"God cannot create a square circle"

[GenesisNemesis]

No, I'm reacting to your stupidity. It's called frustration.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You say all things must be created...you say all things that are created must have a cause. Except one problem. We have never witnessed matter being created. So your initial premise is setting a condition that may be entirely irrelevant. If all things never started to exist, they then didn't need a creator.

All things have a starting point except for the initial cause.

The initial cause? You mean the arbitrary savior to the logic problem you think you solved?

Our universe has a starting point.

That is unsubstantiated. The universe may have only had a transition point.

Life has a starting point. How does the universe or life start?

Life started through the inevitability of chance. The universe may have never "started". What I find peculiar is why that question boggles your mind while the exact same for god doesn't.

One way is for a living entity to create the universe and life. Thus, God.

That has all the logical coherence of a ham sandwich made of bologna. You can't say all things need a creator and then say well, except for my creator. He didn't need to be created.

Can the universe come into existence out of nothing and spontaneously.

There is no evidence to suggest the universe ever dd just come from nothing. So the question is irrelevant.

 

[Rhea]

I believe you. However, if your non-belief is legitimate, then you should react no differently to God than you do to Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster. You react differently to God. It's not a matter of reading your thoughts - we need only read the comments you post.

Another voice to confirm that the reasons we react differently is twofold.

1. None of us react "to god," (which is not real) We react to God Believers (who are real) and the reason for this is
2. God Believers want to control us based on dictates from their flawed interpretation of their fairy tale (double fail!) in direct, unpleasant and downright dangerous ways. God believers are a danger to our freedoms and our health. Santa believers, uhhhh, never. Easter bunny believers - never a threat. FSM believers, not once has one of them tried to pass an FSM-inspired law that limits my freedoms or my health or life.

So, now that you know, this makes perfect secular sense, doesn't it? Amazing. When you think outside the godbox.

God has no more impact on me than Santa, Easter Bunny or FSM and I am confident and secure in this fact.
God BELIEVERS, on the other hand, have had - and want to have - a very very VERY much larger impact on me and other humans than the other types of believers.
Our concern about the freakish dangerous god-believers is quite legitimate.

 

[Rhea]

Here's another laughable fact.

You say that "Order" or "Family" represent what was on the boat. Your laughably uneducated link friend says "genus". So you two will need to NAME THE ANIMALS in order to make any coherent claims. So far = incoherent.

I guess more work needs to be done.

Yes. Much more work needs to be done in understanding evolution and biology before you are qualified to make any claims about it whatsoever. And just plain science. More work is needed by you in understanding science. You should be ashamed of yourself believing an article that sweepingly claims, "so there is plenty of room" with not only no shred of evidence, but not even an adequate statement of the problem to determine the needed evidence. Just godditit - BOOM! It's stupid and foolish and fails to use the brain god gave you.

 

[rhutchin]

Yes. Much more work needs to be done in understanding evolution and biology before you are qualified to make any claims about it whatsoever. And just plain science. More work is needed by you in understanding science. You should be ashamed of yourself believing an article that sweepingly claims, "so there is plenty of room" with not only no shred of evidence, but not even an adequate statement of the problem to determine the needed evidence. Just godditit - BOOM! It's stupid and foolish and fails to use the brain god gave you.

Still the evolutionary biology side needs more work also. The evos still have to find a method to take whatever original life form it imagines to have existed in the beginning to the variety of life we have today. A mechanism to give us the first life form is up in the air. The only thing that biology has shown to work is speciation and that does not work against the Biblical account.

 

[rhutchin]

I believe you. However, if your non-belief is legitimate, then you should react no differently to God than you do to Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster. You react differently to God. It's not a matter of reading your thoughts - we need only read the comments you post.

Another voice to confirm that the reasons we react differently is twofold.

1. None of us react "to god," (which is not real) We react to God Believers (who are real) and the reason for this is
2. God Believers want to control us based on dictates from their flawed interpretation of their fairy tale (double fail!) in direct, unpleasant and downright dangerous ways. God believers are a danger to our freedoms and our health. Santa believers, uhhhh, never. Easter bunny believers - never a threat. FSM believers, not once has one of them tried to pass an FSM-inspired law that limits my freedoms or my health or life.

So, now that you know, this makes perfect secular sense, doesn't it? Amazing. When you think outside the godbox.

God has no more impact on me than Santa, Easter Bunny or FSM and I am confident and secure in this fact.
God BELIEVERS, on the other hand, have had - and want to have - a very very VERY much larger impact on me and other humans than the other types of believers.
Our concern about the freakish dangerous god-believers is quite legitimate.

People who believe in God have the right to participate in the political system as much as anyone else. You vote; they vote.

If you are upset with "people" why are you so angry (so it seems) at God?

 

[rhutchin]

There is no evidence to suggest the universe ever dd just come from nothing. So the question is irrelevant.

This is an appeal to an uncaused cause as the source of the universe.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm reacting to your stupidity. It's called frustration.

Bummer.

So, why does the system combine two messages that originally were done separately?

 

[Mageth]

People who believe in God have the right to participate in the political system as much as anyone else. You vote; they vote.

And neither Rhea nor anyone else said otherwise.

If you are upset with "people" why are you so angry (so it seems) at God?

Rhea made it clear that she is not "angry at God". Sheesh.

 

[Mageth]

In response to Jimmy Higgins' "There is no evidence to suggest the universe ever dd just come from nothing. So the question is irrelevant", rhutching blurted out...

This is an appeal to an uncaused cause as the source of the universe.

No, it is not.

 

[rhutchin]

Here's another laughable fact.

You say that "Order" or "Family" represent what was on the boat. Your laughably uneducated link friend says "genus". So you two will need to NAME THE ANIMALS in order to make any coherent claims. So far = incoherent.

You claim that the one ancestor gave rise to all of the current species in the whole order, or family or genus (wholly shit that's a really big difference! You should learn the difference between those three words!)

But here's some fun. Say it's Genus. That means Noah's family spawned, in just 4000 year all of:
Homo sapiens
†Homo gautengensis
†Homo habilis
†Homo erectus
†Homo antecessor
†Homo ergaster
†Homo rhodesiensis
†Homo heidelbergensis
†Homo neanderthalensis
†Homo floresiensis
†Denisova hominin
†Red Deer Cave people

(and then they all went extinct after leaving some fossils)

Which one of his kids had the neanderthal baby?

Or in your view, the "family" question, this means Noah's kids spawned all of these:

Subfamily Ponginae
Pongo – orangutans
Subfamily Homininae
Australopithecina
Gorilla – gorillas
Homo – humans
Pan – chimpanzees and bonobos



LOL! So which of Noah's daughters-in-law gave birth to the gorillas?

I'm not even gonna do the "Order" that you "think" might be the common ancestor, because that would...


aw, shucks, I can't resist. If the Noah family were the representatives for the ORDER, here's their offspring:
Order Primates
Suborder Strepsirrhini: lemurs, galagos and lorisids
Infraorder Lemuriformes
Superfamily Lemuroidea
Family Cheirogaleidae: dwarf lemurs and mouse-lemurs (34 species)
Family Daubentoniidae: aye-aye (one species)
Family Lemuridae: ring-tailed lemur and allies (21 species)
Family Lepilemuridae: sportive lemurs (26 species)
Family Indriidae: woolly lemurs and allies (19 species)
Superfamily Lorisoidea
Family Lorisidae: lorisids (14 species)
Family Galagidae: galagos (19 species)
Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
Infraorder Tarsiiformes
Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers (11 species)
Infraorder Simiiformes (or Anthropoidea)
Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
Family Callitrichidae: marmosets and tamarins (42 species)
Family Cebidae: capuchins and squirrel monkeys (14 species)
Family Aotidae: night or owl monkeys (douroucoulis) (11 species)
Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris (43 species)
Family Atelidae: howler, spider, woolly spider and woolly monkeys (29 species)
Parvorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys (138 species)
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hylobatidae: gibbons or "lesser apes" (17 species)
Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans (seven species)



it seems eminently appropriate that Noah is the great granddad of the howler monkey - because this sure is a howler.



NAME THE ANIMALS ON THE BOAT.

Starting with your good research, this is the beginning of the list of the different kinds on the ark:

Humans
Apes
Monkeys
Canine
Feline
Equine
Bovine
Elephant
Giraffe
Dinosaur
Bird
Dove
Raven

 

[Mageth]

Starting with your good research, this is the beginning of the list of the different kinds on the ark:

Humans
Apes
Monkeys
Canine
Feline
Equine
Bovine
Elephant
Giraffe
Dinosaur
Bird
Dove
Raven

This creationist classification system should help you out, rhutchin...

 

[Simplyme]

Now that is funny...........

 

[Rhea]

Yes. Much more work needs to be done in understanding evolution and biology before you are qualified to make any claims about it whatsoever. And just plain science. More work is needed by you in understanding science. You should be ashamed of yourself believing an article that sweepingly claims, "so there is plenty of room" with not only no shred of evidence, but not even an adequate statement of the problem to determine the needed evidence. Just godditit - BOOM! It's stupid and foolish and fails to use the brain god gave you.

Still the evolutionary biology side needs more work also. The evos still have to find a method to take whatever original life form it imagines to have existed in the beginning to the variety of life we have today. A mechanism to give us the first life form is up in the air. The only thing that biology has shown to work is speciation and that does not work against the Biblical account.

Cute dodge. You can't explain the flood story so you skip to biogenesis without answering? Evolutionary biology needs no improvement (notwithstanding science loves looking for more every day and will probably continue to find oodles) to debunk the primitive and rather childlike flood story.

Tell you what. One topic at a time. The Noah flood is a shallow and easily debunked fairy tale. Evolution and the speciation that it describes demonstrates this spectacularly.

Once we finish this and you see that in no way at all in any possible view does evolution support the flood story __THEN__ we can talk about biogenesis. Until you understand your flaws in the foolish noah debacle, you won't understand a THING about biogenesis, so let's be wise enough not to put the cart before the equine, shall we?

Very well then. back to the flood.

You claim these animals were on the boat (as a start):

Humans
Apes
Monkeys
Canine
Feline
Equine
Bovine
Elephant
Giraffe
Dinosaur
Bird
Dove
Raven

Should we talk first about the separate listings of "bird" and "raven"? Obviously you can just cross off "bird" because the bird is a raven. or - wait, the dove is also a bird. Are you saying you think these represent the picture of different "kinds"? Because that means you have to apply the same definition of "kind" to all the other species, you know.

Which is it?
"birds" ?
or
"ravens and doves"?
or
"birds and ravens and doves"? and if ravens and doves are not birds, then what are they, to you?

...

Then we can move on to canine. WHAT CANINE? Tell me what was the animal and how did it look that spawned, in only 4000 years, all of:
all breeds of domestic dogs, all of the foxes, all of the wolves and all of the jackals.

let's do the same with felines, because this is even more spectacular. NAME THE CAT that gave rise to, in only 4000 years:
all of the lions, and tigers and jaguars and panthers, the servals, the ocelots the lynxes, pumas, cheetahs, the leopards in all their variety, the cougars and all the fluffy little fifis who live with humans who look remarkably different than the tigers, yes?


When you do your math problem of whether it is possible to create this many genuses in only 4000 years, bear _firmly_ in mind that I say 4000 years tongue-in-cheek because we all know that 2000 years ago there was already an established small domesticated cat lineage, a tiger lineage, a lion lineage - you get the picture. We know from writing of our ancestors that every single stinkin one of those feline species already existed at the time of the pharoahs - and that they had already migrated to the corners of the earth.

So really, your massive speciation of the one feline that you say is on the ark had only 1000 years to produce all that we see in the world today. And I'm being extremely generous with the 1000 because I don't feel like looking up the first writings that confirm the existence of all of them.

Evolution science does not support this fanciful fairy tale. And you know it. No perky, "so you can see this is all supporting the bible" flim-flam. It's a joke to claim it. A joke, man.

 

[Rhea]

God has no more impact on me than Santa, Easter Bunny or FSM and I am confident and secure in this fact.
God BELIEVERS, on the other hand, have had - and want to have - a very very VERY much larger impact on me and other humans than the other types of believers.
Our concern about the freakish dangerous god-believers is quite legitimate.

People who believe in God have the right to participate in the political system as much as anyone else. You vote; they vote.

You are making a very elementary mistake here. You are confusing your right to vote, which I support wholeheartedly, with some perceived right to not be mocked for saying foolish things and to moreover not be feared for doing dangerous things.

These are two distinct things. No one has made any move to take away your vote. But darling, when you vote for slavery you WILL be mocked for being foolish to think that is constitutional and you WILL be named as a monster for supporting it and you WILL be feared as a threat to decent society.

You need to understand that your right to believe does NOT equal some right to force me to hew to a fairy tale, especially a monstrous one. Believe all you want in the dark black depths of your sanctuaries. But when you try to use your right to believe as a mandate to cudgel non-believers, then you are unconstitutional as well as immoral. And you have no "right" to avoid that well-earned label.


It's like those narcissists who think their constitutional right to pray means they are guaranteed an audience for it by the government. No, dude. Pray all you want in private. But when the government gathers a crowd, it's not gathered for the sake your your Pharisaic public self aggrandizement.

If you are upset with "people" why are you so angry (so it seems) at God?

Trying to figure out what fabrication you are using to support this claim. Are you lying for Jesus again? If you can name an instance of me or anyone being "mad at" something we don't believe exists, then quote it. Otherwise it's time to recognize you are telling untruths about others. This is "bearing false witness" and I believe it can make you burn for eternity while your god enjoys the smell.

I can't be mad at Santa, or the easter bunny or the FSM or Yahweh or leprechauns or jesus. They are all fantasy. But I can definitely be angry at _humans_ who are monstrous enough to believe that murdering your own son because a voice in your head said it was a good idea. I can definitely be upset at _humans_ who want to force me to do rituals to such an idea.

 

[atrib]

God can create a universe that behaves certain laws. He can then intervene in that universe to cause events that could not happen under the laws He established to govern the universe.

We generally use 'universe' to describe 'everything that exists.' This 'everything' would include gods, were they to exist, and any process they use to make things happen, whether or not this replicates processes that exist without their intervention.

You're special-casing God as apart from the universe. Thus redefining existing words for your agenda.... And that's just not cricket.

Within the context of the Bible, originally God was all that existed. God then created the universe making the universe a small portion of existence.

The Bible is a collection of mythological stories gathered together by our ancestors who did not know any better. There is no reason to believe that the supernatural claims of the Bible are credible. Your belief in the Bible is not supported by any evidence that you can provide; it is likely driven by a complex combination of factors including fear, guilt, emotional vulnerability and the environment in which you were raised and/or currently exist.

 

[atrib]

A miracle is something which cannot be explained by natural law as we understand them. There is plenty of room in our ignorance to find the explanation of miracles.

No. By definition, a miracle cannot be explained by natural law even if we have perfect understanding of natural law. A miracle cannot come about through natural laws. The question is whether such things as the appearance of life constitute a miracle.

No. We don't have a perfect understanding of natural law. Therefore it's premature to consider anything to be a miracle, much less confidently label it to be such.

True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin.

Untrue. Our current state of understanding of the reality we find ourselves in does not lead to any such conclusion.

 

[atrib]

And a naturalist system cannot create the universe or life.

This is untrue. See above.

Nothing illogical about it. God can do as he pleases.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Bummer.

I forgive you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is an appeal to an uncaused cause as the source of the universe.

Your claim is that the universe would have had to pop into existance from nothing. That would be an uncaused cause.

I'm saying that according to the laws of physics and what we do know, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe never existed, meaning it didn't need a cause to exist because it was never created. Oddly enough, this is the exact same argument you use for your deity, and you have no issues with it there.

Starting with your good research, this is the beginning of the list of the different kinds on the ark:

Humans
Apes
Monkeys
Canine
Feline
Equine
Bovine
Elephant
Giraffe
Dinosaur
Bird
Dove
Raven

See, I see this list and again think you must be pulling our legs. You list bird, and then two types of particular birds. You do so again with primates. Then you nonchalantly mention "dinosaur". The fossil record is clear. And if all those types of dinosaurs died during the flood, as preserved in rock, then there needed to be more than just a dinosaur on the boat. So you can't possibly be serious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And another thing. Why does there need to be a "bird" on board? He already has a dove and a raven. Though, it does seem interesting, that even the story itself indicates that Noah took on subspecies, not merely kinds. It isn't as if God commanded Noah to get doves and ravens as a special task.