INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I get it from reading what you've said and thinking about it.
Adam and Eve didn't know about rebellion until god rigged the game and placed a tree of knowledge of good and evil into the garden and expected people who had no knowledge of good and evil to make decisions regarding good and evil. Again, it doesn't sound to me like a being who wants to exist in perfection and harmony with its creation. It sounds like a being who wants to play games with us.

That is one heck of a spin on things. First let me say I am unsure whether the garden concept is literal of representative. However either way freewill must have a way to deny it's source or it isn't free. I find the claim that being an automaton preferable to having an infinite amount of actions permissible but one that isn't objectionable. Talk about slavery, you seem to be arguing for it. It is truly a wonder what someone who wishes to deny something can turn it into in order to gratify their desire. I do not know what the fruit was (a teacher in college claimed he had proof it was an apricot, I think that proof he was an idiot), but I think it symbolizes rebellion. This is like your complaining about someone giving you a million dollars but one was wrinkled.

That’s not even getting into how strange it is for the torture and murder of a man/god to equate to some kind of forgiveness for all the wrong deeds committed by mankind. Where is the part where we are responsible to each other for the acts we commit against EACH OTHER? So we just imagine Jesus died for our sins and we don’t have to worry about correcting the wrong we’ve done to the actual person we’ve committed the act against?

Man's sin causes its own problems. If you are referring to Hell I do not believe the version the Catholics invented to scare people into Church. I believe Hell is separation from the God you denied and eventual annihilation of the soul you did not create. That is the editorial "you" not the you - you.

And yes, your god does appear to demand we follow his commands. What are the consequences for us if we do not? What if I am honest and confess that I don’t believe in this god for lack of evidence?

God demands only admission of our sin and the acts of Christ. I would say that God might tell you this:
New International Version (©2011)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
He might also say he sent you 1ROBIN to abuse and misuse so horribly (just kidding) and yet you would not believe.
Actually I can only say this. I unlike you have been on both sides and used similar argumentation as an atheist. I am know heartily ashamed of my non-faith and look back on what I can only describe as willful blindness.

 

[1robin]

I don't think we do have reliable evidence that is consistent with god (especially the specific god you believe in) and I don't agree that this supposed evidence has caused shockwaves in modern science.

I dissagree with your dissagreement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not the nature that is in comparison but the relative likely hoods of each. There were no self-replicating mechanisms in discussion here. It was a discussion concerning the building blocks of very complex systems. In fact the bridge is in comparison a set of tinker toys compared with life's complexity. There is no reason to think amino acids would not be found in space. The Earth exists in space. I have not the slightest idea what break through this was supposed to be but it certainly says nothing about life arising on its own. Where have you been anyway? Half my test set is crapped out, I have free time and your on vacation.

All I'm saying is that the comparison needs to be even. Self-replicating organisms and skyscrapers or computers are worlds apart in this type of discussion.

Sorry I've been really busy lately. Figures that you've got free time when I have none.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is one of countless statements, chosen because it condemns it's self.
Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at La Jolla, explained the modern outlook on this question by noting that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
And yet, he added, "We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

You left out the rest of it:

"Pressed to explain what he meant by having "faith" in an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith was not in the event itself so much as in the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood. He would abandon his faith if it ever proved to be misplaced. But that is a prospect he said he considered to be very unlikely.

I bet you are just dying to know what the question referred to in the first sentence is, aren't you? The preceding section was on panspermia vs abiogenesis:

This theory had been proposed before scientists knew how readily the organic materials of life can be synthesized from inorganic matter under the conditions thought to have prevailed in the early days of the earth. Today, Dr. Sagan said, it is far easier to believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth than to try to account for them in any other way."
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"


I thought the quote sounded a bit strange, given the results of the experiments he had conducted with Miller.

 

[1robin]

Then why bother encoding it in the Bible when instead god could have done the opposite, and commanded that it not be practiced because it is wrong? (That’s supposing “he” actually considered slavery wrong in the first place which really doesn’t appear to be the case, at least to me.)

On what basis do you claim God was to provide an injunction against every wrong possible? This is an assumed optimality that God does not have the burden for. That being said he may not have because at one time a version of it was a logical necessity. He does give many laws about its more virulent forms.

Are you telling me god changed “his” mind because people prayed to “him” to end slavery??

No, however this is a good question if stated differently. God never condoned slavery as it existed in the old south. However most of what man does is not preferred by God. He occasionally steps in and ends certain things. God abandoned us to the mess our rebellion caused yet you require him to fix everything. You may feel better to know the God you do not believe in probably does not exist and I have never claimed he did. The God of the Bible is a whole different issue.

Well if god really considered it wrong then “he” should have just said so. Especially considering this is supposedly what “he” did all the time all throughout the Bible. Why not just throw in a commandment against it? Talk about absurdities and faultiness. If this god thought slavery was wrong and not only didn’t say so, but set down rules as to how to treat slaves (which no matter what you say, don’t appear to be all that loving or kind), then again, it sounds like “he” is just playing games with us. Or he doesn’t actually know right from wrong or doesn’t want us to know.

When you become the arbiter of all truth and I become the explainer of every fact we may then have a better debate. As long as you demand that God do as you wish and I am not that God, then there will be grey areas where you demand what you have no basis to and I do not always know why God does this or that. If God made a statement condemning every wrong that we can invent it would truly be the never ending story.

I would have said “all humans are equal and all humans are free” and made sure there were no situations in which anything you mentioned would have had to happen. If I’m god, I can do anything, right?

He did more than that. He gave a rational basis and reason for both those being true. However people (like someone I will not mention) said they would rather invent truth's they wished to be so, and God said then reap the whirlwind (we whipped up). It is a grave error that you assume God's purpose is to make this world right. It being wrong is the evidence of our limitations and the price of sin. He has moral justification to allow the evil we invent to exist to some extent.

 

[McBell]

No matter what terms or words are used to establish morality without God they equal opinion.

Likewise, No matter what terms or words are used to establish morality with God they equal opinion.

The problem here is that you seem to think your opinion is fact.

 

[Agnostic75]

I agree that science can't prove it one way or another which makes your offer to provide scientific quotes quite inconsistent but science can discover evidence that makes the case for God more likely or less so. All true science is at the very least consistent with God. The only part that is used to contend with God is in the fantasy theoretical parts of science and requires more faith than the Bible.

Science cannot make a case that it is probable that a God created this universe. A National Academy of Sciences pamphlet says that the NAS is neutral on the existence of God. That is good enough for me, and for many millions of other people. The main issue is whether it is plausible, or probable, that a God exists. Apparently, science alone cannot determine that.

Of course, the NAS accepts macro evolution, and rejects creationism. The NAS also rejects the global flood theory, but a localized Bible flood story does not make any sense either. I gave some reasons for that in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...68-did-writer-book-genesis-believe-flood.html.

Even if it was probable that a God exists, and it was plausible that naturalism is true, it would be reasonable for people to at least be agnostic pending further scientific research, at least as far as science is concerned. An article at Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998 shows that the majority of leading scientists do not believe that the existence of God is probable.

I think that some of your own sources, Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, do not believe that it is probable that a God created this universe, only plausible.

 

[1robin]

All I'm saying is that the comparison needs to be even. Self-replicating organisms and skyscrapers or computers are worlds apart in this type of discussion.

That's true, the chances random events build skyscrapers is far more likely. What differences there are make life less probable or they exist in area we have little understanding of. Consider this, let's say all the events (with astronomical odds) necessary for your process to even have a chance to take place occur. Then lets even say the 1 in a trillion event manages to occur and life pops into existence. What are the chances that that life form a. pops into existence with the capacity to reproduce fully developed and b. that it survives an extremely lethal environment long enough to do so. Even the absurd odds I keep posting are extraordinarily astronomically generous. There are probably hundreds of events with odds even far worse, that are ALL contingently necessary for life to even have a chance to try. That means multiplication of denominators. It is simply nuts to believe they all took place.

Sorry I've been really busy lately. Figures that you've got free time when I have none.

I haven’t, half my system is kaput? Science?????

 

[1robin]

You left out the rest of it:

"Pressed to explain what he meant by having "faith" in an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith was not in the event itself so much as in the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood. He would abandon his faith if it ever proved to be misplaced. But that is a prospect he said he considered to be very unlikely.

I left it out because it changes nothing.

I bet you are just dying to know what the question referred to in the first sentence is, aren't you? The preceding section was on panspermia vs abiogenesis:

I do not think it matters if the question was about the merits of tidily winks. He used faith and claimed X to be true based on it.

This theory had been proposed before scientists knew how readily the organic materials of life can be synthesized from inorganic matter under the conditions thought to have prevailed in the early days of the earth. Today, Dr. Sagan said, it is far easier to believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth than to try to account for them in any other way."
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Sagan is a weirdo.

I thought the quote sounded a bit strange, given the results of the experiments he had conducted with Miller.

Maybe I missed something but I do not see what changed about it. Besides it was only one of the ones I posted and one of the dozens I could have. I have noticed this a tactic of Bible critics. If I give a list of a dozen things, one will be selected and confused or challenged (correctly or not) and the whole list dismissed. That's efficient but invalid.

 

[1robin]

Science cannot make a case that it is probable that a God created this universe. A National Academy of Sciences pamphlet says that the NAS is neutral on the existence of God. That is good enough for me, and for many millions of other people. The main issue is whether it is plausible, or probable, that a God exists. Apparently, science alone cannot determine that.

Science can do very little with God at all. Science says what natural facts are (or that is what they should be doing). It is the theologian that determines if those facts are consistent with the Bible and they are.

Of course, the NAS accepts macro evolution, and rejects creationism. The NAS also rejects the global flood theory, but a localized Bible flood story does not make any sense either. I gave some reasons for that in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/144868-did-writer-book-genesis-believe-flood.html.

If they do they did so on faith as macroevolution has never been observed.
Creationism comes in many forms. I would have to know which and why they rejected them. In fact with no natural explanation likely for life from non life their pronouncements are a little premature. I think most of these claims stem from the context they approach issue in. They cannot evaluate a supernatural cause and are only claiming that within science they can't accept the supernatural. They have literally no grounds for saying that supernatural causes are not true they can only say that science can't indicate they exist.

Even if it was probable that a God exists, and it was plausible that naturalism is true, it would be reasonable for people to at least be agnostic pending further scientific research, at least as far as science is concerned. An article at Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998 shows that the majority of leading scientists do not believe that the existence of God is probable.

Agnosticism is the only non theistic view I find credible. I do not think it correct but it is respectable.

I think that some of your own sources, Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, do not believe that it is probable that a God created this universe, only plausible.

I am sure they don't and I am also sure that their objection to God is not scientific. They are out of their depths in theology. When the universe ceased to exist on the past timeline they are done. In fact all of science is done. Something made the universe and it was not natural law because nature did not exist and natural law is not causal. 2 + 2 never put $4 in anyone account. I think it meaningless to get a scientists take on the reality of God, it is not accessible to science. Science as I said only says what is as that is all I use Velankin and his like to show. It is only a matter of seeing if that is consistent with the Bible and it is. I could supply endless quotes on God’s existence from the greatest scientists in history but as I said it proves little.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If they do they did so on faith as macroevolution has never been observed.

That is false. Please stop repeating it.

Not only has it been observed, on many occasions, it also fits very well with everything we know about the theory of evolution.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
CB901: No Macroevolution
CB910: New species
Speciation in real time
Cases of Speciation

 

[1robin]

That is false. Please stop repeating it.

Not only has it been observed, on many occasions, it also fits very well with everything we know about the theory of evolution.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
CB901: No Macroevolution
CB910: New species
Speciation in real time
Cases of Speciation

I never said it has no evidence, so does God. It is a faith based conclusion exactly the same way God is. It has not been observed, nothing has ever been observed crossing fertility barrier (I forget the class). In fact they claim (and I agree) that not one example ever will be observed because it takes too long and at no point can anyone say that this change is the one that makes it a new creature. I never even said it isn't true, I just said it is not a known fact but a faith based assertion. (Probably true to some extent). You are a more rabid defender of scientific dogma that I am of doctrine. You would make a good Christian apologist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

p. 107

This is wrong to start with but has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You said that old does not mean good (morally) I said you misunderstood. I did not mean that old is good but old was a description I used to indicate specifically Christian morality that existed in 1940-50 United States. What does that have to do with anything I said about gay people? It sure wasn't what you said anyway. I did not mention a single person that was gay. My comments have always been on the practice not the people.

Gay people are gay. That is who they are. Gayness isn’t just a practice people take up now and then just for fun. (If you think it is, then think about whether you could change your sexuality on a whim and one day decided you’re going to be attracted to people of the opposite sex.) Sexuality is an integral part of every human being.

I could make the argument that gay rights parades are many times the most crude, rebellious, despicable events of any kind these days but I haven't.

I guess you just did.

I am so naive that I have worked with two people that much later on I was told they were extremely gay and open about it yet it is so off my radar I did not even notice. I have never met a gay person I did not like. However I have seen many that I would not like gay or straight on the news. This is a false appeal to sympathy and is the well-known tactic of the PC crowd who have created more evil than they have avoided.

I’m just calling it like I see it. Sorry. If you’ve never met a gay person you didn’t like, then what’s your problem?

I have posted the stats that undeniably prove otherwise. If a person simply redefines morality as equal to opinion or preference then facts will not carry much weight. It is as if I said the sun is hot (at around 5,500C) and you reply that you see no evidence that the sun is hot and you think it made of ice. What can I do about that?
1950 compared to 2013

I think attributing all of these things to mere secularism is folly. Especially when there are obviously more complex factors at play.

1. Drug abuse worse.

Opiate use was out of control during the 19th century. Do you think people living in the 19th century were more secular or less secular than people living in the 1950s or 2013?

2. Teen pregnancy rates worse.

I’ve already shown you that teen pregnancy is NOT worse not than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.

3. Gun crimes worse.

You haven’t show this.

4. Mass shooting events, way worse. It is almost as if secularism is producing moral insanity.

How are you correlating this with secularism? If your argument is going to hinge on the assertion that secularism causes all these terrible things to occur, then you have to demonstrate that the 19th century or the early 20th century was more secular in the past than it is today.

I mean, in the 19th century, Native Americans were being slaughtered left and right by the military. In the 1920s and 1930s there was a huge wave of gun violence thanks to organized crime and prohibition. In 1927 some guy blew up a school killing 38 children, 6 adults and injuring 58 others in what some describe as the worst mass shooting ever to occur in the US. I realize all of this occurred prior to the fantastical 1950s world you imagine, but again, if you want to show that secularism is responsible for these things you need to demonstrate that the US was more secular then, than it is today.

5. Dropout rates, worse.

How does this relate to secularism?

6. Educational standards verses the world, worse. Despite the fact secularists are throwing money at each student at a vastly higher rate than ever before.

If you’re going to attribute this to secularism, then you need to explain why all the other countries around the world that fare far better than US students in educational standards are considerably more secular than the US.

6. Alcohol related crime, worse.

I don’t recall you demonstrating this either.

7. Broken families, way way worse.

How is this a secular problem? Do you think secularism advocates broken families?

This is just getting boring. Is there any statistic where we are more moral now that is not some PC rhetoric? Even if all the above were better now than then abortion would reverse everything anyway. You can't find anything that would even potentially rectify the murder of millions of Babies a year.

You haven’t given any statistics or demonstrated your assertions on any of these claims.

Gee, and here you thought I was obsessed with slavery. Seems you’re obsessed with abortion, mentioning it in practically every post.

Abortion rates have increased because it’s now a safe and legal medical procedure as opposed to 1950 when it wasn’t and in fact, you were much more likely to die after having an abortion in the 1950s than you are today. Furthermore, it appears that abortion was only illegal (until the 4th month of pregnancy) in the US starting around the last third of the 19th century, so again I have to ask, do you believe the US of the late 19th century to be more secular than it currently is? (I’m not sure how you could make such a claim.) And finally, according to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant, 28% as Catholic and 18% of abortions identify as Evangelical/born again. So it appears that the majority of women having abortions currently in the US identify with some form or another of the Christian religion.So once again, I don’t know how you’re blaming this on secularism.



All of these points are negated by the fact that most of them are less prevalent in countries which are considerably more secular than the US.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, as I said long before you mentioned this Homosexuality is just a symptom of a much greater disease. Rebellion and sin are causing al of these problems. Yes I do believe this problem is greater in certain communities, but the causes are social not genetic, so race is not really a big factor. If it was I have no problem claiming it.

You already said that. When you do try to back up this claim we find that you do, in fact, have a problem with promiscuity, rather than actual homosexuality itself (at least the statistic you provide demonstrate as much).

Rebellion and sin are causing homosexuality? Don’t make me laugh! So then to what do you attribute heterosexuality?

I have very little medical arguments against them. I oppose all of it on a theological basis but I try and give more secular than theological arguments (common ground). You gave an example of this well let me give you one.

So then more specifically, what you really have a problem with is promiscuous, homosexual men.

Spoken like a true atheist.

LOL What the hell does that mean?

Don't know them, do not even have any names of them, yet condemn them because they will not adopt what you wish.

What you’ve shared tells me something about their character and their level of intelligence. Of course, all I have to go on is what you’re relaying to me, which could be inaccurate.

First of all, how would it never occur to them that they’ve already been serving alongside gay men all along?

Secondly, they’re only willing to defend their country to the extent that they agree with the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers? And if they don’t, they’re out of there? Sorry, but that doesn’t sound like they were that dedicated to begin with. What are they so afraid of? Why do they not support the supposed freedom of the country they are defending? It sounds more like they want what they want and if they don’t get it then they’re taking their ball and going home.

Thirdly, do you not see that you are propping up the service of these heterosexual men above and beyond that of the gay men? The heterosexual men are condemning the gay soldiers simply because they don’t support their sexual orientation. How are these gay soldiers any less dedicated to defending their country and sacrificing their lives than the ones who left because they don’t like gay people? I mean, effectively what you are saying is that their willingness to sacrifice and their dedication to serve their country is somehow more noble or important than a gay person wanting to do the exact same thing.

I don’t care if they adopt what I wish, that’s not what it’s about.

These were high ranking officers who had dedicated their willingness to sacrifice their own lives to protect your right to condemn them. They were not petty or young enlisted kids these were consummate professionals outstanding in every way.

So? They took their ball and went home because they didn’t like a particular policy. Sorry for them but gay men are people to, and apparently, just as willing and able to perform the same duties as the heterosexual men. Only they’re not allowed because some heterosexuals might not like it.

It’s too bad the military lost a bunch of good men because they didn’t like a certain policy. But that’s not the fault of gay people who also want to defend their country in the same capacity.

I knew many of them or men like them (I saw 50% of the cream of the crop get out when Clinton was elected), turned out they were right because he sent many of them into harm’s way without the tanks their commanders had requested to cover up his Lewinsky scandal.

What does the Lewinsky scandal have to do with homosexuality?

In fact I work with two that were in the movie black hawk down about those events. They would do anything for the US outside of performing social experiments in the one place where mistakes produce death and lots of it. If they claimed there would be a loss of unit cohesion they were above all others on Earth the people who would know it. I saw the loss of cohesion weird moments in the showers and the horror stories from the medics when I was in and that was during the don't tell days. If you wish to dig up some gun decked PC reports that counter this go ahead and I will explain in detail why they are meaningless. I was there, and have worked with other who have been there in every war from WW2 on and they all say the exact same thing I did.
Continued below as always:

I always find it funny when people refer to it as some kind of “social experiment” when it’s not. It has been implemented with no problem in most of the rest of the industrialized world. How is it that they can all get along just fine but you imagine that the US cannot?

I just saw the movie 42 about Jackie Robinson, the first black man to play professional baseball. Everyone on the team was afraid to shower with him or even touch him. He wasn’t allowed to stay in hotels with the rest of his team or ride on the same bus when they travelled. They thought he was there to stir things up ,rather than to simply play baseball like the rest of them. They said his being there would affect team cohesion in the same way you’re talking about, and in fact some players quit the team because they didn’t want to play alongside a black man. His team went on to win the World Series, thanks in large part, to Jackie Robinson. Funny how we can see how backward and wrong this is when viewed in this way, isn’t it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said it has no evidence, so does God. It is a faith based conclusion exactly the same way God is. It has not been observed, nothing has ever been observed crossing fertility barrier (I forget the class). In fact they claim (and I agree) that not one example ever will be observed because it takes too long and at no point can anyone say that this change is the one that makes it a new creature. I never even said it isn't true, I just said it is not a known fact but a faith based assertion. (Probably true to some extent). You are a more rabid defender of scientific dogma that I am of doctrine. You would make a good Christian apologist.

You just said it has never been observed.

It has been observed. There is evidence for it. It's not a faith-based assertion. There is no dogma here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You apparently understand little about unit cohesion and trust that comes from similarity of background and personality in stressful situations. I am sure a few snuck through without incident. When I was in there were many straight but effiminent guys that were roughly handled by some for the loss of trust that their being possibly gay brought into very tight knit units.

And that’s the fault of the gay men and not the heterosexual men????

I understand that we’re all human beings, and that should be enough to produce unit cohesion.

They gay men didn’t choose their sexuality any more than the heterosexual men did. The gay men are there to serve their country in the exact same way that they heterosexual men are there.

Of course there have always been gay men in the military.

BTW in spite of another one of your claims you could not have known I defended one of these men and I did not even know him. I would not suggest pursuing this line of thought. One, I have all the experience with it, between us. Two, it can only be understood by someone with experience in combat zones. It is surrounded by false information on both sides and PC garbage. Three it is a very dear issue and I do not want your flippant attitude about those who have given or are willing to give their lives for people who spit on them, to cause me undue frustration with you as on the whole I like you, so far.

Then I would suggest that you express the same respect and admiration for gay men who wish to serve their country for the same reasons and in the same capacity as their fellow heterosexual men. That’s where my flippant attitude comes from. You’re diminishing the sacrifice and dedication of the gay men because some straight men simply don’t agree with their sexual orientation and think they’re icky or something.

Not if they do not give any names.

So? As soon as you realize who the gay men are then right off the bat you know whose suffering from the medical issues you’ve mentioned. Maybe the doctors should stop blabbing and take their jobs more seriously.

The military is composed of and lives and breathes cohesion. The lack of it has lost wars and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The greater the close knit trust a unit has the greater capacity to fight and especially survive.

Then maybe the straight men need to wise up and realize they’re all human beings and they’re all there for the same reason, whether gay or straight. Are they under the impression gay men are there just to get dates or something?

No matter what rules exist everyone knows almost everyone else’s business and it should be that way. It produces trust and familiarity. No silly civilian "rights" PC garbage has a place there.

What? You mean the rights they are their defending??

That stuff is bad enough simply screwing up the civilian world, the military is no place to experiment and effectiveness, cohesion, and therefore survivability is all that should motivate military policy.

It’s not an experiment at this point. It’s been done with no issues in most of the rest of the free world.

This reminds me of the first women pilot they put on me ship. She came in a little too hot, flipped upside down, panicked and ejected straight into the sea at about 100 mph. The very first one. I do not mention that because one crash is enough to judge the issue on but that it being the very first one it was quite remarkable. Pilots live in a unique environment in the military and about the best place to experiment if any has to be done. Not in the infantry. The standards were just lowered in the last 6 months so that more women can pass the physical requirements for special ops. How many will die because half the team is far weaker than the other and they are having social problems inherent in all mixed environments. Is a person’s (nonexistent) right to do whatever they wish greater than the senior Chief's right to live who enlisted long before this PC crap was in vogue?

So I guess no male pilots have ever crashed planes? Don’t be silly.

My great aunt flew supply planes during WWII and lived to tell about it (there weren’t enough men for the job). So there’s an anecdote that contradicts your anecdote. You said one anecdote is enough. So now what?

Nothing this disgusting. Is there anything so diabolic that it would ever cause you to throw the brakes on what you wish was true. Since it has resulted in the sacred right to kill babies by the millions plus all those other stats I mention and countless more yet still the failure will not be admitted. Even rectal cancer that only results from gay activity and it's costs in the millions added to the mix only results in your demand that reality adjust to the moral insanity. This world stands no chance against that. Only God can and will correct something going that wrong at that momentum.

How do you know? You’re not a doctor too, are you?

Rectal cancer only results from gay activity? Then maybe you could explain how 66,494 women were diagnosed with it in 2009.

I don’t know what killing babies has to do with this. I guess you just had to throw in your obligatory reference to abortion.

Which fact of reality are you denying this time?

1. We are broke.
2. New coverage costs someone money.
3. The Government produces no money.
4. They will borrow it as they do for half of what they spend or charge us more as they wish to anyway.
Which fact above is the latest victim of denial of secularism?

What does this have to do with homosexuality or secularism? This goes on regardless of either.

There is no possible way on the face of the Earth you do not know exactly what I am talking about. Most twelve year old knows this. They have to in this brave new secular Utopia that is being created in spite of its obvious failures.

I don’t know what you’re talking about unless you’re engaging in unprotected sex. There’s no “gay disease.”

Most wrong things in my views cause harm as a byproduct. Not all but many. In your view it is almost what determines what is wrong. In mine effects are derivative in your determinative. Which view is even your mischaracterization of my statements in violation of? BTW I will give an entire list of things that are wrong that I like if it would help.

Is this supposed to change the fact that all the answers you provided had to do with how you may or may not be personally inconvenienced by someone else’s sexual orientation.

No, it is a list of things commonly coveted and is the classic composition fallacy. Some are property and some are "other". BTW the context was voting. I think you should go back to science where I will admit are at the very least competent. Morality and Biblical Hermeneutics and exegesis are not your turf and the military is probably beyond your grasp (because of experience not intelligence). I must clarify as your side will take any opportunity real or invented to play the PC blame game.

They all appear to be property.

I don’t need Biblical Hermeneutics to read text. This is the old bogus argument wherein you state it has to be read in a certain context or under a certain interpretation to understand its meaning. BS. It says what it says.

What this has to do with being PC, I don’t know.

If we structured these posts right we could publish them in several volumes so long no one would read them.

Or they’ll read them 100 years in the future and imagine how brilliant we were.

 

[jmn]

macroevolution has never been observed.

Start with descent with modification.

In fact all of science is done.

Science is an ongoing, self correcting process, and demonstrates our desire to investigate, understand,and gain knowledge of the natural world, and will never be done.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This narrows the focus to the fact that all proteins must consist of all left-handed
amino acids. Similar to the example I gave with dropping coins, there are only two
choices, left and right hand amino acids. So to calculate the probability of creating a
single protein of 1000 amino acids would simply be 1 chance in 21000, which comes out to
a probability of 1 chance in 10301. When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino
acids (1 chance in 10301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe
over 15 billion years (10143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10158. We can
conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein
anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero.
http://www.universitycad.com/creation/articles/English/The_Probability_of_Evolution.pdf
This is just for one protein.
Unfortunately or maybe (fortunately) I do not have the time to comb through the papers at your sites to find where their numbers go so horribly wrong (I did give one) so I used a pre-emptive strike that eliminates their arguments before hand.You need a universe with structure before the discussion can even occur.

The bolded part is not a fact.

1. “The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
___________________________________________________________________________________
“L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space.

-Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.
-Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
-Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fran‡ois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February
-Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.
-Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)
-Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)
-Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L-amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep.

-Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495
-Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb
-Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 "Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives" J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011
-Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

And there seems to be other L- selection advantages as well. For example:

-Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487.

So chirility doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_07.html

So I guess this means you haven't watched the Lawrence Krause video I referred you to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You will probably never see a show or go to a museum on civil war medicine where they will not make it plain that sanitation was almost non-existent in surgery in the early years. It is a universally acknowledged fact that the most basic sanitation could have saved tens of thousands and WAS NOT performed in any consistent way or at all early in the war.

While it might not have been done consistently given the poor conditions found on the battlefield, it certainly wasn’t unheard of.

This website which I posted before, goes into detail discussing the various papers and work done by various doctors and chemists on sanitation, antiseptics, antibiotics, and general medical information prior to and during the Civil War. They may not have known much about germs, but they knew a thing or two about basic sanitation.

Myths About Antiseptics and Camp Life – George Wunderlich | Civil War Scholars The experience of the war-torn northern Shenandoah Valley

No I did not. I do not think I used the word sterilization anywhere.

I did. And I explained why.

I also never used disinfectant or antiseptics. (The words not the products) If you are still so confused after all I have said it may be hopeless.

I know you didn’t. You also didn’t speak to my point:

Your whole thing about ancient Hebrews knowing more about sanitation than modern doctors is a bit of a silly comparison, especially considering that distinction. Had the ancient Hebrews been operating on people and using antiseptics and sterilization methods, you might have a chance with that argument. But “washing up” is a far cry from disinfectants and antiseptics in the case of surgery and amputations on a battlefield.

The point is that 1860 men of science did not even know that much and even correcting it eventually does not help the thousands in their graves.

It appears they knew more than the Ancient Hebrews.

What did the ancient Hebrews know about iodine, bromide, ventilation, chlorinated water or the disinfectant properties of UV irradiation?

I am not going through over 600 laws to find the 100 on sanitation. Let me illustrate this another way. They had laws in place that made slavery (servitude in Israel’s case) by far the most benevolent of its kind on Earth in their day. I have proven this many times. The exact same difference existed in sanitation and many other areas. They were truly a unique culture.

You view that version of slavery as the “most benevolent of its kind on Earth” because it’s the only way to wrap your brain around the fact that your god condones slavery in your holy book. You really have no idea how benevolent or malevolent it really was.

So you really can’t tell me what they were they doing that would have been beyond the knowledge of Bronze Age desert dwellers? I submit that they weren’t doing anything above and beyond what anyone else of the time (or earlier) had known or could have known.

You are making a career out of misstating what I have said. God "potentially" told them to wash up after all the things mentioned because HE knew about germs. They did not need a biological understanding to know God said do not eat pork.

Notice how there was a question mark at the end of my sentence, like this one? That means I was asking you a question, rather than stating what you said.

It’s obvious how they learned not to eat rotten pork. They watched some guy eat some pork that had been lying around for a while and noticed it made him sick. So they decided that eating pork makes you sick and stopped eating it. It’s called conditioned taste aversion. See how simple that is? God need not be inserted anywhere in that scenario.

I am not sure that is what I was doing. I do however claim that Christians have contributed more to science than any other similar demographic. Most of the actual fields of science were began by Christians. Get whatever meaning you wish out of that.

I get that most people were Christian during a fair amount of human history and so it only makes sense that a lot of scientists would have been Christians.

Muslims had contributed a lot to science too. As had the ancient Greeks. So what?

Morality is one of many. Do not worry about it. Getting an atheist to concede the slightest point no matter how obvious is worse than putting a cat in a trash can. I no longer expect it.

Sorry, I think it’s pretty obvious how morality formed during the course of human history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not revere anything men make. Revere is short for reverence which is reserved for God. I do respect and admire many things men of science have produced. I am not sure science has produced the bulk of what we know but as It makes little difference then fine. However it has abjectly failed in the most profound aspects I have mentioned. The method of concepts like error correction you think are admirable are common to virtually every scholarly field in existence. Concepts learned about by common sense and present in all areas of life are great but nothing special in science.

How can you not be sure that science has produced the bulk of what we know? Seriously?

Why do you think that is? Do you think it has to do with the apparent fact that those fields have adopted the methods used in the field of science because they work?

That was not my list. Here is the first one that pops up.
Is there a Supreme Being and is his name really God?
How far does space go?
Is there life on other planets?

Science could potentially answer these.

What is the meaning of life?

Not really a scientific question.

Maybe there is no meaning.

What can I do to improve life for myself and others?

Science can answer this in some regards, like medicine, for example.

How did it all begin?
What was present just before the Big bang?

Science could answer both of these.

Why were you born?
In fact the rest of the first 12 said the same thing

Because our parents engaged in sexual intercourse conception occurred and we survived and developed in utero and were born into the world 9 months later.

You may think the actual meaning and purpose of life is not profound almost everyone else does and it is.

I find it profound enough but that’s not enough for me to conclude that there is some grander meaning to it all, necessarily.

Yet again you are warping what I said into something you hope is easier to contend with. How many times is this? I never said it would be fine, I said it was better.

Do you not understand the meaning of question marks or something?
You said it was better. You said that if everything stayed the way it had been in the 1950s billions of lives and dollars would have been saved. Are you changing your tune now?

Even if true is the emotional impact of riding on the back of a bus is not a big price to pay for saving a million babies a year, …

Wow. Do you really think that’s the worse of what black people had to endure in the 1950s?

… restoring tens of thousands of families to two (man and a women) parents, saving a hundred thousand teens from being pregnant, stopping 20 thousand babies from being born addicted to crack, putting 20 trillion back into where ever we borrowed it from to fund a million giveaways that increased dependence used to buy poor folks votes (much of it stolen from SS), and getting a hundred thousands kids off dope used to make them less sensitive to the BS going on around them. If Christianity was completely followed and not just a foundational concept in the 50's then even racism (all men ar born equal) and women’s rights would have been where they should have been. The gay rights agenda is going the wrong way. All this while defeating two of teh Earths greatest empires decisively. We no longer even have the moral courage or certainty with secularism to win one against a pathetic force of Jihadists that in our secular omnipotence the administration will not even call terrorist acts many times. By the way the same PC crap that produced man made disasters instead of terrorism also stopped the people who knew those Boston bombers from reporting them. Afraid of being called an Islamaphobe got 200 people messed up. Yet the thing that gets the goat is that even after it happens instead of admitting the mistake and fixing it will be explained away and made worse. This will not end well and is obviously headed in that direction at an ever increasing rate. The wreck rolls on below:

Teen pregnancy rates were higher in the 1950s than they are now.

The rest of this is just political garbage, fantasy and wishful thinking. Everybody loves the good old days, until they finally realize that they weren’t all that good after all. The 1950s were great if you were a white male. But that’s about it. The good old days fantasy is just an illusion.