't change except by errors in replication.
No it isn't. How do you come to that conclusion?
Yes I've heard of it. Show me the studies that prove it's efficacy.
It isn't promoted because in North America we use evidence based medicine...
That wasn't what I said. I said that a virus does not target anything. It has no intentions, and it can't aim. It is completely inert, it has no motility. It has no metabolic activity. It only activates when it contacts a specific membrane. Further, a bacteriophage will not increase in numbers unless the host bacteria are in a large enough concentration., like 10^3 colony forming units per milliliter or more.
So, what did he name them all? Let's have a list.
Right, you were asking if any of them had changed since Adams time. I'm telling you that 6000 years isn't long enough. So, even going with 3000 generations of cow since that time, that is only enough time for 60 new population means, assuming that they even can split into that many separate populations.
This goes back to the mountain example. You can see the lava flowing from a fissure, but you can't see the end product. You won't live long enough. The next generation won't live long enough. The cooled magma might be a little higher, but it won't be a mountain...
A mutation is a new gene formed by replication errors. That's the simplest answer.
I call it variation. Individuals belonging to one genome, exhibiting a wide range of phenotypes...
it's quite normal.
There's a truism... Do I have to spell the rest out for you now? Or do you see where this is going?
You're the one not grasping it. That's why you're obtuse. You have no understanding of what this subject matter entails, except that it somehow threatens your view of things.
You're like the followers I was just hypothesizing about. You're the one who hundreds and thousands of years later believes the fairy tales...
I have no doubt this subject matter would be much easier for you to understand if you took the blinders off. The bible really is poor reference material...
No. It's not whatever. It's a significant difference that you'll probably never understand.
Unless it got smaller, but increased the number of folds in the membranes, there by increasing the surface area...
Yes ..There is a God.! Trust me..(call ITt what you will).It's Too negative and risky to say NO!..Cause ya never really know!..Just watch your self !...a lightnin' bolt will zapp ya in your ass! and That's just a warning!..lol..Live ...Laugh ..and what ever else you do...BUT BE AWARE!...ITt MIGHT BE WATCHING!!!
No, not so much...
But it may require someone to help you see that what is in your head is there because you were conditioned to accept it...
That someone will likely not be me...I don't have the patience or fortitude for that kind of commitment...all I can muster these days are tomfoolery and contempt...
I do hope that someone can someday reveal to you the reality that god is a fabrication, and what you 'feel' is also fabricated and purely psychological...
Until then...peace
god ----> :violent3:<----Vanni Fucci
This would depend upon your definition of religion, wouldn't it?
Some people's definitions define it in terms of Christianity and that excludes any other form of belief. Look at David Edward's definition: basically he said religion is the sum total of all the answers we find about the relationship between ourselves and our universe. Einstein suggested that our confidence in the rational nature of our universe that we can grasp was what he termed as religion. Some people consider Buddhism to be a religion, others don't. Some people think that mysticism should be a part of the definition of religion.
BTW Princeton U suggest that paganism is any religion other than Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
Anyway, I think it is presumptuous that one should consider that religion only be termed in the sense of belief in the supernatural.
Right. There are two forms of fossilization: body fossilization where the actual elements of an organism is replaced by other elements, and trace fossilization which is simply evidence of an organisms behavior or activity.
Nuts. Erosion is caused by wind , water, shock, etc. When someone sees a rock fall off a mountain because frost has caused a piece to break away from a larger piece and fall down, that someone is witnessing erosion. Jeeeeeeeeeez
I stopped reading after that silly comment.
I would think Edwards and Einstein meant their statements more as euphemistic than a definition.
For if not, then the definition would include science under the umbrella of religion, which it clearly is not, as any scientist can attest...
If he meant it as a definition, I would have to say **shudder** that Einstein is wrong...8O
...and I don't want to have to do that again...
Religion is the primitive's explanation for why the sun rises and sets every day. Once people figured that one out, religion retreated to claiming explanations for other things not understood. And the more we learn about how nature operates, the farther religion retreats from making empirical claims about it. The more we know about something, the less willing we are to assign a role to the supernatural in it. Richard Dawkins once put it this way: "Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy...Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole... " The more we learn, the fewer places there are to apply the God of the Gaps argument. God's running out of places to hide. Any rational person faced with such a consistent trend, wouldn't hesitate to conclude that religion has nothing useful to say about the world. The so-called fine tuning argument, for instance, that a friend of mine offered here recently, ultimately makes no sense. What could the universe's physical constants matter to an omnipotent god? He could have made us to live in a vacuum filled with hard radiation, a much more common environment than the benign conditions on this planet, if that's what he wanted to do.
I believe so, because I see that things hardly ever happen at random. There's always a kind of a consistent pattern guiding every person's life. Whether we realize it or not - is quite another thing. But even if we don't, it is always there, and it is always working. And the same applies to all the events and phenomena around us, regardless of their scale. It is the thing that keeps together all the elements the world is made of. Without it, the ties would be severed, and there would be no harmony, and no balance, and hardly a world as we know it.
Anyway, as I keep saying, in the absence of evidence, believing in the existence of gods is irrational. Hearsay is not evidence.
Also, if it doesn't make sense then it must be nonsense.
Also, if it doesn't make sense then it must be nonsense.
We are pattern seeking animals. We see pattern and causes everywhere. Causes are patterns we derive from trying to infer an intention from the stance we see in people, things, animals and the world around us in general. We need to predict others actions so we look for patterns. We find them sometimes but we also create them where non exist. This is IMO the primary reason for superstition. We see a pattern and need to find a cause. If we can't find a cause then we make one up: pixies, faeries, demons, good, bad, god, gods etc... And, as Dexter so eloquently pointed out, that as those mysteries are solved by science, religion retreats. For example preachers yelled and screamed at Benjamin Franklin when he created the lightening rod because, to the preachers, lightning was the wrath of god; it was the pattern they gave to lightning because they didn't understand it. Benjamin Franklin took that away from the preachers and showed another explanation - preachers are notorious for hating that.
Last edited:
Um, Dex pointed out that religion retreats when science takes the mystery away. lol