The Miracle of Water.

[Deeje]

Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman and all that.

That's it.....if its a duck it has to quack like a duck, walk like a duck and swim like one.....that is just the way it is for everything.....it is identified by how it looks, and how it behaves, so that the identification is clear. We can't help it if a duck thinks its an eagle. It will soon find out.

Boy, you really are pessimistic.

To me, it’s absolutely amazing that we are here at all, and we should make the most of our short time in this incredible place.

Enjoy ourselves before we either choke the planet to death of blow ourselves up.....yep. Why worry about tomorrow...it may never eventuate.

Nope. Like I explained already, they’re in the exact same ballpark. Germ theory and the theory of evolution are both scientific theories. Both were arrived at using the same scientific methodology and standards. In fact, you could even say that evolution has more evidence supporting it than germ theory does.

Let's see......"The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory of disease. It states that many diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease. "Germ" may refer to not just a bacterium but to any type of microorganism, especially one which causes disease, such as protists, fungi, viruses, prions, or viroids.[1]Microorganisms that cause disease are called pathogens, and the diseases they cause are called infectious diseases. Even when a pathogen is the principal cause of a disease, environmental and hereditary factors often influence the severity of the disease, and whether a potential host individual becomes infected when exposed to the pathogen. (WIKI)

That's fairly simple and straight forward...do I need a science degree to comprehend that?

Do we see germs under a microscope? Bacteria? Pathogens? Have these been found to cause diseases? Have human carriers been identified as well as methods of transmission by insects such as ticks and mosquitoes? Why is it called a theory when it it clearly established science?

To put evolution in the same ballpark is ridiculous. Who can dispute that evidence...its real. What real evidence does science have for macro-evolution?
You have real evidence for adaptation.....that's it.

You should be embarrassed that you refuse to accept science that conflicts with your pre-conceived views of the world that were written by people who knew far, far, far less about the world than we do today – because they wrote it down in some old book.

I think the embarrassment is all yours. You see the writer of Genesis wrote his information for non-scientific minds to grasp. As man progressed in knowledge, he would discover all manner of things about the world created for him. I'll take that old book over the musings of science any day. Its certainly more reliable, not likely to change tomorrow because someone somewhere made another 'discovery' that made yesterdays 'facts' into rubbish.

The beauty of science is that you don’t have to blindly believe anything. As I’ve pointed out to you countless times before.

I see you’ve sidestepped the point … hmmm

Sidestepped what point? You have to put faith in science's "interpretation" of its "evidence"......what makes you think its not blind? Its the same kind of faith that we place in our interpretation of the Bible. You really can't see the problem, can you?

I see what is there – that organisms evolve over time.

What you see is organisms adapting over time. What you never see is one species changing its taxonomy over time. Macro-evolution is supposedly the same process as micro-evolution but "above species level"....which means what? It means that you have to accept the assumptions that science makes about the whole 'amoebas to dinosaurs' scenario....there is no real evidence that it ever happened. If there was, you science buffs would have produced it by now, but you know that it is all done on inference, assumption and guesswork, and if you provided that evidence, we would all see it, clear as day. You just can't admit that the evidence you have is not real.

What are the odds that the specific God you believe in even exists? What are the odds of life arising by God-magic? What are the odds of any God arising at all? I can play this game too. The problem is, that you have yet to actually demonstrate anything you believe. So far, all you’ve got are assertions.

Is it a game of odds really? Its never been a numbers game with the Creator. His faithful ones have always been in a minority.
If you want to play the game, please know in advance that the winner has already been determined...a very long time ago. What side we choose determines our own future, according to the Bible. Who has the most to lose?
Or if people have already chosen eternal death, because the thought of living under God's rules seems insufferable, then they will get their wish. It all very fair IMO.

Again, wow, you certainly are pessimistic! There are people in the world, as we speak, trying to address those issues.

Is it too little too late? What do you really see being accomplished? And why didn't they do something decades ago when those clever scientists knew how bad it was even then? Men continued to pollute the earth even after the warnings.....there was money to be made....and lifestyles to maintain.

I sure don’t see any gods doing anything about it.

You would see him doing a lot of things if your eyes were open. He does not exist in our time zone, so what he does in our short lifetime may seem imperceptible, but its huge when you take the Bible's entire scenario. It takes us from creation, right through our own time and a thousand years into the future. Not many people are aware of that.

I’m talking in comparison to our past. Would you really argue that we aren’t better off now than say, during the dark ages, or even the Victorian era? Because I sure wouldn’t.

That is relative. In each era there were good and bad things......in the eras that followed, what was formerly seen as good became so horribly old fashioned that it became dreadful to contemplate. My 94 year old Mother has come from the horse and buggy days and has seen so much change in her lifetime. She tells me about things they thought were wonderful in her youth than are now just ancient relics of the past. She looks at today's world and welcomes death because of what she she sees coming. There are no longer baby steps of change, but quantum leaps....very scary for old people. She has tried her best to keep up with an iPad and a mobile phone, got all her marbles, but she dreads getting any older because the future looks hopeless to her. (She is not a JW BTW) According to her..."the world is going to hell in a hand-basket".

Multiple people have pointed out the vast benefits of science to you. But you’re far too pessimistic to see them, apparently.

The "vast benefits of science" pale into insignificance compared with the life-threatening detriments that science has created. I am not blind to those things, but apparently you don't want to acknowledge them. If you pretend that they are not important, will they go away? Will someone fix things before its too late?

Everything is just wonderful!

 

[ecco]

Why is it called a theory when it it clearly established science?

You have been told repeatedly that you do not understand science. You have just admitted that you don't even understand scientific terminology.

 

[ecco]

I'll take that old book over the musings of science any day.

Thank you for admitting that. All your silly anti-evolution comments are really nothing more than your need to constantly reaffirm your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Its certainly more reliable, not likely to change tomorrow because someone somewhere made another 'discovery' that made yesterdays 'facts' into rubbish.

By your way of thinking stagnation is good.
By your way of thinking change and progress is bad.

Why are you using a computer? Why don't you form an offshoot of JW and live life as people did 5000 years ago?

 

[ecco]

Will someone fix things before its too late?

What do you mean "too late"? Too late for what? Too late to make it to your End of Times?

 

[Deeje]

You have been told repeatedly that you do not understand science. You have just admitted that you don't even understand scientific terminology.

Thank you for admitting that. All your silly anti-evolution comments are really nothing more than your need to constantly reaffirm your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

By your way of thinking stagnation is good.
By your way of thinking change and progress is bad.

Why are you using a computer? Why don't you form an offshoot of JW and live life as people did 5000 years ago?

What do you mean "too late"? Too late for what? Too late to make it to your End of Times?

And there it is...post after post of anti-creation drivel. What is that supposed to achieve in a debate?

You got anything of substance to contribute?.......you know, like some actual evidence that you can substantiate with something more than assumption, assertion or suggestion that macro-evolution ever happened? The infantile sniping is just getting old.....

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And there it is...post after post of anti-creation drivel. What is that supposed to achieve in a debate?

You got anything of substance to contribute?.......you know, like some actual evidence that you can substantiate with something more than assumption, assertion or suggestion that macro-evolution ever happened? The infantile sniping is just getting old.....

It is infantile that you dismiss, question, and ignore any scientific evidence that threatens to expose the utter lunacy of your religious rationale. It is infantile to deny, avoid, and redirect your obvious burden of proof, and avoid addressing a religious narrative, "that you can't substantiate with something more than assumption, assertion or suggestion..". It is infantile and manic, to maintain a position of pseudo-sophistry hiding behind silly parroted mantras and smoke-and-mirror logic. It is also infantile to engage in any rational debate with the intentions of, proselytizing, or just responding simply to go the distance. I think that you should be very thankful that you receive any attention at all for your religious drivel. Especially, from rational and critical thinkers.

Maybe you can explain to the scientific community why macro-evolution never happened? I didn't think so. But, I can certainly understand how you might misconstrue that other scientists do. So, it might be better that you stick to preaching only to the choir with your pseudo scientific understanding. And, truly avoid venturing outside of the choir, to face those who practice and teach science everyday.

 

[Deeje]

There has never in the history of the world been so many living so long, so healthfully, so comfortably, and with so much economic and social opportunity. Your religious dogma has deprived you of your ability to love and respect humanity.

In your bubble that may be true...but not for those who don't live where you do, or haven't got the means that you have. Or perhaps who aren't aging as well as you might be?

My husband was confined to a nursing home for the last 3 years of his life because I could not provide the level of care he needed when he became completely disabled. I visited him ever day.....and what I saw in that nursing home was appalling. Useless old bodies in beds, barely living, taking up space and making money for the fat cats in management who did not take proper care of them by providing enough staff to do that.

One elderly lady was always calling out because her health was failing and family visited only once in a while, but no one had time to sit and comfort her. She was afraid of death. I sat with her often trying to reassure her till I got to the point where I threatened to report them for neglect if they did not do something to ease her suffering. The next day I found her sitting alone in a chair beside her bed, drugged to the eyeballs. I went in the next day to find that she had passed away that night. Did they use those drugs to kill her? They certainly ended her suffering but not the way I hoped they would. She was a beautiful soul who deserved better. I saw that...imagine all the things I didn't see.

The elderly are not cared for in those places because management runs those nursing homes on a shoestring budget....all the profits are used up by the fat cats at the top. The care is inadequate, too little staff to do their job compassionately, the food is disgusting and those who visit family members only once in a while have no idea what is going on in those facilities. Most of those poor things can't even tell their families what they are enduring on a daily basis. Please tell those people how wonderful it is to be kept alive to make someone rich.

We have natural expectations that humankind can progress through generations with a better standard of living than the last. There is no doubt that some can live long and reasonably healthy lives, but it has way more to do with good genetics than it does medications.
Our food is so far from that which the Creator gave us, that we are eating ourselves sick...not enough to kill us outright, but enough to make sure that we don't have an aging process that doesn't require medication...lots of it. Keeping old people alive longer is more money in the bank for drug companies and nursing homes. Living longer is highly overrated if it is not living better. I don't know too many people who are enjoying old age.

In my life, every day. We're having a mini-split air conditioner / heater unit installed this month, as well as a couple more solar panels to power them. They are remarkably inexpensive thanks to modern manufacturing technology.

I have those already.....they are wonderful inventions...the good aspects of science. We have just had heatwave conditions here and my air con and solar have been a God send, especially for my 94 year old mother. What does that have to do with evolution?

My father's sister limped from childhood polio. I've never seen a new case in my entire life thanks to science.

Who said science was all bad? I am not a great believer in mass vaccinations for infants with underdeveloped immune systems myself, but in the days before they had so many of them, single dose vaccines were certainly not as harmful. I too lived through the polio epidemics and received my shots at school. It was better when it was a few drops of syrup under the tongue.

People are still told that multiple vaccinations, given to infants for many viruses all at once, are not harmful. When have you ever known a child to have multiple viruses all at once? What would happen to them if they did? The body usually handles one virus at a time. Vaccines I believe should be administered the same way, but only the necessary ones. Too many of them are useless and unnecessary, particularly flu vax. Some of them linked to the epidemic of autism.

You're deliberately blind to the miracles of science. You miss out on so much.

Who is blind to scientific achievement.....that doesn't mean that I put science on the same pedestal that you do. I can see that for every good thing science has achieved, there are many more things for which it should be ashamed....splitting the atom for one. Atomic weapons are just a boon to mankind aren't they?
Many of the chemical pollutants that are discarded in our ocean outfalls, not to mention the tons of drugs and hormones excreted from human waste that end up there too.

Do you eat fish? I don't.

"You sit at your computer in the comfort of your air conditioned home in the glow of electric lighting even at night while linked to a vast network of other computers, You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

All of which needed intelligent minds to create....yet the world you live in with its endless supply of free water, plumbing, heating, lighting and food, not to mention the supercomputer that is the human brain, all just created itself, accidentally.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server. This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor over 10,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.

Yes! Its an amazing array of technological brilliance.....using the ingenuity of intelligent minds....but saying that it was all just a series of fortunate accidents.....now that would be a bunch of man made hogwash.

You detest humanity.

I love humanity.....I just hate to see people give up God for an unproven alternative that lets them think they are off the hook for accountability. Perception management at its finest.......But to each his own.
We choose who and what to believe.

Do you understand that if you weren't human yourself, those would be fighting words? If you were a member of a non-human race of beings competing with humanity and spreading such misanthropic messages, you would be called a human-hating bigot.

Are you calling me a misanthropic, human-hating bigot. IANS
I assure you that I am not.....I said...."And in each generation it just keeps getting worse. Today's kids are 'entitled snowflakes' who can't handle the word "no". They have all the rights given to them by law, but accept no responsibility for their actions. I can only imagine where they will take us.....Spoiled brats in leadership positions."
Are you saying that statement is in error? Who would I be fighting with if I said them? Its the truth.

Yes. Use your search engine if you want to know more.

So you can't tell me why governments spend billions of dollars on space research when they can't even feed, house, or give medical assistance to those who live on earth? What about the countless billions spent on the military and the development of ever more heinous weapons? If the money spent on wasting lives was spent on saving them, wouldn't the world be a much happier place? Wouldn't it be nice to have the world outside of your bubble be as happy as you seem to be?

Nor does the theory say that organisms do that. Once in a taxonomic family, you and your descendants are there for good. Likewise with taxonomic orders, classes, and phyla. You really ought to learn a little something about the scientific theory that you lambaste to those that do know it.

LOL....how did they get to be in a taxonomic family in the first place? Please show us this process that science has so much "evidence" for....all the way from amoebas to dinosaurs. Where is all this evidence? I think you ignore what you don't want to think about.

Isn't it amazing that the science buffs here never give you anything but a hard time.....?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that may be true...but not for those who don't live where you do, or haven't got the means that you have. Or perhaps who aren't aging as well as you might be?

Your point? Mine was "There has never in the history of the world been so many living so long, so healthfully, so comfortably, and with so much economic and social opportunity. Your religious dogma has deprived you of your ability to love and respect humanity."

Did you care to address that?

My husband was confined to a nursing home for the last 3 years of his life because I could not provide the level of care he needed when he became completely disabled. I visited him ever day.....and what I saw in that nursing home was appalling. Useless old bodies in beds, barely living, taking up space and making money for the fat cats in management who did not take proper care of them by providing enough staff to do that.

I'm sorry about that, but what is the relevance to the progress of mankind or my comment about the ongoing improvement of the human condition?

There is no doubt that some can live long and reasonably healthy lives, but it has way more to do with good genetics than it does medications.

Advances in longevity, preservation of function, and comfort have proceeded much faster than evolution. It cannot all be due to genetics.

What does that have to do with evolution?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

Who said science was all bad?

I don't know. Maybe nobody. Why do you ask?

I can see that for every good thing science has achieved, there are many more things for which it should be ashamed

Then you see what is not there, which is one of the chief problems with faith-based thought.

All of which needed intelligent minds to create

OK. Did you have a point?

I love humanity

No you don't. Your words about mankind are derogatory. If you discussed your husband the way you do mankind, nobody would believe that you loved him, either. Remember, to you, all of mankind is corrupt, an ancient idea from a misanthropic holy book that still casts its dark shadow on the minds of people today.

Are you calling me a misanthropic, human-hating bigot. IANS

I find your religious worldview to be dark, misanthropic, and nihilistic. You have accepted it.

So you can't tell me why governments spend billions of dollars on space research

Sure I can, but I am not motivated to research answers for you. A few pages back, you asked another poster for evidence of what you called macroevolution. He provided you a Talk Origins link. I have no doubt that you never looked at it, much less pore over it evaluating its claims and coming back to this thread with your reasoned objections. You don't use evidence to decide what is real, so why pretend otherwise?

Anyway, as I've told you repeatedly, if you want to learn, you need to make an effort. That's how the rest of us learned. If you cared about this subject, you'd have had your answers years ago.

how did they get to be in a taxonomic family in the first place? Please show us this process that science has so much "evidence" for....all the way from amoebas to dinosaurs. Where is all this evidence?

Sorry, but if the time ever comes that you are interested in learning, you'll have to find those answers yourself. You've cried wolf here too many times, requesting evidence that you never commented upon, undoubtedly because you never looked at it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And there it is...post after post of anti-creation drivel. What is that supposed to achieve in a debate?

Those actually appear to be directly related to comments you've made.

Why not respond?

You got anything of substance to contribute?.......you know, like some actual evidence that you can substantiate with something more than assumption, assertion or suggestion that macro-evolution ever happened? The infantile sniping is just getting old.....

Do you?

Evolution has mountains of evidence behind it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In your bubble that may be true...but not for those who don't live where you do, or haven't got the means that you have. Or perhaps who aren't aging as well as you might be?

In reality. In the real world, that you seem to avoid at all costs.

That claim is demonstrably true.

My husband was confined to a nursing home for the last 3 years of his life because I could not provide the level of care he needed when he became completely disabled. I visited him ever day.....and what I saw in that nursing home was appalling. Useless old bodies in beds, barely living, taking up space and making money for the fat cats in management who did not take proper care of them by providing enough staff to do that.

One elderly lady was always calling out because her health was failing and family visited only once in a while, but no one had time to sit and comfort her. She was afraid of death. I sat with her often trying to reassure her till I got to the point where I threatened to report them for neglect if they did not do something to ease her suffering. The next day I found her sitting alone in a chair beside her bed, drugged to the eyeballs. I went in the next day to find that she had passed away that night. Did they use those drugs to kill her? They certainly ended her suffering but not the way I hoped they would. She was a beautiful soul who deserved better. I saw that...imagine all the things I didn't see.

The elderly are not cared for in those places because management runs those nursing homes on a shoestring budget....all the profits are used up by the fat cats at the top. The care is inadequate, too little staff to do their job compassionately, the food is disgusting and those who visit family members only once in a while have no idea what is going on in those facilities. Most of those poor things can't even tell their families what they are enduring on a daily basis. Please tell those people how wonderful it is to be kept alive to make someone rich.

Do you know where that elderly lady would be, even a hundred years ago? She'd have been dead long ago. And she probably would have died a horrible death at home or on the streets, with little to no professional health care available to ease her suffering.

The very fact that we have nursing homes at all, speaks to IANS' point.

My grandmother lived out her final days quite comfortably in a nursing home; in fact, she preferred it to her own home. Anecdotes are great, aren't they?

We have natural expectations that humankind can progress through generations with a better standard of living than the last. There is no doubt that some can live long and reasonably healthy lives, but it has way more to do with good genetics than it does medications.

We have better than that - we can see that it is true.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to medications. There are many, many medications that have helped increase the quality and quantity of life for a great many people in this world.

It's strange that you have to avoid reality at every turn.

Our food is so far from that which the Creator gave us, that we are eating ourselves sick...not enough to kill us outright, but enough to make sure that we don't have an aging process that doesn't require medication...lots of it. Keeping old people alive longer is more money in the bank for drug companies and nursing homes. Living longer is highly overrated if it is not living better. I don't know too many people who are enjoying old age.

I know many people who are enjoying old age. Again, with the anecdotes.

I have those already.....they are wonderful inventions...the good aspects of science. We have just had heatwave conditions here and my air con and solar have been a God send, especially for my 94 year old mother. What does that have to do with evolution?

Who said science was all bad? I am not a great believer in mass vaccinations for infants with underdeveloped immune systems myself, but in the days before they had so many of them, single dose vaccines were certainly not as harmful. I too lived through the polio epidemics and received my shots at school. It was better when it was a few drops of syrup under the tongue.

People are still told that multiple vaccinations, given to infants for many viruses all at once, are not harmful. When have you ever known a child to have multiple viruses all at once? What would happen to them if they did? The body usually handles one virus at a time. Vaccines I believe should be administered the same way, but only the necessary ones. Too many of them are useless and unnecessary, particularly flu vax. Some of them linked to the epidemic of autism.

They're not harmful. Demonstrably so. NO vaccines are linked to autism. NONE, NADA, ZILCH. Shame on your for repeating a dangerous lie.

If you disagree, go ahead and go to medical school and present your views to the medical community.

Who is blind to scientific achievement.....that doesn't mean that I put science on the same pedestal that you do. I can see that for every good thing science has achieved, there are many more things for which it should be ashamed....splitting the atom for one. Atomic weapons are just a boon to mankind aren't they?
Many of the chemical pollutants that are discarded in our ocean outfalls, not to mention the tons of drugs and hormones excreted from human waste that end up there too.

It's not scientists polluting our oceans, it's corporations.

Do you eat fish? I don't.

All of which needed intelligent minds to create....yet the world you live in with its endless supply of free water, plumbing, heating, lighting and food, not to mention the supercomputer that is the human brain, all just created itself, accidentally.

Who created God?

Yes! Its an amazing array of technological brilliance.....using the ingenuity of intelligent minds....but saying that it was all just a series of fortunate accidents.....now that would be a bunch of man made hogwash.

I love humanity.....I just hate to see people give up God for an unproven alternative that lets them think they are off the hook for accountability. Perception management at its finest.......But to each his own.
We choose who and what to believe.

Are you calling me a misanthropic, human-hating bigot. IANS
I assure you that I am not.....I said...."And in each generation it just keeps getting worse. Today's kids are 'entitled snowflakes' who can't handle the word "no". They have all the rights given to them by law, but accept no responsibility for their actions. I can only imagine where they will take us.....Spoiled brats in leadership positions."
Are you saying that statement is in error? Who would I be fighting with if I said them? Its the truth.

Actually, it's your opinion.

So you can't tell me why governments spend billions of dollars on space research when they can't even feed, house, or give medical assistance to those who live on earth? What about the countless billions spent on the military and the development of ever more heinous weapons? If the money spent on wasting lives was spent on saving them, wouldn't the world be a much happier place? Wouldn't it be nice to have the world outside of your bubble be as happy as you seem to be?


LOL....how did they get to be in a taxonomic family in the first place? Please show us this process that science has so much "evidence" for....all the way from amoebas to dinosaurs. Where is all this evidence? I think you ignore what you don't want to think about.

Isn't it amazing that the science buffs here never give you anything but a hard time.....?

It's really funny that you're claiming that someone else lives in a bubble. Bizarre, actually.

 

[ecco]

All ecco:

↑
You have been told repeatedly that you do not understand science. You have just admitted that you don't even understand scientific terminology.
↑
Thank you for admitting that. All your silly anti-evolution comments are really nothing more than your need to constantly reaffirm your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
↑
By your way of thinking stagnation is good.
By your way of thinking change and progress is bad.

Why are you using a computer? Why don't you form an offshoot of JW and live life as people did 5000 years ago?
↑
What do you mean "too late"? Too late for what? Too late to make it to your End of Times?​

And there it is...post after post of anti-creation drivel. What is that supposed to achieve in a debate?

What? What anti-creation drivel? I said nothing about Creationism.
If I said nothing about Creationism, how can you accuse me of posting
"anti-creation drivel"?

You got anything of substance to contribute?.......you know, like some actual evidence that you can substantiate with something more than assumption, assertion or suggestion that macro-evolution ever happened? The infantile sniping is just getting old.....

I and others have repeatedly stated that posting evidence to you is a waste of time.
I and others have repeatedly stated that you do not have the educational background to reject science.
I and others have repeatedly stated the reason is that you, like most JWs, are firmly indoctrinated into dismissing any and all evidence regarding Evolution.


Pointing out the painful truth is not infantile sniping.

 

[nPeace]

Sure I can, but I am not motivated to research answers for you. A few pages back, you asked another poster for evidence of what you called macroevolution. He provided you a Talk Origins link. I have no doubt that you never looked at it, much less pore over it evaluating its claims and coming back to this thread with your reasoned objections. You don't use evidence to decide what is real, so why pretend otherwise?

I'm sure Deeje gave a response, and will respond to this as well.
Can I give you a link and get your response?
- Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -

 

[nPeace]

....I can see that for every good thing science has achieved, there are many more things for which it should be ashamed....splitting the atom for one. Atomic weapons are just a boon to mankind aren't they?
Many of the chemical pollutants that are discarded in our ocean outfalls, not to mention the tons of drugs and hormones excreted from human waste that end up there too.

So you can't tell me why governments spend billions of dollars on space research when they can't even feed, house, or give medical assistance to those who live on earth? What about the countless billions spent on the military and the development of ever more heinous weapons? If the money spent on wasting lives was spent on saving them, wouldn't the world be a much happier place? Wouldn't it be nice to have the world outside of your bubble be as happy as you seem to be?

You can say that again.
Writing a book about scientific achievements is easy.
It's just that some prefer to remain blind to the overwhelming evidence of its destructive use by power hungry greedy two foot bacteria.

I watched a Mariana Trench exploration.
The quest "to boldly go where no man has gone before".

What's the quest?
8000 meters below the surface of the waters... is there life that can survive the pressure?
They build landers that can withstand the pressure, and send them down.
Ooh. Look, fishies!
Whoa. We did it!
Um. What did you do?
Now let's collect some ALIVE, and examine them, to understand how they survive these pressures.
Sending down some containers, they bring up some DEAD fish.
We got a few dead fish to look at.
Cool. They are like other sea creatures of their kind.
Um. Duh.
Okay. Now what?


Now after playing with their toys, what will become of them?


... and where will that end up?

They will moan and groan for a time, about what we can do. Then...
Ready for the next exploration.

They are right on track though.
Revelation 11:18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

 

[Deeje]

I'm sure Deeje gave a response, and will respond to this as well.
Can I give you a link and get your response?
- Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -

I think I'll just allow that link to speak for itself.

Since the science buffs are reluctant to post their "overwhelming evidence", this banter is just rehashing. They can just talk among themselves to prop up their lack of actual evidence with more pathetic excuses. I'm over it actually.

So unless I see some actual evidence provided that shows us positive proof that the "macro" part of their theory is true......I'll just wait and see. Will it be provided without supposition, assertion or suggestion? I'll be waiting......

 

[nPeace]

I think I'll just allow that link to speak for itself.

Since the science buffs are reluctant to post their "overwhelming evidence", this banter is just rehashing. They can just talk among themselves to prop up their lack of actual evidence with more pathetic excuses. I'm over it actually.

So unless I see some actual evidence provided that shows us positive proof that the "macro" part of their theory is true......I'll just wait and see. Will it be provided without supposition, assertion or suggestion? I'll be waiting......

I am glad for you.
I keep seeing, "There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution." ...and I'm thinking... "Is there a broken record in here, or Polly the parrot."

 

[ecco]

I'm sure Deeje gave a response, and will respond to this as well.
Can I give you a link and get your response?
- Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -

I looked at the article in the link and found a rebuttal from which I excerpted one small section.

my bold...

Reply to Fernandez

For Mr. Fernandez to engage in such conduct, and then claim that the Talk.Origins Archive is an "affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility" takes hypocrisy to a new level. It takes a great deal of chutzpah, and a complete lack of integrity, to use deliberate omissions of context as a basis for accusing someone else of deception by omission.
​

Care to respond?

 

[ecco]

I think I'll just allow that link to speak for itself.

Here's the rebuttal
Reply to Fernandez
I'm sure you won't read it and see how deceptive your Mr. Fernandez is.

 

[Deeje]

Here's the rebuttal
Reply to Fernandez
I'm sure you won't read it and see how deceptive your Mr. Fernandez is.

Let's take a few bits and I will highlight the phrases that I believe you may just skip over.....I won't comment on everything but will pick some points that I believe are relevant....btw, he is not "my Mr Fernandez". He is just a man with some good points on the subject.

"Although Mr. Fernandez might wish it were otherwise, the accepted scientific view is that biodiversity -- the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution. This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field now, and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It has been longer still -- over two centuries -- since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science."

OK, so "the accepted scientific view" is accepted by whom? Scientists of course....and anyone who wants to accept their belief system.
Who said that the "accepted scientific view" is the correct one if they don't have to prove it? Is the "accepted scientific view" somehow viewed as sacred scripture...inspired by god-like scientists?

"the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution....and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species"
Is this really an established scientific fact? Or is it an assumption based on stepping outside of what science can actually prove.....adaptation?

Has science really got evidence that "evolution above species level" is demonstrable at all? What happened in the beginning to give science this idea? How did they manage to imagine amoebas accidentally morphing themselves into dinosaurs? This is where we see the biggest vacuum where evidence is concerned. No one can ever show us the process except by suggestion in diagrams.
The foundations of this impressive edifice created by those with great minds, is made of matchsticks.

"This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field".......so? Isn't that what we would expect to find when bullying and derision and loss of a job would follow any dissent? Better to shut up and keep your personal views to yourself.

"since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science".
I am not a believer in YEC. I believe YEC is the mirror image of evolution but in the opposite direction. Both equally absurd.

"It is not clear to me that the majority of the volunteers who work on the Archive are in fact atheists or agnostics. In fact, I do not know what their beliefs are -- it's not a topic which comes up much. In the area of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I can only speak for myself, and I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic. I am a Roman Catholic. Although Mr. Fernandez might wish otherwise, there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations which feel that there is no compelling theological reason to cling to a Young-Earth view of earth history. There is also no shortage of Christians who find no compelling theological reason to object to an evolutionary view of the history of life."

"I do not know what their beliefs are -- it's not a topic which comes up much. In the area of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I can only speak for myself, and I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic."
I would be surprised if the topic of religion was ever mentioned in the great halls of science...its a dirty word.

"I am a Roman Catholic"
Always makes me smile when I hear those attached to Christendom admit to being evolutionists. If they cannot see the diametrically opposed position that this puts them in...what is there to say? Its like saying "I believe the Bible, but not when it makes me look silly" ......its not like they don't look silly enough just by the way they conduct their worship.

"there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations which feel that there is no compelling theological reason to cling to a Young-Earth view of earth history."
Can a person profess to believe in God and so easily put him away when someone provides an alternative idea that sounds more convincing? Maybe they feel as if they can have a foot in both camps.....but it never was an "either/or" issue. YEC's made it either /or by proffering their own suggestions about how creation was generated. They made no allowance for the meaning of Genesis in its original language. The Bible and science agree....because they both have the same author.

I could go on but why bother?

You can hang on to your belief and I will hang on to mine. Lets see how it all pans out, shall we?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can say that again.
Writing a book about scientific achievements is easy.
It's just that some prefer to remain blind to the overwhelming evidence of its destructive use by power hungry greedy two foot bacteria.

I watched a Mariana Trench exploration.
The quest "to boldly go where no man has gone before".

What's the quest?
8000 meters below the surface of the waters... is there life that can survive the pressure?
They build landers that can withstand the pressure, and send them down.
Ooh. Look, fishies!
Whoa. We did it!
Um. What did you do?
Now let's collect some ALIVE, and examine them, to understand how they survive these pressures.
Sending down some containers, they bring up some DEAD fish.
We got a few dead fish to look at.
Cool. They are like other sea creatures of their kind.
Um. Duh.
Okay. Now what?


Now after playing with their toys, what will become of them?


... and where will that end up?

They will moan and groan for a time, about what we can do. Then...
Ready for the next exploration.

They are right on track though.
Revelation 11:18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

The destructive power of learning how the world we live in operates? LOL Okay then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think I'll just allow that link to speak for itself.

Since the science buffs are reluctant to post their "overwhelming evidence", this banter is just rehashing. They can just talk among themselves to prop up their lack of actual evidence with more pathetic excuses. I'm over it actually.

So unless I see some actual evidence provided that shows us positive proof that the "macro" part of their theory is true......I'll just wait and see. Will it be provided without supposition, assertion or suggestion? I'll be waiting......

You've seen evidence. Many times. You simply brush it away. Every time.