by Perry 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jesus Christ,
Have some free will and you're an idiot? Perry, give your head a shake.
I thought we all came to the conclusion that anyone shoving religion down your throat is a big no-no here. But for some reason, YOU act more like a Jehovahs Witness than anyone on this board by far.
So with the complexity of the universe, why would the supposed creator of such use a tool such as the bible to convey his desires to his creation? I can't wrap my mind around that concept. Surely there is a better way, one that wouldn't be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 different people.
Christians = honest, loving, moral, reliable, peaceloving etc. etc. etc.????
Athiests = evil, dishonest, warmaking, immoral, hateful etc.etc.????
Seeing as true out of the cupboard athiesm is kind of young.....its difficult to judge its track record. But this I do know only from personal experience, athiests who declare they are such, tend to be very much in touch with what is going on in the world and often involved in humane projects.
Christianity and its track record....we dont really want to go there do we?
Caedes said:
It's funny how theists want to grant all sorts of exceptions to their own god. Is your god not a real entity? If your god is real then s/he/it (sorry, I dont know which flavour of skydaddy you prefer) must increase the complexity of the universe. Any argument that your god is not part of the universe/time is mere special pleading.
Please explain just what it is that I have applied to others that I have exempted God from. Frankly, it is commonly understood that a creator (of art, literature, machines, etc.) generally do NOT exist as part of their creation. It is possible that a creator can become part of his/her creation by adding a piece of themselves, hair, to the object; or by physically participating in live art.
You wish to add a supernatural omnipotent being as the creator of the universe this makes the overall picture of everything that exists more complex. You are now claiming that your creator does not add to the complexity of everything that exists because he is outside of everything that exists. Either your god exists and you are special pleading or your god does not exist.
A discussion of the theistic view of creation making the universe artificial is probably best taken to another thread.
At what point did I claim that I know the mechanism of abiogenesis?
You didn’t. So you were just attacking a strawman, your list of logical fallacies grows longer by the minute!
Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I know something unproven to every other scientist on the planet?
My point exactly. If it is so simple, why haven’t they found it? In fact, scientists know that it is impossible. The conditions that create the basis for life, from a purely materialistic viewpoint, would immediately destroy it. There is no way around it no matter how much they search.
Perhaps you would care to back up this statement? How do scientists know it is impossible? (apart from the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative of course)
Why is abiogenesis simple? Why would the conditions that create the basis for life destroy it? On what basis are you claiming to know this?
I was, to clarify, merely pointing out that a naturalist view is a much simpler explanation of the universe than the theist view that has to explain the exact same universe but with the addition of supernatural entities rather than me claiming exclusive knowledge of some new theory of abiogenesis.
I was, to clarify, merely pointing out that the naturalist view is extremely complex, at best.
Agreed it is incredibly complex, but the theist addition of a skydaddy does not make it less complex since we are both talking about the same universe.
Incidently your post 4 should have been addressed to JWS not to me.
After all, no offence but the name Anti-Christ does not indicate that you think very highly of Christianity.
Non taking, the name is more about how JW view the rest of the world, for them if you do not accept their teaching your are an Antichrist. There was a talk about it once when I was just a wee lad and it stuck with me, I thought it was a bit extreme to label ALL of humanity as "Antichrists".
What I get from the story of Jesus is that he was for freedom an justice. He would denounce religious hypocrisy and control. He encouraged compassion and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, for me those are good things, it's with religion in general that I have a problem.
the atrocity that I speak of in the bible are all of the genocide, pillaging and rape done in the name of god. Also the killings Yahveh did with the flood, the children he killed. The morality i find is backwards, for example stoning a man to death for gathering fire wood on a certain day but selling you child as a slave was accepted. This tribe the OT speaks of IMO was not morally advance, they acted ( sometimes worst) like the rest of their neighbors.
Caedes said:
You wish to add a supernatural omnipotent being as the creator of the universe…
As a mere human, I do not have the power to add or subtract anything from the universe. Either there is a God or there isn’t.
…this makes the overall picture of everything that exists more complex.
Aaahhh, I get it now! You are complaining that the physical nature of the universe in its present state would be more complex with a god in the picture. So what if it is? Frankly, the earth is more complex than evolutionists are willing to admit. Not only is it complex, it has the imprint of intelligence on it.
You are now claiming that your creator does not add to the complexity of everything that exists because he is outside of everything that exists.
I still maintain that the Creator exists outside the creation.
Either your god exists and you are special pleading or your god does not exist.
Special pleading would exist in the following example:
1. I state “All murderers must be executed.”
2. I murder someone.
3. I declare that I am a special case and should not be executed.
Please tell me what rule or standard that I have set up has been violated. I really want to know.
At what point did I claim that I know the mechanism of abiogenesis?
So you were just attacking a strawman…
So, who’s setting up the strawman now? If you are going to make such accusations, you should at least put the quote in question in its proper context.
You said that the naturalist view was simpler. I asked (notice the “?”) if you could explain abiogenesis. Perhaps the manner in which I asked the question was to nuanced for you. I will try to avoid such confusion in the future by using simpler grammar.
…your list of logical fallacies grows longer by the minute!
Really? What list? Please, do tell. The two you have accused me of so far were bogus.
Why is abiogenesis simple?
Didn’t say it was. I said it was impossible. You said:
My own view is a much more simple explanation
I simply took you at your word and concluded that abiogenesis was a simple concept.
Why would the conditions that create the basis for life destroy it? On what basis are you claiming to know this?
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Life could not evolve in a primordial soup. The building blocks of proteins, and proteins themselves, are all very susceptable to destruction by oxygen and water. And at a fast rate. If water and oxygen are removed, then life can’t evolve in the first place.
Further, amino acids are right and left handed. RNA and DNA are made of strings of 100’s of left handed amino acids. The addition of a single right handed amino acid causes the intire stucture to fail. In all of the models presented, the left and rights would be produced in a 50/50 ratio. The homogenous nature of the ‘soup’ would ensure that the longs strings of only lefts won’t happen.
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversityPress, UK, p. 336.
You wish to add a supernatural omnipotent being as the creator of the universe…
As a mere human, I do not have the power to add or subtract anything from the universe. Either there is a God or there isn’t.
A theist view includes a god as part of their view of the universe, an atheist looking at the same universe does not include a god. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
…this makes the overall picture of everything that exists more complex.
Aaahhh, I get it now! You are complaining that the physical nature of the universe in its present state would be more complex with a god in the picture. So what if it is? Frankly, the earth is more complex than evolutionists are willing to admit. Not only is it complex, it has the imprint of intelligence on it.
I am not complaining, I think it is great that you finally accepted my point. Although I accept your point that the earth is complex I have not heard of any empirical evidence of this imprint of intelligence.I cant recall any evolutionists stating the earth is not complex, perhaps you can point me to the people claiming this.
You are now claiming that your creator does not add to the complexity of everything that exists because he is outside of everything that exists.
I still maintain that the Creator exists outside the creation.
I did not talk about creation, I stated very specifically 'everything that exists' either your god exists or he doesn't, as you admitted yourself. It for this reason that claiming that your god is not part of the group 'everything that exists' but is somehow still real is special pleading.
Please tell me what rule or standard that I have set up has been violated. I really want to know.
See above.
At what point did I claim that I know the mechanism of abiogenesis?
So you were just attacking a strawman…
So, who’s setting up the strawman now? If you are going to make such accusations, you should at least put the quote in question in its proper context.
You said that the naturalist view was simpler. I asked (notice the "?") if you could explain abiogenesis. Perhaps the manner in which I asked the question was to nuanced for you. I will try to avoid such confusion in the future by using simpler grammar.
But I was not discussing abiogenesis, it was you that introduced the subject. You were attacking me regarding something I hadn't made any mention of. If you feel more comfortable with simple grammar then feel free.
…your list of logical fallacies grows longer by the minute!
Really? What list? Please, do tell. The two you have accused me of so far were bogus.
No, I have outlined clearly where your logic failed you.
Why is abiogenesis simple?
Didn’t say it was. I said it was impossible. You said:
Here is your quote
If it is so simple, why haven’t they found it? In fact, scientists know that it is impossible. The conditions that create the basis for life, from a purely materialistic viewpoint, would immediately destroy it.
Note: I never claimed that abiogenesis was simple. I suspect that your English comprehension is lacking, try re-reading what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said.
My own view is a much more simple explanation
I simply took you at your word and concluded that abiogenesis was a simple concept.
I was not talking about abiogenesis but comparing the theist view of everything that exists (or 'the universe' for those of us not semantically challenged) with the atheist view and comparitively the atheist view is simpler since we do not include supernatural deities. Do I really need to explain to you how comparison works?
Why would the conditions that create the basis for life destroy it? On what basis are you claiming to know this?
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Life could not evolve in a primordial soup. The building blocks of proteins, and proteins themselves, are all very susceptable to destruction by oxygen and water. And at a fast rate. If water and oxygen are removed, then life can’t evolve in the first place.
Further, amino acids are right and left handed. RNA and DNA are made of strings of 100’s of left handed amino acids. The addition of a single right handed amino acid causes the intire stucture to fail. In all of the models presented, the left and rights would be produced in a 50/50 ratio. The homogenous nature of the ‘soup’ would ensure that the longs strings of only lefts won’t happen.
So when are you going to publish your 'proof' that abiogenesis could not occur in the journal Nature? Or is the peer review process a bit too damning for your liking?
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversityPress, UK, p. 336.
A man who has spent a significant portion of his life arguing against ID. Yockey may believe that abiogenesis is an axiom other scientists do not. You do understand he is arguing against just one hypothesis regarding abiogenesis dont you? Or did you just cut and paste from answers in genesis?
Caedes said:
A theist view includes a god as part of their view of the universe, an atheist looking at the same universe does not include a god. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
I did not talk about creation, I stated very specifically 'everything that exists' …
Aaahh, yes. So you did. Somehow, I missed this.
…either your god exists or he doesn't, as you admitted yourself. It for this reason that claiming that your god is not part of the group 'everything that exists' but is somehow still real is special pleading.
Let me clarify: The set ‘Everything that Exists’ contains 'The Creator' and the subset ‘The Creation.’ Do you feel better now?
You were attacking me…
So, asking a simple question is an attack? Which part of the question did you feel threatened by? Do you understand that these questions are not an attack? Do you feel that you are being attacked by these questions? Do you think that I shouldn’t ask so many questions?
Note: I never claimed that abiogenesis was simple. I suspect that your English comprehension is lacking, try re-reading what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said.
My own view is a much more simple explanation
I simply took you at your word and concluded that abiogenesis was a simple concept.
I openly stated that it was MY conclusion.
So when are you going to publish your 'proof' that abiogenesis could not occur in the journal Nature? Or is the peer review process a bit too damning for your liking?
There is no need to. The fact that sugars, amino acids, and such are easily oxidized is readily available in any college level chemistry book. That fact that life needs water and oxygen is in every 4 th grade science book.
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversityPress, UK, p. 336.
A man who has spent a significant portion of his life arguing against ID.
So?
Yockey may believe that abiogenesis is an axiom other scientists do not.
He may also believe in little green men but others do not. What is your point?
You do understand he is arguing against just one hypothesis regarding abiogenesis dont you? Or did you just cut and paste from answers in genesis?
I suspect that your English comprehension is lacking, try re-reading what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said:
“Perhaps I should have been more specific. Life could not evolve in a primordial soup.”
As I understand it, all current speculations about abiogenesis involve a primordial soup. If you know of any that don’t involve a primordial soup, let me know.
please please stop bumping this thread... It's just so stupid... Perry post some nonsense written by another moron and we just go off...
You're casting your pearls before swine here...
Perry, you sure got the Atheists all worked up. tsk tsk.
I love how those certain Christians can come here, be insulting, and then feel vindicated because the people they insulted are "worked up." As if Christians never get "worked up" about anything. I must have missed it when "worked up" and "wrong" became synonymous.
Christian: "Atheists are evil amoral fiends! They're stupid and ignorant and...."
Atheist: "Well actually I disagree with that statement because..."
Christian: "LOOK AT HOW WORKED UP YOU ARE!!!!! I MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE SO ANGRY!!!!"
