Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey Cork, you don't have to wait for that...that curse has been nullified at the cross of Jesus Christ. That's why this whole web site is here and even why we all are having these discussions. Even if you reject me or other Christians ...no big deal...but why someone would reject a free offer of eternal life? If one doesn't go through the Cross then the curse remains and I'm betting you will chose life one day.
    The trouble is Coffee, there is no eternal life. by the time you realise that you'll be to dead for it to matter.

    However, in this one and only life, let me wish you peace and happiness

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Corky the Cat
      The trouble is Coffee, there is no eternal life. by the time you realise that you'll be to dead for it to matter.

      However, in this one and only life, let me wish you peace and happiness
      Hi Corky,
      I see you respect "reason". Is it reasonable to be adamant that something does not exist, just because you haven't seen it or experienced it for yourself. Wouldn't it be better to leave the question open?

      You are mistaken however on another point. If there is no such thing as eternal life, we will never realize it. There is no knowledge in the grave. In that case, our destiny is dust and oblivion. If however there is a life after death, we will all get confirmation.

      May peace find you.
      That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
      Philippians 2:15

      Comment


      • [QUOTE]Originally posted by Corky the Cat
        The trouble is Coffee, there is no eternal life. by the time you realise that you'll be to dead for it to matter.

        Man you sound depressed...here have a double shot of espresso!
        ---------------------------------------
        The truth is cork, I was dead to eternal things and had the same outlook as you. Kinda been there to the dead thing and done that...Then I found out that God accepted me as I am (stinking dead and all that decaying matter thing)and had made a way for me to live...really live Cork! Come on mate...look into it.

        coffee

        Comment


        • Thanx guys I know you mean well.

          My post about there being no eternal life is in response to some of the, "you're gonna burn in hell buddy" remarks I've been getting everytime someone on these boards takes exeption to something I post.

          Please accept: every ounce of commen sense in my my being tells me there is no supernatural or mystical elements in existance. Not just God(s) but astrology, and other paranormal and occult stuff. All nonsense in my worldview. I didn't learn this from any book. I see it clearly for my self.

          I'm not resisting or denying anything. For me and many, many others, it simply is not there.

          All the best and thanx.

          Corky

          Comment


          • Dang Corky...I knew you shoulda had a triple shot!

            Actually I appreciate your honesty about your feelings. You know we learn new things each day and I'm confident one day you will learn some things that will really catch you by surprise...what specific things I know not...guess that's why they call it a surprise.

            Catch ya later
            coffee

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Corky the Cat
              Thanx guys I know you mean well.

              My post about there being no eternal life is in response to some of the, "you're gonna burn in hell buddy" remarks I've been getting everytime someone on these boards takes exeption to something I post.

              Please accept: every ounce of commen sense in my my being tells me there is no supernatural or mystical elements in existance. Not just God(s) but astrology, and other paranormal and occult stuff. All nonsense in my worldview. I didn't learn this from any book. I see it clearly for my self.

              I'm not resisting or denying anything. For me and many, many others, it simply is not there.

              All the best and thanx.

              Corky

              I subscribe to that point of view.

              Comment


              • attention:

                I left your post as is. You had a dialetical thing going. Best not to interfere, say I. Also, I was over enough as it was so it would have been poor form to have tweaked with your post.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Flipper
                  attention:

                  I left your post as is. You had a dialetical thing going. Best not to interfere, say I. Also, I was over enough as it was so it would have been poor form to have tweaked with your post.

                  Ok.

                  When does round 10 start?

                  Comment


                  • That, I don't know. It's up to knight.

                    Comment


                    • Flipper check your PM's.
                      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                      Comment


                      • Knight,

                        Why aren't the 2 contributions simply posted, and have Bob answer them in round 10?

                        After all, I posted my contribution two days before monday's deadline.

                        I see no much use in having Bob post a 9-th round and a 10-th round, without an opponent post in between.
                        Last edited by attention; August 16th, 2003, 04:36 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Attention, did your post meet Knight's length guidelines?
                          The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

                          Comment


                          • Bobs need to make an acceptance of victory was so pathetic it has prompted me to make a full response to his latest post.

                            In regard to Higher Biological Functions

                            I will deal with this issue based on the following:

                            1. The overall concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
                            2. The specifically mentioned IC issues of vision, flight and echolocation and the giraffes neck as good example so I will deal with how they can come about naturally
                            3. The reverse of the argument why would a creator makes thing complex anyway ?

                            1. The overall concept of Irreducible Complexity.

                            This is the old creationist chestnut of Irreducible complexity. That there are biological functions which are too complex to have formed naturally.

                            Whenever it is shown that IC things can function without certain parts but with reduced efficiency it is claimed they still need all the other parts.

                            This highlights the general problem with IC, it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly IC system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex".

                            2. The specifically mentioned IC issues of vision, flight and echolocation and the giraffes neck as good example so I will deal with how they can come about naturally

                            Vision :

                            I will provide a length reply for vision only (and even then it will be woefully to short).. otherwise I could go to about 10 pages.

                            In his book Climbing Mount Improbable. Richard Dawkins gives a long and detailed explanation of the advent of vision through quite simple and logical steps. He also list a variety of current creatures which have all the intermediate steps of “eyes” that I am about to discuss.

                            Fortunately for us many of the steps are still in existence today so it is easy to follow the progression of sight.

                            The first step to sight was the advent of light sensitive cells. These occur in many creatures still today. Simple cells that can tell the difference between light and shade, etc night and day. They relay a message to the creature about light conditions. How did the cells come about ? It is a complex explanation but I will go into more detail if required. Suffice to say that all cells contain some light sensitivity.. where a creature had heightened light sensitivity in some cells it would be a distinct advantage (to tell the difference between night and day, the shadow of a predator, to find food (be a predator) etc. The cells would be retained and become more sensitive through natural selection.

                            The cells would be on the surface of creatures as those inside would never be passed on through natural selection (no natural advantage). Those cells that where in a depression on the surface of the creature would also be more advantageous as they would get a more focused amount of light (like a convex lens or mirror). The more focused the more advantageous.

                            The usefulness of this early “sight” would be significant and any natural advent or mutation that heightened this sense would be immediately taken up and reproduced. The next step would be a focusing mechanism. The more intense the focus the more easily interpreted would be the source. Creatures who had muscles near or around or that could alter the shape of the depression would have the clear advantage of focus. The best form of focus is a small hole that lets light in. Try this yourself with a piece of cardboard with a pinhole in it.

                            Protection of this sensitive bunch of cells would also be a huge advantage. So if muscles could also close less sensitive skin over the cells it would confer the user a way of retaining vision even after attack or accident. Early creatures (and still many now) have much of their epidermis that is membranous and thin and clear so those that closed clear skin over their eyes would also have a big advantage over other creatures. They could still “see” and protect their eyes.

                            We now have an effective eye already. While vastly more primitive than a modern human eye it has much of the same function. It can open and close and focus and it can determine all sort of light and dark shade.

                            The most significant development after this was the interpretation of the light signals. The creatures that better interpreted the light would have a massive advantage over others and this ability would always increase according to evolution theory. The simple fact is out “eyes” are still just a bunch of light sensitive cells.. Evolution of interpretation of what hits those cells provide us with modern vision.

                            Flight.

                            Several Dinosaurs were capable of flight. The Pterodactyl etc. There flight evolved from smaller version ability to glide aided by membranes that spread from arm to body. Natural webbing that many reptiles already have. Those with more and more ability to glide would have been successful.

                            Suffice to say it is difficult to show evolution of modern flight as the first “birds” would have been forest climbers and jumpers. both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains).

                            But we do have clear fossils like archaeopteryx primitive bird like reptiles which have feathers. Feathers could have evolved as a highly efficient lightweight insulation method. The reduction in weight would also aid any gliders and leapers to maintain their “flight”

                            Suffice to say the flight itself is a huge advantage and any creature than can leap of into the air (from a tree or a cliff) has a huge survival advantage over others. Squirrels leap from trees and some species of possum in Australia can leap prodigious distance using a membrane like early reptiles may have employed.

                            I promised to be briefer on this topic.

                            Echolocation

                            Many thing came together to for this to work but most of them are simple steps.

                            Hunting at night would have the advantage of avoiding daytime predation and open up all the creatures that are active at night.

                            Night hunters with better hearing would have an advantage.

                            Echolocation is just a matter of super sensitive hearing. Make a noise and have hearing good enough o interpret the return (echo) sound. Like sight evolved from mere light sensitive cells, the interpretation of what is heard becomes important and therefore a selected trait.

                            Giraffes neck.

                            A giraffes neck has the same number of vertebrae as all mammals.

                            Simple human breeding could make longer necked creatures in a few hundred years. It is a small stretch to say evolution could do it in millions of years.

                            Zakaths Disappearance.

                            I was disappointed that Zakath retired from the debate. I understand if it was due to the inane way Bob kept asking ridiculous question or claimed they were unanswered.. but the sad thing is it reinforces Bob’s own delusion that he has “won” and proven God’s existence.

                            Argument against God from materialism

                            Huesdens/Attention has raised a most cogent argument against God that has not really been ever addressed by Bob.

                            That is that everything we know is material or stems from material.

                            Therefore it makes no sense to extrapolate an immaterial thing like God.

                            Sincerely Steve Ryan

                            Comment


                            • Aussie Thimker wrote:
                              " Richard Dawkins gives a long and detailed
                              explanation of the advent of vision through quite simple and logical steps. ",etc.

                              The steps may seem logical, but they are not always applicable when examined in the cold light of biological and statistical reality. For example, Bergson gives an example of a creature which has clearly evolved an eye-like organ from a more primitive version of it, but the change had to require the simultaneous mutation of more than one gene, because the mutation of any one of them alone would constitute a liability. Also, I mentioned in an earlier post the problems that statisticians have with the rapid evolution of the elephant.
                              None of this refutes the concept of the evolution of animal forms, but it does indicate that there is a weakness in the "random variation" part of it. IMHO, biologists should address this problem as scientists, and not act like theologians and try to deny it through dogma and appeal to authority.
                              Also, I see little reason to use this weakness in the evolution theory as reason to jump to the conclusion that God stepped in. There are other possibilities.
                              As for the argument about complexity, it seems weird (IMHO) for Bob to ascribe complexity to God, as if complexity is a good thing. Why would God desire complexity?

                              Comment


                              • August,

                                I checked a few pages back and I didn't see your comment on elephant evolution. Could you paraphrase what you said and also add in what those odds are along with the particular hypothesis that is being proposed?

                                Also, I'm not familiar with bergson's paper. Could you provide a more complete reference? Why does he assume that a mutation is a liability?
                                Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

                                I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

                                Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

                                My God I love Star Trek TNG

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X