.....If you truly believe the above....then everytime you are stepping on an ant, spraying for mosquitos, putting flea powder on your dog.....you are committing a genocide of sorts....all life would equal, thus you are killing the insects spirit and are a murderer.....unless you feel we are a higher being? if so why?
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
.....If you truly believe the above....then everytime you are stepping on an ant, spraying for mosquitos, putting flea powder on your dog.....you are committing a genocide of sorts....all life would equal, thus you are killing the insects spirit and are a murderer.....unless you feel we are a higher being? if so why?
Yet simple Chemistry shows the nonsense of this math and the silliness of its assertion. The math used here by Creationists is quite simply faulty and bogus.
Hereâs why....
There is room for 8 electrons in each Atom. Atoms are always trying to attain stability from holding 8 electrons.
Oxygen has 6, Hydrogen has 2. They are readily and strongly attracted to each other as 6+2=8 electrons.. This is very sound reason why there is so much water on the planet and why life forms are made up in large proportion of it. Of the billions and billions of Atoms available over a period of billions and billions of years, this is not a random arrangement.... but an inevitable one. What has become basic chemistry and simple example shows how suitable Atom candidates seek to bond with each other in preference to bonding with other Atoms which would be offering less than 8 electrons as a result.
You completely lost me on this point. In the first place virtually all heavy elements are made in "star factories": 3rd generation stars at least. It took around four billion years for the first galaxies to form and around 5 billion for any of the 3rd generation stars to form. This is where all the advanced elements were created and it closes the window even further for naturalistic porcesses to explain what we see on this earth.
Surely you are not suggesting that amino acid assembly is simple like the formation of a water molecule? Amino acids, especially sequences of them, are MUCH more complex. Furthermore, the first life was as complex as a city, incredibly intricate and complete.
And sorry to write infrequently, but I got this little thing called a job that really is getting in my way here. 
That doesn't seem to make ANY sense. You say Earth's atmosphere has been "highly oxidizing¡¨ ?? What is that???
A reducing environment is favorable to amino acid assembly and is one in which molecules/atoms bond with hydrogen. An oxidizing environment is unfavorable to amino acid assembly and is one in which molecules/atoms bond with oxygen.
As I stated previously science now has shown that the earth's environment was oxidizing to at least the 4 billion year point. This means that reactions occur at least 30 MILLION times slower.
And, just as important, in an oxidizing environment only glycine (a very simple acid) would be present. You would never even get the more complex acids!
Forgive my noticing this shoeshineboy, but there are a lot of 3's cropping up in your stuff (3.8 billion years, 300 million years, AT LEAST 30 and 30 MILLION times) .Isn't all this just juggling a lot of simplistic sound bite assumptions ,mixing them all up and trying to assert it is now science proving something or other.??
No, this is not "sound bite" psychology, that is unless you assume people like Paul Davies, Harold Morowitz and other geniuses are really idiots underneath.
The numbers I have laid out here come from people like this. And, as I have pointed out, almost all that I write about is coming from individuals who are not traditional theists.
And, yes, I admit I am the geek's geek when it comes to numbers.
Not so long ago there was no explanation of such events and everything was thought only to have a God Almighty reason for its occurrence.
You keep assuming that I'm arguing for theism. I'm not. I'm simply battling what I'll call "GordonGeckoism" where one does not admit the huge problems with their own theory and labels everyone else's a myth believing, fairy tale, brainwashed concoction (laced with a few expletives generally).
I do not see why you cannot admit the weaknesses in your own paradigm. Every theory has its seeming weaknesses. I have already admitted several points where on the face of it, things do not look theistic.
But you guys will not admit even a small chink in the armor. It is as if you think that your enitre house will collapse if you admit one even one area of difficulty...
"I do not see why you cannot admit the weaknesses in your own paradigm. "
When discussing scientific theories, the admission you are
looking for is BUILT IN.
That's why it's labeled a theory and not a fact.
If there were NO chinks in the armour, the theory would be
called fact.
As for evidence for god, still not sure what you are referring to.
I haven't seen you post any. You cant give a page number,
since this is ambiguous. ET allows you to choose how many
posts per page you want, and I have that maxed out, so I don't
know what you are referring to. Post a link to your post which
contains what you assert is evidence for god please.
peace
axeman
When discussing scientific theories, the admission you are
looking for is BUILT IN.
That's why it's labeled a theory and not a fact.
If there were NO chinks in the armour, the theory would be
called fact.
As for evidence for god, still not sure what you are referring to.
I haven't seen you post any. You cant give a page number,
since this is ambiguous. ET allows you to choose how many
posts per page you want, and I have that maxed out, so I don't
know what you are referring to. Post a link to your post which
contains what you assert is evidence for god please.
peace
axeman
Many of the posts do not express this sentiment - quite the opposite.
I regret using the word âevidenceâ here as that's not quite the right word or wording. First of all, I am very open about the fact that I believe what I believe because of spiritual/supernatural reasons. As Iâve said, I see the universe as verification of what I believe but not as proof.
I see all the theories (materialistic, pantheistic, deistic, theistic) as models to test the observable universe. For example, I can think of several examples where scientific observation matches more closely the more materialist models, but I'm not going to help you out...
And I really donât want to preach my brand of theism, so Iâll present this as a continuum of (non-exhaustive) observations that we might expect from various religious models or theories:
I. Deism
1. A First Cause where time and space are created.
2. Extradimensionality.
3. A finely tuned universe for life.
4. A finely tuned solar system for life.
5. Sudden introduction of life in a short time span.
II. Judaism
1. Archaeological and astronomical accuracy of Genesis 1.
2. Anthropological and historical accuracy of Jewish scripture.
III. Old earth, Christian Creationism
1. Verification of a supernatural realm per the description in the New Testament.
2. Historical and anthropological verification of New Testament canon.
Of course, I haven't placed every possible model down: there's young earth creationists, there's Jews and Christians who believe in evolution; thereâs Jews and Christians who do not see the scripture as literal in any way, etc.
But I'm just saying that I look and say that to me, imho, the universe looks as if it was laid out as if you would expect it to be if it was operating under a theistic model and, no, Iâm not trying to force you to see it the way I do. Iâm just saying donât call every deist, Jew and Christian on the planet a naïve, brainwashed fool because all of this is just not that simpleâ¦
"I regret using the word âevidenceâ here as that's not quite the right word or wording. First of all, I am very open about the fact that I believe what I believe because of spiritual/supernatural reasons. As Iâve said, I see the universe as verification of what I believe but not as proof."
Fair enough.
...skip stuff that has already been debated out......
"But I'm just saying that I look and say that to me, imho, the universe looks as if it was laid out as if you would expect it to be if it was operating under a theistic model and, no, Iâm not trying to force you to see it the way I do. "
This really is what your argument has always boiled down to.
You perceive the universe as having some kind of intelligent
order and your extreme suspicion of intelligence behind it
leads you to believe there is something there.
I look at it differently. A long time ago people believed that frogs
and snails were spontaneously spawned from mud after it rained.
It sure "SEEMED" like that was the case.
But it was really just a case of ignorance. You are basically
doing the same thing. It's a non-sequitor.
rain + dirt -> mud -> spontaneous life
The new version is:
universe + 50 vars -> life -> god
It's a logical hop that simply cannot be made without some
seriously hard core evidence, even more so than what
has been collected for the big bang, which we still only
call a theory.
But you seem to be aware of this. So the more interesting
question is: Why would a person who admits he cannot
prove or provide hard evidence for the most extraordinary claim
I or anyone can think of (arguably), BELIEVE such a claim?
Why not put belief "on hold" and be agnostic about it?
" Iâm just saying donât call every deist, Jew and Christian on the planet a naïve, brainwashed fool because all of this is just not that simpleâ¦"
Agreed. I don't. I previously mentioned I have some very
intelligent theistic friends. But I think they are simply
wrong on this one position.
Some atheists are no better. Take longshot for example.
He is an embarrassment to atheists and critical thinkers everywhere.
You might as well argue with a cult member.
He is an example of an atheist, who is completely close minded
and not worth wasting a moment of time on. He just KNOWS
he is right, and doesn't feel like he even has to really defend his position.
He will resort to blatant Ad Hominem attacks when pressured.
Avoid at all costs.
peace
axeman
Fair enough.
...skip stuff that has already been debated out......
"But I'm just saying that I look and say that to me, imho, the universe looks as if it was laid out as if you would expect it to be if it was operating under a theistic model and, no, Iâm not trying to force you to see it the way I do. "
This really is what your argument has always boiled down to.
You perceive the universe as having some kind of intelligent
order and your extreme suspicion of intelligence behind it
leads you to believe there is something there.
I look at it differently. A long time ago people believed that frogs
and snails were spontaneously spawned from mud after it rained.
It sure "SEEMED" like that was the case.
But it was really just a case of ignorance. You are basically
doing the same thing. It's a non-sequitor.
rain + dirt -> mud -> spontaneous life
The new version is:
universe + 50 vars -> life -> god
It's a logical hop that simply cannot be made without some
seriously hard core evidence, even more so than what
has been collected for the big bang, which we still only
call a theory.
But you seem to be aware of this. So the more interesting
question is: Why would a person who admits he cannot
prove or provide hard evidence for the most extraordinary claim
I or anyone can think of (arguably), BELIEVE such a claim?
Why not put belief "on hold" and be agnostic about it?
" Iâm just saying donât call every deist, Jew and Christian on the planet a naïve, brainwashed fool because all of this is just not that simpleâ¦"
Agreed. I don't. I previously mentioned I have some very
intelligent theistic friends. But I think they are simply
wrong on this one position.
Some atheists are no better. Take longshot for example.
He is an embarrassment to atheists and critical thinkers everywhere.
You might as well argue with a cult member.
He is an example of an atheist, who is completely close minded
and not worth wasting a moment of time on. He just KNOWS
he is right, and doesn't feel like he even has to really defend his position.
He will resort to blatant Ad Hominem attacks when pressured.
Avoid at all costs.
peace
axeman