tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2493602086231975081..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionist, You Are the Man!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger248125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83133376378948297162013-01-18T03:51:09.124-08:002013-01-18T03:51:09.124-08:00"Louis Savain January 11, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Ea..."Louis Savain January 11, 2013 at 9:13 PM<br /><br />Eat your own excrement, velikovskys. How about that?<br /><br />Hopefully, this comment won't be deleted by an administrator. LOL."<br /><br /><br />That's mighty christian of you louis. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36826528668204206172013-01-16T18:24:25.795-08:002013-01-16T18:24:25.795-08:00wanker:
If a proposition is made by a believer in ...wanker:<br /><i>If a proposition is made by a believer in X, and that proposition turns out to be correct, then that makes X more plausible. </i><br /><br />More like:<br /><br /><b>If a prediction is made based on X and the prediction turns out to be correct, then it makes X more plausible.</b> Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75908917451104383122013-01-16T15:37:22.997-08:002013-01-16T15:37:22.997-08:00PaV Lino
T: "Are you really so dense you sti...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />T: "Are you really so dense you still misunderstand that? Apparently so."<br /><br />You continually embarass yourself.</i><br /><br />LOL! <b>You're</b> the guy so dumb he thinks the evidence for Mitochondrial Eve means there was only one woman alive 200K years ago.<br /><br />I'd love to hear you explanation for why "Y-chromosome Adam" dates from such a different time, only 60K years ago, and both date to a far different time that your claimed Creation date way back in the Cambrian 500+ million years ago.<br /><br />Consistency just isn't a Creationist thing, is it PaV? Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49408989408175786592013-01-16T15:35:27.678-08:002013-01-16T15:35:27.678-08:00Continental drift was first proposed by Snider, a ...<i>Continental drift was first proposed by Snider, a Creationist. Plate tectonics is very good evidence for design.</i><br /><br />Interesting 'logic' you use there. If a proposition is made by a believer in X, and that proposition turns out to be correct, then that makes X more plausible. Interesting, but also a bit imbecilic. <br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76854154025202424962013-01-16T15:31:16.499-08:002013-01-16T15:31:16.499-08:00PaV Lino
The Cambrian Explosion is consistent wit...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />The Cambrian Explosion is consistent with the Genesis account, and it is inconsistent with Darwinism. </i><br /><br />Really? Biblical Special Creation in Genesis created animals that fossilized over 500 million years old? That's a new one PaV.<br /><br /><i>And Darwin knew this. </i><br /><br />The Cambrian era fossils weren't discovered until well after Darwin's time you nitwit.<br /><br /><i> I won't spend one single moment more bothering to say more. </i><br /><br />Yes you will. You're a typical Godbotherer, you'll be back to witness more, guaranteed.<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86489138659476573752013-01-16T15:07:03.995-08:002013-01-16T15:07:03.995-08:00LoL! Continental drift was first proposed by Snide...LoL! Continental drift was first proposed by Snider, a Creationist. Plate tectonics is very good evidence for design.<br /><br />My point is that you don't have anything beyond imagination, and it shows. All of your hopes are riding on evo-devo and that ain't panning out very well.<br /><br />Having knowledge of biology is not the same as having knowledge of accumulating genetic accidents producing it. Duh.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1873580911568609712013-01-16T14:34:34.464-08:002013-01-16T14:34:34.464-08:00Tell us how many atoms were moved and in what dire...Tell us how many atoms were moved and in what directions since South America drifted away from Africa millions of years ago? Or admit that you don't understand continental drift.<br /><br />You seem to believe that absence of complete knowledge is equivalent to total ignorance. That suggests you are severely mentally handicapped.<br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56075823362727009622013-01-16T14:25:59.431-08:002013-01-16T14:25:59.431-08:00Lino:
As to being a problem, this is a problem fo...Lino:<br /><br /><i>As to being a problem, this is a problem for Darwinism, is it not? That is, if a chimp acquires "human like" mutations, doesn't it have to mate with another chimp with "human like" mutations?</i><br /><br />Why? If you have mutations that make you more toad-like, then it doesn't follow that you have to mate with another human with "toad like" mutations. Your offspring are still likely to be more toad-like than other humans.<br /><br /><br /><i>The Bible says that God made animals male and female, and humans likewise. </i><br /><br />I guess the writers of the Bible didn't know about hermaphrodite and asexual animals. Not surprisingly, given the ignorance about biology in those days. But if the writers received their information from an omniscient god, how come the Bible is so full of nonsense about biology? <br /><br />If it hadn't been for the Bible, you wouldn't have the mental blockage that prevents you from understanding a simple mathematical demonstration that an original pair is not a logical necessity. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58292437974854877612013-01-16T11:54:51.505-08:002013-01-16T11:54:51.505-08:00To the deluded one:
I pointed to physical evidenc...To the deluded one:<br /><br />I pointed to physical evidence that is consistent with "separately created kinds". <br /><br />You put words into my mouth. Accept the fact. Look above and see what you said that I said.<br /><br />The Cambrian Explosion is consistent with the Genesis account, and it is inconsistent with Darwinism. And Darwin knew this. And he proposed reasons why this inconsitency existed. And his reasons have not held up.<br /><br />So, who's the real fideist: the one who holds onto a theory that is debunked by its own postulator, or the one who believes in a reality that is consistent with their revealed truths?<br /><br />These are just facts. I won't spend one single moment more bothering to say more. What is self-evident is self-evident, even if people choose to be blind for ideological reasons.<br /><br />That's what this post is about: how blind Darwinists are to their own form of argumentation.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10405040133242511042013-01-16T11:44:17.788-08:002013-01-16T11:44:17.788-08:00A Darwinist who besmirches anything and everyone h...A Darwinist who besmirches anything and everyone has said:<br /><br /><i>No it doesn't PaV you idiot. It merely says there was one female out of the hundreds of thousands alive 200K years ago that we're all maternally related to.</i><br /><br />And now we have billions of females. All from just one ovum.<br /><br />So, tell me, what ovum did the "hundres of thousands alive 200K years ago" come from?<br /><br /><i>Are you really so dense you still misunderstand that? Apparently so.</i><br /><br />You continually embarass yourself.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28354188362555887992013-01-16T05:46:15.711-08:002013-01-16T05:46:15.711-08:00OK troy-
Tell us how many mutations it takes to g...OK troy-<br /><br />Tell us how many mutations it takes to get an unpright biped from a knuckle-walker/ quadraped. Also tell us what genes were involved.<br /><br />Or admit that YOU just do NOT understand the genetics.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17959426125397561542013-01-15T16:27:17.440-08:002013-01-15T16:27:17.440-08:00Genetics, logic and parsimony tell us there was a ...<i>Genetics, logic and parsimony tell us there was a "first couple."</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't. You just don't seem to understand the genetics, the logic and the parsimony involved. Why don't you try to use these tools to refute the reasoning and statistical analyses of the mathematical population geneticists, instead of hand-waving? You might get published in a good journal. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76066410801060225012013-01-15T11:23:25.946-08:002013-01-15T11:23:25.946-08:00troy:
LINO: To state that "each gene has a d...troy:<br /><br />LINO:<i> To state that "each gene has a different common ancestor" is to state something I've never heard before, and which, really, cannot be true.</i><br /><br />TROY:<br /><br /><i>Pretty arrogant statement. It's nevertheless true that in sexual species (almost) every gene has a different most recent common ancestor. This is well-known.<br /><br />You need to brush up your knowledge of Coalescent Theory, based on stochastic models known as Branching Processes, and mainly developed by 'Darwinist' professor John Kingman. So this statement of your is false:</i><br /><br />My statement was not arrogant. Had I said what I was first inclined to say, that is, that "what you were stating is complete rubbish," now, that might have been arrogant.<br /><br />Coaslescent Theory is, guess what, a THEORY. It's not a fact; it's not a Law. It's a theory. And I don't think you're representing it well. If you are, then there is something very seriously wrong with the theory.<br /><br />From the link, it appears that they're simply running "neutral theory" backwards in time, without recombination and without NS. So, I guess if you accept Coalescent Theory you have to first throw out NS. <br /><br />To me this whole Coalescent Theory is something some population geneticist thought up to keep himself busy. Nothing will come of this nonsense. Believe me.<br /><br />LINO:<i>You're failing to see the import of Mitochondrial Eve: it was NOT what was expected by the Darwinists.</i><br /><br />TROY: <i>You might find this a useful site. <br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or "first couple".</i><br /><br /><br />You're free to imagine anything you want. But, as usual, the Darwinist, confronted with actual evidence, runs for the world of fantasy, the world of the INVISIBLE!<br />Yes, there wasn't just a "first couple." There were plenty more. It's just that we can't find any trace of them. You see: you can't see them! They're invisible!<br /><br />Believe what you want. But understand that it's belief.<br /><br />The utter sillines of this argument can easily be seen: where did this "large human population" come from? Another "large human population"? And that "large human population" came from another "large human population"? How far back with this nonsense do you want to go? <br /><br />Genetics, logic and parsimony tell us there was a "first couple." Unfortunately for Darwinism this is an "inconvenient truth." So, let's simply imagine it was otherwise. You see, without imagination Darwinism could not exist.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4356522655670500602013-01-15T05:12:30.449-08:002013-01-15T05:12:30.449-08:00flacid liar:
Because I understand the science behi...flacid liar:<br /><i>Because I understand the science behind the genetic studies</i><br /><br />Liar. You don't understand anything about genetics.<br /><br />You don't know how many mutations it takes to get a human from a non-human and you don't have any idea what genes were involved.<br /><br />Your position = ignoranceJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15146105326687552752013-01-14T19:11:01.287-08:002013-01-14T19:11:01.287-08:00PaV Lino
Why do you put words into other people&#...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />Why do you put words into other people's mouths, and then ask such sophomoric questions? It doesn't reflect well upon you.</i><br /><br />You said it right <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-research-elucidates-directed.html?showComment=1357668647617#c6943504047355432239" rel="nofollow">here</a> PaV.<br /><br />T: "Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your <b>'separately created kinds'</b> fantasy?<br /><br />PaV Lino: <b>"It's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion."</b><br /><br />Lying about what you said <b>really</b> doesn't reflect well upon you PaV.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30492161847258647832013-01-14T19:02:46.662-08:002013-01-14T19:02:46.662-08:00PaV Lino
How do you know that this is what it mea...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />How do you know that this is what it means? </i><br /><br />Because I understand the science behind the genetic studies, and you don't.<br /><br /><i>Whose given you the insight, or the information, to know that this was the case?</i><br /><br />Undergraduate and graduate studies plus years of experience.<br /><br /><i>You're suggesting that there was a population, and within that population, only ONE of them was fertile</i><br /><br />You and Chubby Joe really are having a contest to see who can out-stupid the other, right?<br /><br />No, it doesn't mean that only one of them was fertile. It means that only one left a lineage that everyone today can trace back to. There were many fertile women both before and after, many lineages, but only one that everyone alive today shares.<br /><br />Even I feel guilty making fun of someone as clueless as you PaV. Read the damn article<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html" rel="nofollow">Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA</a><br /><br />"Let's get back to "Eve." The ancestor referred to in the 1987 Nature article can be more precisely stated as "the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today." In other words, she is the most recent person from whom everyone now living on Earth has inherited his or her mtDNA. This certainly does not mean that she is the ancestral mother of all who came after her; during her time and even before her time there were many women and men who contributed to the nuclear genes we now carry. (To see how this can be, check out Tracing Ancestry.) It also does not mean that the mtDNA originated with this "Eve"; she and her contemporaries also had their own "most recent common ancestor though matrilineal descent," a woman who lived even further into the past who passed on her mtDNA to everyone living during "Eve's" time. (We get our mtDNA from that same, older ancestor. She's just not, to us, the most recent common ancestor.)"Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12896751706764519532013-01-14T18:18:33.401-08:002013-01-14T18:18:33.401-08:00LINO:
Ultimately, you have two parents who mated....LINO:<br /><br /><i>Ultimately, you have two parents who mated.</i><br /><br />VEL:<br /><i>Yes,your father and mother. Both of which came from two parents. Which is the line of direct descent? Mother or Father?</i><br /><br />Children come from their mother's wombs, don't they?<br /><br />As to being a problem, this is a problem for Darwinism, is it not? That is, if a chimp acquires "human like" mutations, doesn't it have to mate with another chimp with "human like" mutations? The Bible says that God made animals male and female, and humans likewise. <br /><br />Prescinding from the Bible, if a Designer can convert one chimp genome into a human-like genome, then the Designer can do it twice. Lot less of a problem from ID.<br /><br />LINO:<i>This is just like one bacteria cell that keeps dividing and forms hundreds of millions of descendants. All of the descendants come from the one bacteria. This seems obvious. Why isn't it obvious to you? What do you see in its place?</i><br /><br />VEL:<br /><i>There are not boy and girl bacteria</i>.<br /><br />You didn't answer the question. The principle remains the same. <br /><br />And, BTW, Kimona Dragons are known to produce offspring in populations where all the Dragons are female. Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57508700388241687302013-01-14T18:05:25.264-08:002013-01-14T18:05:25.264-08:00Why do you put words into other people's mouth...Why do you put words into other people's mouths, and then ask such sophomoric questions? It doesn't reflect well upon you.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90147774986996579952013-01-14T18:00:24.843-08:002013-01-14T18:00:24.843-08:00velikovsky:
Or this
" The universal probabil...velikovsky:<br /><br /><i>Or this<br />" The universal probability bound assumes that the event one is trying to measure is completely random, and some use this argument to prove that evolution could not possibly occur, since its probability would be much less than that of the universal probability bound. This, however, is fallacious, given that evolution is not a completely random effect (genetic drift), but rather proceeds with the aid of natural selection" <br /><br />But why conflate the origin of life with the origin of CC? I am deep out of my league but it seems that all bacteria do not have cytochrome c? The probabilty of CC would seem to be an evolutionary issue not abiogenesis issue.</i><br /><br />If cytochrome C was not originated in bacterial cells, then it would have had to originate in eukaryotic cells, which are more complex, and makes biogenesis even more intractable a problem for Darwinists.<br /><br />Be that as it may, NS does not "select"; it kills! So, something has to rise up to the point of life before it can be killed. So, in terms of cytochrome c patching itself together, until it was able to be "selected" there would be no "life" that existed which could "select." <br /><br />Do you see the logic here? Without cytochrome c, you have one eukaryotic cell that lives, and then dies. And life doesn't exist. So, what "life" is there that can "select" a patchwork cytochrome c protein? We are, therefore, left with the UPB.<br /><br />This is logic; not fideism. The fideism is on the part of Darwinists. They believe that utterly improbable can happen.<br /><br />When I was 5 years old I could logically see that for "something to exist" it had to come from some pre-existent being. You look at life around you, and, as a materialist, you have to BELIEVE that all of this came from "nothing." Sorry, I can't believe things like that.<br /><br /><br /><br />LINO: <br /><i>But, if you want to posit only material causes . . .</i><br /><br />Vel:<br /><i>Material causes have been observed to manipulate matter, what are the observed immaterial causes and how do they manipulate matter? What is the interface between the immaterial and the world of energy and matter?</i><br /><br />What was the "material cause" of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? This "immaterial" reality, the Theory of Special Relativity, led to the atomic bomb. And the bomb was made by people, people who have "minds." <br /><br />Are "thoughts", then, material realities that cause things to happen? What are your thoughts about this?<br /><br /><br /><br />LINO:<br /><i> . . . , then the utter inability to explain origin of life requires something other than material causes . . .</i><br /><br /><br /><br />Vel:<br /><br /><i>This means that immaterial causes are the default premise unless material causes can explain a phenomenon to Lino.</i><br /><br />Is this true of me in regards to 'any phenomenon', or to this particular phenomenon of the origin of life? If material causes are unable to account for the origin of life, wouldn't immaterial causes be your "default premise" too?<br /><br />LINO:<br /><i>And this argument they use to buttress their claims. It's the Darwinists who indulge in the religious language, not ID, and not critics of Darwinism.</i><br /><br />VEL:<br /><br /><i>Now it is true I haven't been to church for sometime,but I assume writing such an obvious falsehood is still a lie,or at least ,to be kind,a statement not meant to be factually accurate.</i><br /><br />Part of the Darwinist argument---when needed---is that the presence of evil negates the possibility of the Christian God. <br /><br />Is that, or is that not, religious language?<br /><br />ID posits a "designer". Have you ever designed something? Are you God? How, then, does ID "use" religious language? There are religious overtones to its conclusions; but what is the religious language it uses to formulate its argument?<br /><br />How easy it is to call people liars. I guess that makes arguing with them easier---you just swat away what they say; no need to engage.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4997281643123691162013-01-14T17:00:08.786-08:002013-01-14T17:00:08.786-08:00Some Darwinist wrote:
Mitochondrial Eve data does...Some Darwinist wrote:<br /><br /><i>Mitochondrial Eve data doesn't mean there was only one woman alive 200K years ago. It means there was one woman alive out of the whole population at that time which all living humans today can trace their maternal lineage to.</i><br /><br />How do you know that this is what it means? Whose given you the insight, or the information, to know that this was the case?<br /><br />You're suggesting that there was a population, and within that population, only ONE of them was fertile.<br /><br />With Darwini, you're free to "imagine" whatever you like. <br /><br />What we "know" is that all of humanity comes from a single "Eve." <br /><br />One eventually reaches the end of a causal chain, or else it's not a causal chain. This is simple logic that even a 5-year old can grasp.<br /><br />Remember, it was the adults who thought that the Emperor had clothes on.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23374960037296281962013-01-14T16:50:04.526-08:002013-01-14T16:50:04.526-08:00Part II:
LINO:
Dr. Hunter has shown that atheists...Part II:<br /><br />LINO:<br /><i>Dr. Hunter has shown that atheists do the very same thing; they take the very same step that believers take.<br /><br />In the case of Susan Jacoby, her logical step-taking was:<br /><br />(1) A young boy is suffering.<br />(2) God created the young boy.<br />(3) God has the power to save the young boy from suffering, and doesn't.<br />(4) God is supposed to be good.<br />(5) Allowing a young boy to suffer needlessly (apparently) is not good.<br />(6) God must not exist.<br /><br />Two logical processes leading to two very different conclusions.<br /><br />Why is one "religious", and the other "not"?<br /><br />Darwin, and many of his followers, use the presence of evil as an argument in favor of NS. They are making an religious argument. But then criticize their critics as being "religious."<br /><br />The Darwinist can't seem to see their hypocrisy.</i><br /><br />Ian Sp:<br /><i>And you, apparently, are unable to see that you and CH are committing the fallacy of equivocation by conflating two meanings of the word "religious".<br /><br />In English usage, If I am described as having a religious belief it could mean one of two things: either it could mean that I belong to a particular faith and believe in its doctrines or it could mean I have an opinion or belief about the claims of a religion without being a member of that faith. In both cases, I could be described as having a religious belief or making a religious argument.<br /><br />The fact is, as an atheist, I can have an opinion about Christian beliefs without myself being Christian. As an atheist, I can make argument against some claim of Christianity, which can be described as a religious argument, even though I do not belong to any religion.</i><br /><br />Christians don't claim that evil doesn't exist, do they? You're saying that the presence of evil in a world created by a God that Christians claim is "good", is a contradiction.<br /><br />But, you can read the Book of Job, written long before the Christian religion began, and you can see that there is nuance to "suffering" and to "evil."<br /><br />In any event, the argument that the presence of evil in the world invalidates the existence of a Creator (presumed to be "good") is, in what sense, a "scientific" argument?<br /><br />It's an argument, perhaps, for Materialism; but it's not a scientific one. And what CH and I point out is that Materialism is logically equivalent to Fideism. <br /><br />From what you wrote above:<br /><b>If the premisses of an argument are good and its structure is sound then the conclusion will be good. But it is perfectly possible to construct valid arguments that are complete nonsense.</b><br /><br />The premise of Materialism is that only material causes exist. So, is this a "sound argument"?<br /><br />I would ask you this: what material force is responsible for the computer that you're using to respond to me? Can you give it a name?<br /><br /><br />LINO:<br /><i>Meanwhile, cyctochrome c is needed for cell division to take place, and the odds of it arising by chance exceed the UPB. So who's guilty of fideism? It's the Darwinist who cling to their belief in materialistic forces bringing living things from non-living things.<br /><br />Boy, now there's a whopper!</i><br /><br />Ian Sp:<br /><br /><i>No, that's an argument from incredulity. The fact that you find it incredible does not mean that it didn't or couldn't happen.</i><br /><br />Maybe it's a simple case of credulity on your part, a credulity that flows from your materialistic premises. What do you honestly think?<br /><br />I think I have good reason to think it virtually impossible for cytochrome C to have arisen all by itself. Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7460124541526453762013-01-14T16:46:08.339-08:002013-01-14T16:46:08.339-08:00Ian Spedding:
Sorry for the delay. Been very bus...Ian Spedding:<br /><br />Sorry for the delay. Been very busy.<br /><br />Lino:<br /><i>(1) God did not create man perfect. If man were perfect, then he would be like God. That man needed to 'eat' shows that he was not completely self-sufficient. Etc.</i><br /><br />Ian Spedding (IS):<br /><i>God is also held to be omniscient. That means he knowingly created imperfection. Why?<br /><br />He not only knew He created imperfection but He knew exactly how that imperfect creation would act from the beginning to the end of its existence. He knew that it would get things wrong, do things He thought it shouldn't. How then, in all fairness, can He blame it for being what He designed it to be?</i><br /><br />You're addressing questions to me that you should direct to God.<br /><br />It seems like all that Adam and Eve had to do was to stay away from that Tree in the middle of the garden, which supposes there were lots of other trees to eat from. Was that asking too much?<br /><br />As to the 'why', well, at the Easter Vigil the Catholic Church sings a hymn of praise called the Exultet. In that hymn she sings: "Oh happy fault of Adam, that brought so great a Redeemer."<br /><br />I'll let you figure out the rest.<br /><br />IS: <i>This also raises the deeper philosophical questions of, first, whether a necessary and perfect being can create imperfection at all and, second, why would a being that is, by definition, entirely self-sufficient bother to create anything at all?</i><br /><br />Why would an entirely self-sufficient Being bother to create anything else? The answer is LOVE! Love desires to give what is good to others---which supposes that there are others. This is a correct answer, but still, I acknowledge, it is an unfathomable answer.<br /><br />LINO: <br /><i>For me, I began believing in God when I was 5. I became aware of my existence. And I reasoned that my father and my mother existed at prior time when I didn't exist. That meant that at some point in time I didn't exist. You can push the chain of being back to an original man and woman using material causation, but then the question becomes: Who created the man and the woman? That is, who brought them into existence.<br /><br />When I asked my Dad who made the first man and woman, he answered, "God." <br /><br />This is simple logic, not faith.</i><br /><br />Ian Sp:<br /><br /><i>Actually, there is no logic in that answer at all. It is just a claim, an unsupported statement of belief.</i><br /><br />I suppose you're referring to what my father told me. You might say it is but an "unsupported statement of belief", but, OTOH, I stopped asking questions at that point. You do acknowledge that fact, don't you?<br /><br />Ian Sp:<br /><i>Logic is a valuable tool but it is only a tool. It is a set of rules or procedures for constructing a valid argument but it is not a guarantee of truth. If the premisses of an argument are good and its structure is sound then the conclusion will be good. But it is perfectly possible to construct valid arguments that are complete nonsense.</i><br /><br />You've given a very good description of why I don't BELIEVE in Darwinism.<br /><br />But it wasn't premises (e.g., God exists and created us) that led me to God; it was logical thought and <i>a posteriori</i> experience that led me to the "necessity" of God.<br /><br />Part I ended.<br /><br />Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44177043591966718292013-01-14T07:48:26.590-08:002013-01-14T07:48:26.590-08:00Well it is a given that evoTARDs don't even kn...Well it is a given that evoTARDs don't even know what science is. thorton is living proof of taht fact.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3827298562322598332013-01-14T07:23:04.089-08:002013-01-14T07:23:04.089-08:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
And they haven't come wi...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br /> And they haven't come with enough details to predict even ONE phenotypical trajectory inconsistent with SA.</i><br /><br />"Science hasn't found any species inconsistent with SA, so therefore we were created with MAGIC!!!"<br /><br />That's why you philosophizing IDiots don't do science.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46564346253063261562013-01-14T06:15:09.728-08:002013-01-14T06:15:09.728-08:00I have two arms vel. And enough sense to protect m...I have two arms vel. And enough sense to protect myself at all times, for any circumstance.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com