How charmingly stereotypical
Us law enforcement types are like that. :cheers:
Famous Atheist Quotes
- Thread starter Lion
- Start date
Us law enforcement types are like that. :cheers:
Ouch is good. :devil:
Hmmm... I think Adam was pretty wise before he became a fool (no offense meant Fool--not you Red, I meant the real Fool).
As for skepticism you must be thinking of one of the many false gods, like yourself (this time I do mean you Red). The true God says about our faith or lack there of cool stuff like:
He's the God who talks with us, reasons with us:
Redstar91 and intelligence
Redstar91 and intelligence
Some people with very high IQs have been horrendously wicked, tormenting and murdering others.
Others, with lower IQs, have been loving and kind and thoughtful to those less fortunate.
Redstar91, intelligence is not the most valuable aspect of humanity. Just fyi.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
Redstar91 and intelligence
Some people with very high IQs have been horrendously wicked, tormenting and murdering others.
Others, with lower IQs, have been loving and kind and thoughtful to those less fortunate.
Redstar91, intelligence is not the most valuable aspect of humanity. Just fyi.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
fallout over Fallout
fallout over Fallout
Since Lamarck thought that a giraffe stretching his neck would produce offspring with longer necks, through mutations, to hopeful monsters, to today, evolution for two centuries has been unable to come up with a workable mechanism. Darwinism does have to do with chance, because natural selection has NOTHING to select until random mutations bring about something that confers greater survivability. And if there is not enough time in the history of the universe for a protein's DNA map to originate by random chance and for the proper folding mechanism to arise (all at the horrendously slow pace of biological reproduction), then there is nothing to naturally select.
The now disguarded Lamarckian fantasies were the best hope for evolution. Fallout, with the above clarification, can you agree that Darwinism is utterly dependent upon random chance to first produce the functionality that nature could later have an opportunity to select?
No?
Wow. That's some contention. It reminds me of the evolutionist claim that the human eye could not have come from a Creator because it is poorly engineered. Wow.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
fallout over Fallout
Since Lamarck thought that a giraffe stretching his neck would produce offspring with longer necks, through mutations, to hopeful monsters, to today, evolution for two centuries has been unable to come up with a workable mechanism. Darwinism does have to do with chance, because natural selection has NOTHING to select until random mutations bring about something that confers greater survivability. And if there is not enough time in the history of the universe for a protein's DNA map to originate by random chance and for the proper folding mechanism to arise (all at the horrendously slow pace of biological reproduction), then there is nothing to naturally select.
The now disguarded Lamarckian fantasies were the best hope for evolution. Fallout, with the above clarification, can you agree that Darwinism is utterly dependent upon random chance to first produce the functionality that nature could later have an opportunity to select?
No?
Wow. That's some contention. It reminds me of the evolutionist claim that the human eye could not have come from a Creator because it is poorly engineered. Wow.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
And it wasn't really intelligence that was being offered anyway, it was the ability to err morally, wrapped in that pretense, the appearance of wisdom...the substitution of personal vanity for the love of God. The intelligent move would have been to remain obedient to the very source of reason. It's true that the fool says in his heart there is no God, but what he is more honestly saying is that he has taken that mantle for himself in every way that he can and discarded the rest as he must, since it is impossible for him to meet the requirements necessary to usurp that level of authority. I can oust God from my interior rule but I cannot wrest creation from Him and claim control, so I deny it and make of that creation an equal, something running parallel and not above me. This corruption of wisdom is the function of vanity. It utilizes intelligence, but perverts reason as an instrument of self glorification.
I see...so disagreement with your religious values and particular worldview is written off as nothing more than hubris on the part of we wayward heretics. That's disappointing, coming from you.
noguru
Well-known member
Well such coments are based on Biblical text. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is just that. Knowledge of good and evil, not just any kind of knowledge. And I agree, anyone who knowingly couches their moral transgressions against another in a claim or a belief of superior intelligence is being arrogant to a fault.
all this punting going on
all this punting going on
Stuart, if you re-read my post, that was Dawkin's argument (which I agree has some merit). His point was that if microbiology shows that life is too complex to have arisen in billions of years of Earth history, then it must have arisen in billions of years of some other place's history. Crick punted likewise.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
all this punting going on
Stuart, if you re-read my post, that was Dawkin's argument (which I agree has some merit). His point was that if microbiology shows that life is too complex to have arisen in billions of years of Earth history, then it must have arisen in billions of years of some other place's history. Crick punted likewise.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
Much like the argument that you yourself have a brain. :dunce:
noguru
Well-known member
There is a hypothesis regarding this that has been floating around for some time. It is called panspermia. There is a little evidence (but I do not believe it is conclusive) that some simple forms of life (like bacteria) originated somewhere else in the universe and were planted here.
pozzolane, thanks for the challenge...
pozzolane, thanks for the challenge...
I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:
* many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
* my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did )
* you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).
But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.
Thanks!
p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!
pozzolane, thanks for the challenge...
I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:
* many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
* my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did
)* you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).
But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.
Thanks!
p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!
Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I wouldn't say that the human eye could NOT have come from a creator but it certainly could have evolved in a relatively simple set of steps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0
As for being poorly designed I have to admit having blood vessels on TOP of the light sensitive portion of the eye doesn't make any sense ( I had long assumed it was the reverse before I learned anatomy). However I'm not willing to throw up my hands and say "bad design". Perhaps instead, it comes from the ancestral vertebrates living in low light conditions and utilizing the tapetum (the thing that causes eyeshine in many animals) to reflect light back onto the retina, much like the collector for a satellite dish faces into the dish rather than out.
Of course for a human eye it's less than optimal since we do not have a tapetum, but that may be more a consequence of evolutionary legacy than obvious "bad design".
I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:
* many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
* my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did
* you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).
But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.
Thanks!
p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!
Bob;
I realize that looking at the modern world in general and our country in particular it may appear to some that Atheists rule the roost.
However, survey says we are still a minority and a small one at that.
I'm of the opinion that alot more people don't believe in God than are willing to admit to it.
Even in with the current waves of Atheist activism, books, billboards, ect. it still not really cool to be an Atheist.
Even more so in the past.
I saw a survey once that listed the entire population of the Soviet Union as Atheist (back when there was a Soviet Union and religion there was illegal). I highly doubt that all those hundreds of millions of people were really Atheist, they had to hide their Theism.
Likewise in the past church has been a social networking tool and not being a member of some church somewhere could potentially cause one some embarresment.
My point is we can make all the lists we want but just because I can show you a certificate that says I was baptised and confirmed a United Methodist dosen't mean I am one just as all the people in Russia are suposed to be Atheists but aren't and just because a scientists checked a box marked Christian dosen't really tell us much about what the guy really thought.