Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the only thing that will prevent mass starvation of the expected 12 billion folks by 2070 in an increasingly unstable climatic conditions brought about by global warming

I doubt that humanity will be expanding in number for much longer. Global warming is pretty much a given - a done deal. The people with the power to prevent it seem hell-bent on midwifing it into our world. We will likely see a contraction once the chaos ensues.

Here's a thought: What if that is the intention? What if this apparent blindness and stupidity is by design?

Why would anybody do that on purpose? It would likely slow the emergence of developing nations like China, Brazil, Mexico, and India. Poor countries and poor people would be hardest hit. Good news for Western business interests.

The wealthy are immune to the effects of climate change. They can move to where the new shoreline is, and find food and water notwithstanding famine and drought in the Sudan and Mississippi.

Would wealthy, powerful people concerned about preserving their advantages actually do such a thing? Only if they thought of it. These are people that start wars for profit. You be the judge.

 

[sayak83]

I doubt that humanity will be expanding in number for much longer. Global warming is pretty much a given - a done deal. The people with the power to prevent it seem hell-bent on midwifing it into our world. We will likely see a contraction once the chaos ensues.

Here's a thought: What if that is the intention? What if this apparent blindness and stupidity is by design?

Why would anybody do that on purpose? It would likely slow the emergence of developing nations like China, Brazil, Mexico, and India. Poor countries and poor people would be hardest hit. Good news for Western business interests.

The wealthy are immune to the effects of climate change. They can move to where the new shoreline is, and find food and water notwithstanding famine and drought in the Sudan and Mississippi.

Would wealthy, powerful people concerned about preserving their advantages actually do such a thing? Only if they thought of it. These are people that start wars for profit. You be the judge.

You forget that as a manufacturing hub, China, East Asia and South Asia merely have to start a tariff trade war with the West to ruin Western economy completely. Money for the wealthy are fully wedded to investments in stocks. If the global economy disintegrates, they lose the most. India and China and Brazil have huge domestic markets with an young demographic and can weather economic shocks far better, as was shown in 2008 collapse. It was the West that was affected. India just recently eliminated its cash money supply by half without making a dent in its GDP. Also perhaps it's not known, but India has over 500 varietals of hardy drought tolerant cereal crops (mullets, pulses) that are good substitutes of rice and wheat, are native to India. India (and China) have also kept the agricultural industries like Monsanto from instituting a monoculture of crops in the country. So no, Asian countries are not as vulnerable as one thinks. On the other hand if California and Western US goes through a global warming induced mega drought cycle, I do not think the consequences will be good for US.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You forget that as a manufacturing hub, China, East Asia and South Asia merely have to start a tariff trade war with the West to ruin Western economy completely. Money for the wealthy are fully wedded to investments in stocks. If the global economy disintegrates, they lose the most. India and China and Brazil have huge domestic markets with an young demographic and can weather economic shocks far better, as was shown in 2008 collapse. It was the West that was affected. India just recently eliminated its cash money supply by half without making a dent in its GDP. Also perhaps it's not known, but India has over 500 varietals of hardy drought tolerant cereal crops (mullets, pulses) that are good substitutes of rice and wheat, are native to India. India (and China) have also kept the agricultural industries like Monsanto from instituting a monoculture of crops in the country. So no, Asian countries are not as vulnerable as one thinks. On the other hand if California and Western US goes through a global warming induced mega drought cycle, I do not think the consequences will be good for US.

Maybe you're right.

I don't think the consequences for the US would factor into such a decision. The kind of people that would deliberately cause global warming wouldn't care about the average American citizen.

I'm considering this only because I find it increasingly incredible to believe that the degree of global warming and expected geological changes documented is an unintended consequence of short-sighted greed. Who's that incompetent, and how did they get to be so powerful if they are?

 

[sayak83]

Maybe you're right.

I don't think the consequences for the US would factor into such a decision. The kind of people that would deliberately cause global warming wouldn't care about the average American citizen.

I'm considering this only because I find it increasingly incredible to believe that the degree of global warming and expected geological changes documented is an unintended consequence of short-sighted greed. Who's that incompetent, and how did they get to be so powerful if they are?

I mean more shortsighted than a nuclear arms race where the question of whether the world will be converted into molten slang or not rested (and still rests) on the continuing sanity of a handful of people, some of them probably psychopathic and definitely ego driven narcissists? I think we have already set the gold standard last century.

A society grown in the shadow of two world wars and the specter of instantaneous nuclear holocaust will not prioritize long term thinking. You see this detrimental effect on its values in the case of global warming and in instant news cycles, overspending etc. etc. Impact on psychology and culture of such anxiety can last generations.

 

[Deeje]

Is that a "No" answer to his question about you having any interest in learning?

No, actually I have a great interest in learning....I just have no use for knowledge that is founded on a false premise.......Isn't that what you would say to me?

Did you look at his link? I'll bet not. You didn't acknowledge its existence let alone comment on its content. It was a discussion of the anatomy, genetics, and growth and development of flowering plants and the generation of flowers.

Yes, I did look at the link. All it did was explain the process God used in creation.....did you think it would mean something else to me?

I believe in cause and effect...don't you?

What do you think that assiduously refusing to learn science does to the credibility of your objections about the claims of science?

I have no interest in those who question my credibility. How many questioned Jesus' credibility? He demonstrated that just because the majority are convinced of something, doesn't make it right.
I am confident about the existence of my Creator and see all the evidence I need every day to reinforce that confidence.

What do you have that is founded on actual evidence rather than misinterpreted conjecture?

Do you have any opinion about the validity of this? :

"They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not." - Clarence Darrow

Oh, I have a lot to say about the ignorance demonstrated in that quote.....

First of all, it wasn't "the tree of knowledge". It was a tree that represented God's right to set the standard of behavior for his free willed children. God knew that humans would not benefit from a knowledge of evil, so he kept that knowledge to himself, whilst allowing only what was good to be experienced in their lives. But because they were free willed he could not prevent them from partaking of it if they chose to do so. He therefore placed that knowledge behind a penalty so severe that only a fool would have disobeyed him. Apparently a clever lie by a disgruntled angel undermined the severity of the penalty to the newest and least educated member of the human race....."You surely will not die" negated any reason for not eating it, especially when something beneficial was promised...."you will be like God, knowing good and bad".

This free willed rebel tricked the woman into eating of the forbidden fruit in the hope that he could get to the man by dividing his loyalties. It worked! Separating them from their rightful Sovereign, he then became their substitute god, gaining the worship he had always craved. He has been used by God to test humanity ever since. Some will pass the test....many will not. (Matthew 7:13-14; 21-23)

Free will was not a mistake. It was given to enhance life by adding choices to so many things.....it was however, meant to be exercised within the parameters set by the Creator. This is what was challenged by the devil. He knows where he will end up, but he will take as many of us down with him as he can....just by the exercise of our free will.

Deception is the devil's stock in trade.....he's had millennia to hone his craft. Ever been conned by an expert?

The knowledge that the Creator wanted his human children to learn was already being imparted to Adam, even before his wife was created. We are not creatures driven purely by instinct, but with a level of intelligence unmatched by any other earthly creature, we were to take in knowledge from God, and from our surroundings and experiences and impart them to our children. It was meant to be a life-long journey of discovery and endless wonder, in conditions that provided everything needed to make life in paradise everything it was meant to be.

We all know in our heart of hearts that this is not the way life is supposed to be. Our collective expectation of a peaceful, productive and happy life is implanted in our DNA. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

I believe the Bible when it says that we will go back to that first purpose, but not until God has tested each one of us as to fitness first. He is choosing the citizens of his kingdom based on their ability to obey him out of love, not out of fear.....and not with a begrudging spirit.

Clarence Darrow was apparently as ignorant as a lot of others who downgrade the Bible. His source of information about Christianity came from Christendom.....the weeds of Jesus parable. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43) It just goes to prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Deeje]

Would wealthy, powerful people concerned about preserving their advantages actually do such a thing? Only if they thought of it. These are people that start wars for profit. You be the judge.

God has already appointed a judge......it will not go well for them. This was all foretold in the book of Daniel. The only Kingdom that will stand after all others have been been destroyed is clearly stated. (Daniel 2:44) Nothing can stop this prophesy from being fulfilled.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do you have that is founded on actual evidence rather than misinterpreted conjecture?

Most of it. Maybe all of it. Big fan of evidence here.

I probably don't have a lot of misinterpreted conjectures. If they're my conjectures, I usually understand them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Free will was not a mistake.

Disagree, given Christian theology. It would have been better to give us the wills of great people.

 

[Deeje]

Good that you have admitted close mindedness. Good that you have admitted that you have deliberately chosen to turn your back on objective scientific evidence.

But of course you scientists don't demonstrate closed mindedness in the slightest, do you? Take a close look at your own attitude to the subject of creation.
There is no objectivity in evolutionary science.....it is all based on a pre-conceived notion that is woven into every conclusion.
You talk about all this evidence, and yet when it is examined, it is all based on assumptions, not facts. You all act like its based on real evidence, but its not real...it is manufactured in the scientist's imagination and given credence in its literature and diagrams. I don't believe it.

You do not care what the answers are, you have predetermined not to learn them, not to hear them and use your willful, obstinate and deliberately cultivated ignorance of reality as a shield to shore up your fantasy faith on a poor simulated shadow of a God.

Your gods may be a fantasy to you but my God is a reality to me. He did not create all this material abundance for nothing.
He has a purpose for creation and that purpose will go ahead.....with us or without us....whether we believe it or not.

But, haven't you shored up your own fantasy with science? You assume the high ground as if science itself is part of your religion and is untouchable.....and yet I see only humans putting the words of other humans before their own common sense. If you are convinced by the so called "evidence" for macro-evolution, then all I can say is you have as much faith in your science gods as I have in my Creator. You have a belief system that you can marry to your gods. That is of course, a very convenient position, and entirely your choice.

It's important as flowering plants and pollination and technologies that make them more bountiful is the only thing keeping the 7 billion of our kind fed everyday, and the only thing that will prevent mass starvation of the expected 12 billion folks by 2070 in an increasingly unstable climatic conditions brought about by global warming. The world will continue and flourish and no amount of praying and delusion born ignorance from end of the world desiring groups like JW will alter this. But you can continue to be blind and deaf. Your choice.

Plants were here long before there were creatures to eat them. It was all part of earth's preparation to support life. Perhaps that was the purpose of the dinosaurs?....to eat all the excess vegetation down before man arrived?
Who knows? God does.

It isn't that the earth cannot sustain its populations with adequate supplies of food, but more about nations protecting their bottom line. The food industry is all about shelf life, not nutrition. Malnutrition produces unhealthy people, yet the developed nations have a malnutrition problem by being forced to eat highly processed, dead foods. Dead food leads to ill health and premature death. We are really no better of than the developing nations....digging a grave with our teeth.

The world is not flourishing and never will whilst man is in charge of its affairs. If your gods give you no hope beyond man's ability to keep living at the expense of others, then I pity you. Global warming is a fact and greedy humans are doing nothing to stop it. The earth has become nothing but a dumping ground for selfish idiots who have no regard for the ecology or future generations.
The ultra wealthy think that their money will save them.....their wealth means nothing to the Creator....

Science is looked to as the savior of mankind, but it is nothing of the sort. Most of the earth's problems can be laid at the feet of irresponsible scientists.......
An accounting is due.....as I believe we will all see in due time.

 

[Deeje]

Disagree, given Christian theology. It would have been better to give us the wills of great people.

Whose 'theology' are we talking about? Christendom"s? It does not even resemble Christ's teachings.

God created only one species in his own image. If we did not have free will, or self determination, based on our ability to reason and to evaluate our own conduct and that of others, then we are no better than the animals. He already had enough of those.

He never designed humans to rule one another....when you give a man power, it always corrupts him. We are meant to be ruled by the one who created us....and we will return to that first purpose in the near future if world conditions are anything to go by. Nothing can stop it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But of course you scientists don't demonstrate closed mindedness in the slightest, do you? Take a close look at your own attitude to the subject of creation.

33% of scientists are theists and a further 18% believe in some form of higher power.

Try again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But of course you scientists don't demonstrate closed mindedness in the slightest, do you? Take a close look at your own attitude to the subject of creation.

You didn't make a case for closed-mindedness. Open-mindedness is nothing more or less that the willingness and ability to evaluate an argument and its supporting evidence impartially and the be convinced by a compelling argument.

There is no duty to accept ideas like creationism, only to consider them fairly. It lacks both the evidence and the compelling argument. There is no way to believe in creationism except by faith.

There is no objectivity in evolutionary science.....it is all based on a pre-conceived notion that is woven into every conclusion. You talk about all this evidence, and yet when it is examined, it is all based on assumptions, not facts. You all act like its based on real evidence, but its not real...it is manufactured in the scientist's imagination and given credence in its literature and diagrams. I don't believe it.

Once creationism is accepted by faith,a faith based confirmation bias arises,one which filters through the evidence and, as the name suggests, only allows you to see that which supports your faith based belief.

I learned something very interesting from a Christian geologist and creationist named Glenn Morton who had been a young earth creationist (YEC), but eventually, due to his professional education and experience, became on old earth creationist (OEC).

He explained that when people like himself report that they can't see the evidence, or can't see how what is presented constitutes evidence, they aren't lying. In fact, they think the people disagreeing with them are the ones being dishonest.

Morton described what he called Morton's demon, which is the anthropomorphizing of the blinding process that follows the advent of a faith based confirmation bias. Morton invokes an imaginary demon who sits at the portal to your mind and admits some idea while blocking others according to whether they support or contradict the ideas believed by faith. Here is what he reports

"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

[snip]

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it

[snip]

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. The mystery is how he broke free. There must have been a seed of skepticism still in him somewhere.

This process also goes by the name "antiprocessing"

.Antiprocess - Wikipedia - "is the preemptive recognition and marginalization of undesired information by the interplay of mental defense mechanisms: the subconscious compromises information that would cause cognitive dissonance."

Plants were here long before there were creatures to eat them. It was all part of earth's preparation to support life.

Plants are life.

Most of the earth's problems can be laid at the feet of irresponsible scientists.......

Are you aware that scientists are not the same as the politicians and businessmen that deploy the discoveries of science?

Are you aware that there are problems not caused by scientists, like unemployment, racism, going to war on false pretenses, and parasitic infections of the eye that cause blindness?

Scientists caused none of these, but may be able to help with the last one.

 

[Deeje]

33% of scientists are theists and a further 18% believe in some form of higher power.

Try again.

Try what again? There are quite a few JW's who are scientists too....so what? We are not anti-science......just anti-supposition-masquerading-as-science. Can you not discern the difference? It isn't difficult.

Like people who claim to be Christians and yet still believe that humans evolved from apes. You can't be both a Christian AND an evolutionist....though many believe that they can have a foot in both camps. You cannot merge them.....you have to choose one or the other. If you have chosen, then your choice is duly noted. No one is telling you what to believe......not even God.

 

[Deeje]

There is no duty to accept ideas like creationism, only to consider them fairly. It lacks both the evidence and the compelling argument. There is no way to believe in creationism except by faith.

I absolutely agree. Even the Bible acknowledges that "faith is not the possession of all people"......but you do realise that even scientists need faith in the research of others.....? Do you repeat every experiment that scientists have ever done just to prove that their findings are true?

Once creationism is accepted by faith,a faith based confirmation bias arises,one which filters through the evidence and, as the name suggests, only allows you to see that which supports your faith based belief.

Yet you don't see your own bias at work? You too have a faith based belief system....you have just been conditioned to believe that you don't....such is the power of suggestion.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

"Morton's demon" was his own lack of faith...swapping one belief system for one that he found more convincing....I have never seen any real evidence from scientists that would ever cancel out the clear and positive evidence for design in nature. Unplanned 'accidents' could not possibly have produced the incredibly complex and inter-dependant systems that operate in creation. If you want to believe that......it's your choice.

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. The mystery is how he broke free. There must have been a seed of skepticism still in him somewhere.

How amazing that you would agree with Morton. He is a credible scientist who is reinforcing what you want to believe. He deserted the God you want to dismiss....it's just the kind of justification needed to join him. What's not to understand?

Are you aware that scientists are not the same as the politicians and businessmen that deploy the discoveries of science?

But if scientists had not done the work, greedy people could never have exploited their discoveries.

Take plastic pollution for example......the world is drowning in the aftermath of this petroleum based menace. Marine life is horribly affected by a product that was introduced into the world as a very useful product with so many applications. But only in recent decades has the full detrimental effects been realised. If hemp (a natural plant with many uses) had been used instead, then marine life could consume the waste with no ill effects. Plastics are also connected to the increase of cancer in the population. Hemp was demonised because of its connection to cannabis, outlawed as a "dangerous gateway drug". We now know that the banning of cannabis (which is completely harmless and non addictive) was to enable synthetic drugs to be developed by medical science so that pharmaceutical companies could make big profits.

Hemp was banned so that petroleum based plastics and other products could be manufactured, again contributing to the wealth of powerful oil companies, but causing the whole world to become a vast dumping ground for discarded petroleum based waste. Eco disasters such as oil spills cause major problems.....yet hemp could have provided all the bio-fuel the world would ever have needed....with no pollution.

That doesn't even touch the problem of nuclear waste......

Science has a lot to answer for IMO.

Are you aware that there are problems not caused by scientists, like unemployment, racism, going to war on false pretenses, and parasitic infections of the eye that cause blindness?

Greed doesn't discriminate. The Bible talks about the ruler of this world being a demon, but not the one Morton spoke about. (1 John 5:19) It says that every problem that the world experiences can be placed at the feet of those under the direct influence of that demon and his cohorts. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) He has the ability to "blind the minds" of those he can influence.

I believe that even medical science has been hijacked by greedy men, under his control......Whatever leads people away from the Creator. All he needs to do is convince people that what he says is true.....the first three letters of the word "CONvince" says it all really.

Scientists caused none of these, but may be able to help with the last one.

When big pharma is making a motza out of ill health, you won't find them in a hurry to "cure" anything. They are into developing very expensive "treatments" which will invariably have side effects, meaning that they can sell you more "treatments".

People are slowly waking up to the deception that has governed their lives up to this point in every avenue of human endeavour.

Have you not noticed the groundswell of protest in so many supposedly democratic nations recently, who have finally realised that the whole system is fatally flawed? They have had enough of the rot. They are demanding change.
Where do you suppose this is going? The Bible tells us exactly where it will all end......but most people are still clinging onto a system that is fast going down the gurgler. It's like the days of Noah, all over again. (Genesis 6:5-7) Jesus himself made the comparison. (Matthew 24:37-39) No one believed Noah and Jesus said this same scenario would be repeated.....that is what I see. What do you see?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Try what again? There are quite a few JW's who are scientists too....so what? We are not anti-science......just anti-supposition-masquerading-as-science. Can you not discern the difference? It isn't difficult.

You accused scientists of having a bias against theism. That obviously can't be true if the majority of them are actually theists, can it?

Like people who claim to be Christians and yet still believe that humans evolved from apes. You can't be both a Christian AND an evolutionist....though many believe that they can have a foot in both camps. You cannot merge them.....you have to choose one or the other. If you have chosen, then your choice is duly noted. No one is telling you what to believe......not even God.

It's a good thing that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes a "true Christian" then, because there are many Christians who aren't as willing to celebrate their own ignorance as you.

Also, please note the hypocrisy of you telling people what constitutes a proper Christian while also telling people that "no one is telling" them "what to believe". Apparently you think your judgement usurps your supposed God's in this instance. I suggest you see to the log in your eye.

 

[Deeje]

You accused scientists of having a bias against theism. That obviously can't be true if the majority of them are actually theists, can it?

I accuse evolutionary scientists of being biased in their interpretation of their evidence. I don't recall saying that they were biased against theists. If the majority of them are theists, then how can they disown their Creator and deny the words of Jesus? (Matthew 19:4-6) Trying to have your cake and eat it too is a bit difficult. You can't be a Christian AND an evolutionist, though this does not stop a lot of people trying to marry the two belief systems. They are totally incompatible.

It's a good thing that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes a "true Christian" then, because there are many Christians who aren't as willing to celebrate their own ignorance as you.

Since most "Christians" find it hard to fit into the criteria set by Jesus, then perhaps it is those who identify as "Christians" who are unaware of their own ignorance, having been just as brainwashed by a corrupted belief system as the science students are today.
I was ignorant just like them once, having been raised with those beliefs....I now celebrate my departure from that system 40 odd years ago. I was also a believer in evolution in my youth.....I have put that nonsense to rest as well.

Also, please note the hypocrisy of you telling people what constitutes a proper Christian while also telling people that "no one is telling" them "what to believe". Apparently you think your judgement usurps your supposed God's in this instance. I suggest you see to the log in your eye.

I am just a messenger......if you don't like the message, you'll have to take that up with the one who gave all his disciples a commission to sound a dire warning to believers and unbelievers alike. If Jesus does not count us as one of his "sheep"....it means that we are a "goat". (Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 13:24-30; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)
Jesus says that we ignore his message at our own risk. (Matthew 24:37-39) History repeats.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I accuse evolutionary scientists of being biased in their interpretation of their evidence. I don't recall saying that they were biased against theists.

I didn't say theISTS. I said theISM. Here are your words again:

"But of course you scientists don't demonstrate closed mindedness in the slightest, do you? Take a close look at your own attitude to the subject of creation."

Your words clearly indicate that you feel scientists have a bias against the "subject of creation". Obviously that's nonsense, since the majority are theists. There is no bias - they simply aren't afraid of acknowledging a fact when they see one.

If the majority of them are theists, then how can they disown their Creator and deny the words of Jesus? (Matthew 19:4-6) Trying to have your cake and eat it too is a bit difficult. You can't be a Christian AND an evolutionist, though this does not stop a lot of people trying to marry the two belief systems. They are totally incompatible.

I've already addressed this. You are not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't compatible with Christian doctrine. I've already shown that you are ill qualified to judge, considering your repeatedly condescending and hypocritical remarks - things that are distinctly un-Christian by anyone's standard. You are a poor Christian, so how can you judge others?

Since most "Christians" find it hard to fit into the criteria set by Jesus, then perhaps it is those who identify as "Christians" who are unaware of their own ignorance, having been just as brainwashed by a corrupted belief system as the science students are today.

When all else fails, cry conspiracy. Has it never occurred to you that YOU are the brainwashed one?

I was ignorant just like them once, having been raised with those beliefs....I now celebrate my departure from that system 40 odd years ago. I was also a believer in evolution in my youth.....I have put that nonsense to rest as well.

Like I said, you're celebrating your ignorance. The fact that you have to now resort to hypocrisy and lies to support your arguments speaks volumes.

I am just a messenger......if you don't like the message, you'll have to take that up with the one who gave all his disciples a commission to sound a dire warning to believers and unbelievers alike. If Jesus does not count us as one of his "sheep"....it means that we are a "goat". (Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 13:24-30; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)
Jesus says that we ignore his message at our own risk. (Matthew 24:37-39) History repeats.

I really couldn't care less when puerile threats you throw at me. Your religion is irrelevant to science, and irrelevant to facts. Keep it out of it.

 

[Deeje]

When all else fails, cry conspiracy. Has it never occurred to you that YOU are the brainwashed one?

I was once.....I fixed that. I came to realize that my brain needed washing. And I based all my conclusions on the evidence I saw with my own eyes....no science degree required. God did the rest and I have never looked back.

I really couldn't care less when puerile threats you throw at me. Your religion is irrelevant to science, and irrelevant to facts. Keep it out of it.

"Puerile threats"? They are not mine....I am only passing the scriptural warning on......who will be able to say to the final judge...."no one told me"? Isn't that as it should be? We all make our own choices and all choices have consequences.....some are unexpected.

And I must disagree...science is very relevant to my religion. I worship the greatest scientist in existence.....he is the instigator of all that scientists study.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was once.....I fixed that. I came to realize that my brain needed washing. And I based all my conclusions on the evidence I saw with my own eyes....no science degree required. God did the rest and I have never looked back.

In other words, your answer is "No".

"Puerile threats"? They are not mine....I am only passing the scriptural warning on......who will be able to say to the final judge...."no one told me"? Isn't that as it should be? We all make our own choices and all choices have consequences.....some are unexpected.

It doesn't matter if you think they're yours or Gods or anyone's - they are puerile threats that have no place in any rational, intelligent, adult discussion. You should be ashamed and embarrassed at having to resort to nothing more than threats to support your position. As I have said before, you are clearly a very poor Christian.

 

[Polymath257]

And I wonder who put those chemical reactions into place in order to achieve the desired result? The Creator is also a scientist, you know. The blind forces of chance could never achieve the perfection we see in nature, let alone their amazing array of perfumes and designs. Accidents happen it is true, but how many of them are ever beneficial?....and how many 'accidents' are we talking about here?

And I claim those forces *could* do so. And I have a number of simulations to show this can happen mathematically and fossils to show it happens in practice.

Now, exactly why do you think that the known laws of nature cannot produce these things? Be precise.

You know that for a fact, do you? Or are you just "suggesting" that this "might be" or "could be" the case?

There is only one who designed the way plants grow and develop....their Maker. He designed the mechanisms that ensure the survival of all species without his direct intervention. Nature is self sufficient and a wonder at recycling. Humans could learn a lot from the way it deals with waste.

Yes, we know this. It isn't 'suggestion'. It is clear fact that no energy was directed to a growing plant from outside of the physical universe. It is *all* physical.

But why? Who designed the mechanism that creates the attraction in the first place?....I know how you will answer that....science's substitute for "God did it"...."Natural selection did it". Right? That is a suggestion.

No, it is a scientific theory that is testable and is consistent with all the evidence. Your position is not testable and has to be modified (is beauty only for humans or not?)

Yes, I have seen documentaries on this. Perhaps that is the Creator's special gift to the bees? What other hidden abilities are yet to be discovered in the natural world? Wonderful, isn't it?

Or perhaps bees are just like every other organism on the planet and have developed to pollinate flowers, which benefit from attracting those pollinators? it is called a mutually beneficial arrangement and can co-evolve.

It is not something observable to humans, so who is missing it in amongst all those other beautiful things? The bees get a gift, probably useful for pollination. The beauty is still there in the bees themselves and in the other flowers in the garden. You are grasping at straws, methinks.

Again, you made a claim that humans are the only ones to experience this beauty. I showed you are wrong. Now, make another testable prediction from your viewpoint and let's see how it works in practice.

Let's go farther. What specific test will you suggest that would show your viewpoint to be incorrect?Some observation that, if it ever happens (and yes, I know you think it won't), would show you are wrong.

I can easily give such for evolution (rabbits in undisturbed cambrian strata, for example).