lol... there it is!!! Total evasion. We await your response to the question, Z. I call you for telling a lie about your interpretation of the phrase 'taking candy from a baby'.
What say you?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The lunacy of the Darwinists
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
lol... there it is!!! Total evasion. We await your response to the question, Z. I call you for telling a lie about your interpretation of the phrase 'taking candy from a baby'.
What say you?
Quote from kjkent1:
First, let's get Z out of the way -- you can't pin down gas -- you can only contain the odor. Now then...
It would be easy too discuss which way your hard-wind really blows....
It requires the application of natural power or magic, one or the other, no matter how you slice it.
God's power is 100% natural.
If God works within the rules under which the universe appears to operate, then any attempt to invoke instantaneous change requires infinite power, and the result would be total annihilation of the universe, i.e., another big bang. In order to circumvent the power requirement, either the change must occur over time, which is the very definition of what science observes evolution to be, or, God must apply supernatural powers so as to prevent the natural result of universal destruction.
Do you think God really works within, and is confined to your understanding of His rules?
This is a "gas" actually.
If I was discussing the power of X-Rays to damage biological organisms through extended exposure to them 500 years ago....it would sound like something "supernatural" as the science of that day had no understanding of X-Rays.....yet modern day "scientists" believe they can understand the creation of the Universe by God according to their level of understanding.....
Richard Lenski, Ph.D, has measured evolutionary changes to his bacteria in the lab, and there has been no noticeable evidence of power surges in the vicinity that would accompany the kind of change at a distance required to make such evolutionary changes quickly, by natural processes.
So Dr. Lenski knows instrumentation that could record such power, if it were more subtle than, than his instrumentation?
Just like X-Rays 500 years ago...they didn't exist, because we could not measure them, right?
I don't think you realize just what sort of power would be required in order to slip into a lab, invisible and undetected, and gene splice a bunch of petri dishes so as to permit them to appear to evolve, and without someone noticing that the power was being exerted in the locality.
I don't think you realize how primitive our understanding of subtle energy really is....
It's a huge undertaking for a human to conduct such an activity using known technology.
Yes, known technology....
It's quite another for that same human to make himself and all of his equipment completely invisible and utterly undetectable, and do the same thing.
How do you know? How did they know about invisible X-Rays 500 years ago? They didn't, yet lots of unknowns existed in spite of their "knowledge."
It requires power...lots of power. And power requires a source, so either God must bring it with him or plug into it, but either way, if it's a natural power source, then it's gonna be detected.
Says who? You?
God has unlimited power....yet you are limiting what God could do.
Is it conceivably possible that God could slip into Lenski's lab and make the e-Coli evolve? Sure, but unless God is using magical powers to do the job, then there's gonna be a HUGE electromagnetic disturbance in Minnesota, and every National Weather and NORAD Radar station will know about it immediately, not to mention everybody within miles, whose electronic gear will be fried.
Again, your argument limits God's power to your understanding of power as you know it, the same way scientists 500 years ago had no understanding of atomic power.
So, it's really not a question about God backing himself into a corner. The solution must be either natural or supernatural.
God is not supernatural, God is fully natural.
If it's natural, then there's gonna be a release of enormous power and a lot of people will measure the power output.
Again, how many machines 500 years ago measured gamma rays, x-rays, etc.
Otherwise, it's being done using magic. Period.
X-Rays 500 years ago would have been considered magic....
No, sorry, you're now displaying your ignorance. It doesn't matter what X-Rays would have been viewed as 500 years ago. X-Rays require a power source. If those X-Rays must travel across some fantastic distance then they will require a huge power source to be focused when they reach Lenski's lab.
If the X-Rays are emanating from within the lab, then God needs to bring the power source into the lab and produce the X-Rays, and he needs to do it while remaining completely undetected.
That requires power. And, in the real universe the power requirement is huge and frankly, it would kill everything within miles of the lab, not to mention the poor little bacteria.
Otherwise, while I concede an all powerful God could accomplish the required changes, by other means, those means would be magic, because there are no other means.
You want to invent some new natural force that creates power, from nothing be my guest. But, by any reasonable definition, such a source wouldn't be just the equivalent of magic...it would "be" magic.
I'm not limiting what God could do. If God created the universe, then he has created the limitations himself. If he operates within those limits, then his actions at a distance will be detected because they will require a substantial power source. If not, then it's magic. Period.
If the X-Rays are emanating from within the lab, then God needs to bring the power source into the lab and produce the X-Rays, and he needs to do it while remaining completely undetected.
That requires power. And, in the real universe the power requirement is huge and frankly, it would kill everything within miles of the lab, not to mention the poor little bacteria.
Otherwise, while I concede an all powerful God could accomplish the required changes, by other means, those means would be magic, because there are no other means.
You want to invent some new natural force that creates power, from nothing be my guest. But, by any reasonable definition, such a source wouldn't be just the equivalent of magic...it would "be" magic.
I'm not limiting what God could do. If God created the universe, then he has created the limitations himself. If he operates within those limits, then his actions at a distance will be detected because they will require a substantial power source. If not, then it's magic. Period.
Quote from kjkent1:
No, sorry, you're now displaying your ignorance. It doesn't matter what X-Rays would have been viewed as 500 years ago. X-Rays require a power source. If those X-Rays must travel across some fantastic distance then they will require a huge power source to be focused when they reach Lenski's lab.
Struggling with the concept of analogy?
If the X-Rays are emanating from within the lab, then God needs to bring the power source into the lab and produce the X-Rays, and he needs to do it while remaining completely undetected.
Still struggling with the concept of analogy?
That requires power. And, in the real universe the power requirement is huge and frankly, it would kill everything within miles of the lab, not to mention the poor little bacteria.
Again, you are claiming to know of all the power sources in the universe, and do you have the instrumentation to measure them?
Every generation has a group that thinks they have discovered it all.....
Otherwise, while I concede an all powerful God could accomplish the required changes, by other means, those means would be magic, because there are no other means.
You know of all means?
Really.....
And 500 years ago they knew that someone who was talking about the power of an atom bomb would be crazy....or talking of magic...
You want to invent some new natural force that creates power, from nothing be my guest. But, by any reasonable definition, such a source wouldn't be just the equivalent of magic...it would "be" magic.
No need to invent, there is nothing new under the sun....
An atomic bomb would have been considered "magic" 500 years ago if dropped on a town the size of Rome....
I'm not limiting what God could do.
Really?
If God created the universe, then he has created the limitations himself. If he operates within those limits, then his actions at a distance will be detected because they will require a substantial power source. If not, then it's magic. Period.
So all powerful God must conform to your logical understandings?
Sorry, but I have to give you a ROTFLMAO on that one....
Quote from Z:
I don't think you realize how primitive our understanding of subtle energy really is..
He has already cited the power he has invented. It is called 'subtle energy'. He cited it for the first time in the post just previous to your last one. If you ask him what this 'subtle energy' is, whether it has been quantified, whether it is measurable, whether there is any indication that it in fact exists, you will get....Quote from kjkent1:
You want to invent some new natural force that creates power, from nothing be my guest.
kjkent, I have been watching you engage Z over these past weeks. At first I believed that you gave him credit for being able to engage you in honest debate. I am amazed that you continue to engage him when it has become clear that, far from being capable of this, he is lost in a wilderness of superstition and fear. Do you think that you will ever get him to admit one of the (by now hundreds of) evasions, inaccuracies and assertions that he has put forth on this or any of his other threads?
Anyway, I admire you for your tenacity, I remember that you said, early in the other thread (the one that Z had to abandon because he was being owned so completely), that you said you do this as an exercise for your battles with recalcitrant witnesses.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So all powerful God must conform to your logical understandings?
Sorry, but I have to give you a ROTFLMAO on that one....
The logical understandings are not mine -- they are God's, assuming that God is God.
I didn't create the rules under which the universe operates. If God chooses to break his own rules, then he does so by the application of magic, because he set up the conditions of what is and is not natural.
You can call magic natural, if you want to use semantics to escape the unescapable conclusion that defeats your argument. But it's just semantics so you haven't escaped.
Well, unless we're talking about the gas, that is. We all know where that's escaping from.
Quote from traderNik:
Anyway, I admire you for your tenacity, I remember that you said, early in the other thread (the one that Z had to abandon because he was being owned so completely), that you said you do this as an exercise for your battles with recalcitrant witnesses.
Yeah, it's just business. I'm bored, and Z is exactly like so many real world witnesses who think that they can avoid the truth by evading direct questioning. But, the more that he evades, the more he destroys his own credibility.
Not arguing the merits of one's position on the facts, is, in the end, a concession that one's position is unmeritorious.
You are only really indulging in the same fragmented undeveloped form of argument as Z. Whereas he makes up disjointed characterized parodies as he goes along, your base is an apparent smugness which selects "scholars" quotes off of Wikipedia, and then with a twist of supreme contemptuousness for any other viewpoint ( notwithstanding the other "scholars" on Wikipedia who disagree with your quotes) declare every scholar on the subject has explained I am wrong.Quote from jem:
You mean like a well grounded argument with every scholar on the subject explaining to you that you are incorrect or some other type of well grounded argument.
That is then, your "well grounded argument".
Here we have the fact of evolution, but rather than debate what that means or does not mean in terms of the things said by science and the misleading and often simply false arguments made up by creationists, you prefer to rely only on what "scholars" would say in support of creationists.
You appear unable or reluctant to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your one fixed preconceived creation notion, even to the point of seeking refuge in total refusal and denial.
Which is fine, but it is not well grounded argument and as yet you have provided no other kind.