Originally posted by robbie carrobieStop being a baby.
take it to the science forum spanklberger, this is for spirituality, not NON spirituality and base materialsim! The forum has been overrun by weeds, i am going back to the chess only forum to sulk, you may find me there if you need me! good day to you all!
It was in fact your 'partner in crime' who started asking the questions, i'm merely giving the answers.
I would argue that evolution and the origins of life is the greatest spiritual matter that could be discussed. It's the truth, and as we've ascertained already, 'you can't handle the truth', and off you go running again.
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe only thing that you have established is that you are intent on feeding the materialisatic weeds that have envelpoed the forum and turned it into a veritable atheist paradise, truth is not a word to be banded about lightly, especially given the anomalies of your churches dogma on the matter, chess now must become the sanctuary of the noble theist as he seeks to find parralles on the sixty four squares that reflect life, after all, how long would one wait for mindless matter to come along and form the chess board and the pieces and to make it into a complex and functioning organism, that is correct, forever!
Stop being a baby.
It was in fact your 'partner in crime' who started asking the questions, i'm merely giving the answers.
I would argue that evolution and the origins of life is the greatest spiritual matter that could be discussed. It's the truth, and as we've ascertained already, 'you can't handle the truth', and off you go running again.
Originally posted by TaomanNo need to thank me.
Thanks for book reference. Might see if I can get it. It is a fascinating subject.
The major evidence for the evolutionary process has for sometime been incontrovertibly established, despite the chaotic denials of deluded fundamentalism.
[Apart from being a stupid travesty of any scientific attitude, it is also an inane, unnecessary religious redherr ...[text shortened]... "The Inner Life of a Cell" on YT but it's been removed because of copyright. What a shame.
I've saved a copy of the pdf file you linked. I'll give that some attention at some point.
I share your sentiments on the evolutionary 'debate', although debate is surely not the correct term. We can only live in hope that these people will wake from their slumber.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...after all, how long would one wait for mindless matter to come along and form the chess board and the pieces and to make it into a complex and functioning organism, that is correct, forever! ...”
the only thing that you have established is that you are intent on feeding the materialisatic weeds that have envelpoed the forum and turned it into a veritable atheist paradise, truth is not a word to be banded about lightly, especially given the anomalies of your churches dogma on the matter, chess now must become the sanctuary of the noble theist ...[text shortened]... and the pieces and to make it into a complex and functioning organism, that is correct, forever!
What are you talking about?
Nobody would suggest/imply directly or indirectly in any way that chess pieces can assemble into an organism and, because chess pieces are not organic chemicals, nobody would think that this is analogous to abiogenesis (if that is what you are suggesting? ). Also, nobody is suggesting that the right conditions for abiogenesis exist now just as it existed when life began (if that is what you are suggesting? ).
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonconsidering that animate organisms are infinately more complex than the sixty four squares and the sixteen chess men, it is neither logical nor reasonable nor probable to expect mindless matter has arranged itself into the wonderful diversity that makes up life as we know it, and that Mr Hamilton is not a suggestion, its an assertion. Secondly i have no wish to discuss the matter, the forum has become an abode of atheism and a lurking place of every type of base materialism, there is now a sign on the wall, it reads, pretty vacant and out to lunch, have a good day, im good and i am gone!
“...after all, how long would one wait for mindless matter to come along and form the chess board and the pieces and to make it into a complex and functioning organism, that is correct, forever! ...”
What are you talking about?
Nobody would suggest/imply directly or indirectly in any way that chess pieces can assemble into an organism and, becau ...[text shortened]... abiogenesis exist now just as it existed when life began (if that is what you are suggesting? ).
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei'm good and i am gone!
considering that animate organisms are infinately more complex than the sixty four squares and the sixteen chess men, it is neither logical nor reasonable nor probable to expect mindless matter has arranged itself into the wonderful diversity that makes up life as we know it, and that Mr Hamilton is not a suggestion, its an assertion. Secondly i hav ...[text shortened]... n on the wall, it reads, pretty vacant and out to lunch, have a good day, im good and i am gone!
You said the same thing at 10:36am?!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat doesn't automatically invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection.
yes but it didn't stop them trying, did it.
It is Nazism here that is the problem, not Darwinism.
It is like an arsonist who burns down a house and kills a family, and blaming the person who discovered fire.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...considering that animate organisms are infinately more complex than the sixty four squares and the sixteen chess men, ...”
considering that animate organisms are infinately more complex than the sixty four squares and the sixteen chess men, it is neither logical nor reasonable nor probable to expect mindless matter has arranged itself into the wonderful diversity that makes up life as we know it, and that Mr Hamilton is not a suggestion, its an assertion. Secondly i hav ...[text shortened]... n on the wall, it reads, pretty vacant and out to lunch, have a good day, im good and i am gone!
So? what has complexity of modern life got to do with it? -lets continue....
“...it is neither logical nor reasonable nor probable to expect mindless matter has arranged itself …..”
How so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14172
So there is even experimental proof that matter can arrange itself into complex cell-like structures and, therefore, life.
Once a microsphere with inheritable characteristics (a protocell) with an inheritable advantage forms, evolution has a chance to take over and gradually add one tiny bit of complexity at a time over countless generations until cells similar to modern bacteria evolve. So the complexity of modem life does not pose a 'problem' for the theory of evolution but is instead actually implicitly PREDICTED by evolution. Also, there obviously is no upper limit to how “complex” evolution can evolve life; so complexity doesn't impose a problem here no matter HOW complex modern life is! -the complexity of modern life is thus irrelevant here.
“...into the wonderful diversity that makes up life as we know it, ….”
Are you talking about abiogenesis here or evolution? -if abiogenesis, then nobody is suggesting that abiogenesis instantly made up the complexity of life we see today. -if evolution, then the complexity of modern life does not pose a problem for evolution.
All that complexity is generated from natural laws such as natural laws causing evolution that, in turn, create the complexity of living systems. Those processes (such as evolution but there are also various physical processes) themselves do not “just happen by chance” but rather they are an inevitable consequence of natural laws. Although those processes have some random elements, it is not necessarily those random elements themselves that generate those processes and those same processes also have a certain level of predictability including Darwinian natural selection which is NOT completely random (I only mention this here in case you say that evolution says every living thing came by “chance”; a common misunderstanding -evolution does not say this).
Originally posted by AgergYou reject pure entertainment? Shame on youðŸ˜
When I sober up I may have a twinge of regret for saying this but the guy is a pillock (though not so much a pillock as Vishvahetu), not that I personally reported him to the mods but for those that did they have done us a good service (though the effect was short lived since he's back again)...I salute them!
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelpure entertainment!? How about if some language deficient teenager did the reverse of what Taco does, and appends to every theist post a derivative of "bollox" and mindlessly throws excerpts from the God Delusion here there and everywhere?
You reject pure entertainment? Shame on youðŸ˜
Would that be pure entertainment too??? 😕
Originally posted by AgergI know, your saying what if everyone was the town cryer. But the point is that not everyone is. Taco is our town cryer and vishy is his fishy sidekick😉
pure entertainment!? How about if some language deficient teenager did the reverse of what Taco does, and appends to every theist post a derivative of "bollox" and mindlessly throws excerpts from the God Delusion here there and everywhere?
Would that be pure entertainment too??? 😕
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou and everything you see is proof of creation. Did a simple pencil just make itself? Did the car you drive just build itself from a stack of parts? How about the simple plate of food you had for dinner, did it just cook itself?
You wrote "I thought it was all a fact not theory?" and I assume that you thought a fact cannot be a theory, and a theory cannot hold facts. If I was wrong in this I have to apologize.
In you answer you wrote "Evolution is a theory ( unproved fact ) always has been and always will be." and by 'unproven' you are wrong. It's very solid.
Creationists t ...[text shortened]... earn something about it. If you don't, then your critics falls like dust on the floor.
I respect your view of life but it's sad when one does not see and respect all the creations that are everywhere and give credit to God.
But again I respect your view.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75What created God?...nothing created God??? then your argument everything needs to be created fails :]
You and everything you see is proof of creation. Did a simple pencil just make itself? Did the car you drive just build itself from a stack of parts? How about the simple plate of food you had for dinner, did it just cook itself?
I respect your view of life but it's sad when one does not see and respect all the creations that are everywhere and give credit to God.
But again I respect your view.