GenesisNemesis
Let's Go Dark Brandon!
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,024
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
No, I'm reacting to your stupidity. It's called frustration.
The initial cause? You mean the arbitrary savior to the logic problem you think you solved?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.
That is unsubstantiated. The universe may have only had a transition point.Our universe has a starting point.
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.Life has a starting point. How does the universe or life start?
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.One way is for a living entity to create the universe and life. Thus, God.
There is no evidence to suggest the universe ever dd just come from nothing. So the question is irrelevant.Can the universe come into existence out of nothing and spontaneously.
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.
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.
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.
- None of us react "to god," (which is not real) We react to God Believers (who are real) and the reason for this is
- 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.
There is no evidence to suggest the universe ever dd just come from nothing. So the question is irrelevant.
No, I'm reacting to your stupidity. It's called frustration.
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?
This is an appeal to an uncaused cause as the source of the universe.
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
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 claiming these were on the boat said:Humans
Apes
Monkeys
Canine
Feline
Equine
Bovine
Elephant
Giraffe
Dinosaur
Bird
Dove
Raven
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.
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.If you are upset with "people" why are you so angry (so it seems) at God?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin.
And a naturalist system cannot create the universe or life.
Nothing illogical about it. God can do as he pleases.
Bummer.
Your claim is that the universe would have had to pop into existance from nothing. That would be an uncaused cause.This is an appeal to an uncaused cause as the source of the universe.
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.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