• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The majority of atheists do not exclude the supernatural, they simply withhold belief until evidence for such things is presented because, after all, there is no point in believing something that you do not have evidence for. They are open to the idea, there is just no justification to believe in the supernatural at this moment in time.

Below is a short story that demonstrates what I believe better then I can. I really believe that we have a sixth sense, animals demonstrate it all the time. For example, when we had that massive tsunami there were no wild animals killed in it. The Elephants all left the area two weeks before the tsunami struck. The only ones who died were humans who no longer use their sixth sense. It really is a interesting debate with a great deal of evidence being available from the laboratory. I believe that Christians tap into that sixth sense. We communicate with the influence of the Holy Ghost using that sixth sense. Unless you know how to do it, and follow the instructions to the letter, you will be totally oblivious to his presence. Everyone has it within them to develop their sixth sense. Our sixth sense is a little known phenomenon but it is recieving a great deal of research. I believe that many mediums, etc.. possess it as well as just everyday people with no religion at all possessing it. I believe that I have communicated with that Holy Ghost through a sixth sense. An external intelligence that enters the mind and body to dispatch knowledge in concept form, emotions and concepts. I am a bit apprehensive about talking about it because it can be easily ridiculed.

Is There a Sixth Sense?

Some experts claim that hunches might actually foretell the future. Others aren't so sure.

By Dean Radin, Colleen Rae, Ray Hyman, published on July 01, 2000 - last reviewed on June 14, 2012


Ever have a hunch, an instinct or an intuition? Research psychologist Dean Radin, Ph.D., claims that hunches might actually foretell the future. The University of Oregon's Ray Hyman, Ph.D., however, isn't so sure.

Alex, a university colleague, was cleaning his double-action, six-shot revolver in preparation for a hunting trip later in the month. In this pistol, when the trigger is pulled the hammer is cocked, the cylinder revolves, and the hammer falls on the next chamber, all in one smooth motion. For safety's sake, Alex normally kept five bullets in the revolver, with the hammer resting on the sixth, empty chamber.

Before cleaning the gun, he removed the five bullets and set them aside. When finished cleaning, he began to put the bullets back in the cylinder. When he arrived at the fifth and final bullet, he suddenly got a distinct sense of dread. It had something to do with that bullet.

Alex was bothered about the odd feeling because nothing like it had ever happened to him before. He decided to trust his gut, so he put the bullet aside and positioned the pistol's hammer as usual over the sixth chamber. The chamber next to it, which normally held the fifth bullet, was now also empty.

Two weeks later, Alex was at a hunting lodge with his fiancee and her parents. That evening, unexpectedly, a violent argument broke out between the parents. Alex tried to calm them down, but the father, in an insane rage, grabbed Alex's gun, which had been in a drawer, and pointed it at his wife.

Alex tried to intervene by jumping between the gun and the woman, but he was too late—the trigger was already being pulled. For a horrifying split second, Alex knew that he was about to get shot at point-blank range. But instead of a sudden, gruesome death, the pistol went "click." The cylinder had revolved to an empty chamber—the very chamber that would have contained the fifth bullet if Alex had not set it aside two weeks earlier.

Had Alex actually predicted the future, or was this just an extraordinary coincidence? There are several possible explanations for why such "intuitive hunches" sometimes play out. One is that on a subconscious level, we are always thinking and coming to conclusions, but that these register only as hunches to our conscious mind. Another is that we pick up telling cues from body language, subliminal sounds or peripheral vision without being consciously aware of doing so. A third is that for each amazing coincidence we remember, we forget all the times we had a hunch and it didn't pan out. A fourth possibility is that we modify our memories for our own convenience, creating a connection where it may not have existed. And so on. These sorts of prosaic explanations probably account for many intuitive hunches. But they don't explain them all.

As in the case of Alex's intuition, a series of carefully documented case studies raises the possibility that some intuitions are due to a genuine sixth sense. But to confirm that those stories are what they appear to be, we must turn to controlled laboratory tests.

Is There a Sixth Sense? | Psychology Today

Theists however, think that they already have the answers to life biggest questions. This halts progress. There is no reason to keep searching for answers or learning about the mysteries of the universe if you think you already have them. And many theists flat out reject well known facts in favor of their personal religious bias.

Those Christians are delusional and usually belong to the bigger congregations who are told what to do by men who think they can interpret scripture. I am not a congregational Istanbul of any organised religion. I wrote the following a couple of weeks ago.

Religions, or faiths, are the biggest blight on understanding the true nature of God. I know I will get people's backs up, however, faiths are not necessary. They serve no purpose, other than to guess at the meaning of scriptures and claim to be the only true faith to follow. I do not like faiths. They are for weak people who cannot make their own decisions. The are elitist and self serving. Jesus told us exactly how to worship him.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

That is the true definition of a church. Religion is personal. It is not to be forced or sold to others. It is a personal relationship with you and your God, whoever He may be. I don't want to fall out with you or anyone else over my personal beliefs and you should feel the same about your non-belief. It has as much to do with me as mine has to do with you. This is the only type of venue that the two should meat. Where else in your daily life would you want to talk about your non-belief. I rarely talk about my belief. We got it all wrong by allowing men to continue in their interpretation for us instead of by us. I am not your every day Christian. I am a pragmatist, a bit of a literalist. Do you think there will be Catholics, or Protestants, or methodists in heaven, no, of course not, they will all be Mormons.

The last sentence is a joke.

Which sounds more closed minded to you? A group who simply doesn't believe in things that lack evidence, or a group who thinks they have all the answers but no evidence for it and reject scientific fact in favor of personal bias?

But that goes without saying, however, you need to include my group. You have to include the Christian Who also believes in science. The pragmatists and realists.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
So ... you prefer name calling to dialect, somehow that does not surprise me. You really don't need my help to belittle and discredit yourself, you're doing just fine, all by yourself. Have fun with your "big bag." :shrug:

Checked it, no name calling there, just a distinct and blatantly obvious evasion. You insulted me in a post that you could not immediately back up. The post was obviously a lie. If it were true, then you would have researched it before making your unnecessary claim. You said that my post describing scientific laws was abysmal yet when I asked you to show me you could not produce the post that you said is abysmal. That is Trolling. Out and out Trolling

As for the rest - sticks and stones.....
 
Last edited:

serp777

Well-Known Member
No, no I haven't. I have responded I have not attacked. I have no fear of mods going back through my post. The easiest way to stop my insults are to stop yours.



No, it is a allegations.



I fail to see the difference between an atheist and a agnostic.


I am just not an angry person. I believe everyone has a right to believe it what ever they choose. I do not get angry because my choice is not selected.



We are relatively young in comparison to the age of the earth. Primates, I believe, are just about 200 million years old. It took as long as it was necessary to take.



God had no control over the results of the big bang. If he did then there would be no need for fine tuning.



Faith alone is good enough for me. I am just enjoying the debate with those who do not believe the same as me. That is what this forum is about.

"No, no I haven't. I have responded I have not attacked. I have no fear of mods going back through my post. The easiest way to stop my insults are to stop yours. "
Many people here have complained about you picking fights and being insulting. I'm sure many mods would agree too. You're welcome to believe whatever you want though; this is a religious forum after all.

"No, it is a allegations. "
No, it is a false allegation

"I fail to see the difference between an atheist and a agnostic. "
An atheist believes God doesn't exist. An agnostic says they do not know what they cannot know. A theist believes God does exist. These are important distinctions.

"We are relatively young in comparison to the age of the earth. Primates, I believe, are just about 200 million years old. It took as long as it was necessary to take. "
Primates are actually only 60 million years old. Why was it necessary to take that long? What evidence do you have that it was necessary that it took that long? How did you know God's limits on what he can or cannot do, and what is necessary or not necessary for him?

If the universe is entirely physical, then it wasn't necessary, it just happened this way because of the anthropomorphic principle, as well as random chance.

"God had no control over the results of the big bang. If he did then there would be no need for fine tuning. "
Again you seem to presume God's limitations. Also the universe is not finely tuned; there are constants of nature that could have been fine tuned more precisely, or fine tuned better for the development of life. There are an infinite number of combination of constants, and there is no specific set of constants that had to be chosen. It appears far more random than finely tuned--many combinations would likely produce the same outcomes as this universe. This is simply linear analysis.

"Faith alone is good enough for me. I am just enjoying the debate with those who do not believe the same as me. That is what this forum is about."
I disagree that faith is good enough for you. How would you know about Christianity if you had not been given any information or evidence about it? At some point you needed evidence to believe Christianity over Islam, or Judiasm, or Hinduism, etc. I mean if that's the faith you grew up with, then if you grew up in Iran you'd be saying the same things about Islam, or if you grew up in India you'd be saying the same thing about Hinduism or Buddhism, and thus inherited faith is problematic.


All of the arguments you have made could be used to justify Allah, or Baal, or any other monothesitic belief.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
It sounds to me like he is completely willing to debate you point for point and you are running away. He's just asking for a discussion and said he completely understands if you don't want to re hash everything that has been said already. Why do you take every post so personally? Jeeze.

No, I am not running away. I have agreed to debate whatever claim or opinion I have made. He said my presentation of scientific laws was abysmal. When I asked him to show me where, he could not produce anything that I had said. On what then did he Base his assertion? He has made a unfounded assertion. Yet you berate me. Why would you do that when I know that your posts are usually reasonable and constructive?

Also, I don't think its necessary to ascertain someone's level of education on a subject when what they are saying shows a lack of understanding of basic premises such as when you stated that mankind evolved faster than other species. It doesn't matter if you studied evolution in depth for 20 years straight and graduated yesterday. Since you made that statement, it would be safe to assume that you fell asleep in class a lot.

I was going to answer this right up until the fell asleep bit. Evolution was not taught in my school and university barely touched on it and I have clarified that I am not a evolutionary biologist. Plus, of course, I asked why men are more intelligent then their closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom. I said what I said and was asked if I am saying that they evolved faster. I do not. I do not believe we are old enough to have evolved that much. The truth is a constant. I am telling truths. I will tell the same truth next week and next year and for as long as I live so when someone says that I have said something that is a lie I know that I never said it.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Checked it, no name calling there, just a distinct and blatantly obvious evasion. You insulted me in a post that you could not immediately back up. The post was obviously a lie. If it were true, then you would have researched it before making your unnecessary claim. You said that my post describing scientific laws was abysmal yet when I asked you to show me you could not produce the post that you said is abysmal. That is Trolling. Out and out Trolling

As for the rest - sticks and stones.....
OK, now that I've searched the thread for all your posts I can fairly say that my lifetime of scientific training, education and practice fails to detect anything in said posts that can be remotely considered scientifically correct or accurate. You admit to not knowing much science, so take the advice of a scientist ... listen to your own words.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
OK, now that I've searched the thread for all your posts I can fairly say that my lifetime of scientific training, education and practice fails to detect anything in said posts that can be remotely considered scientifically correct or accurate. You admit to not knowing much science, so take the advice of a scientist ... listen to your own words.

You are a retired Oceanographer, although you have spelt it Oceanograper . You have studied oceans.

So Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion is not scientific, is that what you are saying? And if you have searched my post where is it so that I can defend it. Just because you say it, and you think you were a scientist, does not make what you are saying true. Prove me to be abysmal in my use of scientific phenomenon. If I am wrong I can accept that I am wrong but you have shown nothing to show that I am wrong with. You have only insulted my intelligence and understanding of science. Don't let that bother you to much, not that you will, but this is one of the standard traits of atheists. They are usually very angry and have anger management issues that cause them to insult when they are proven to be unethical with the truth or just plainly and simply wrong. As you are here. They claim that they, and they alone, have the answer to everything, yet I have never seen a scientist or atheist convert a Christian into their sordid clubs. They need empirical measurements and test result to convince themselves of that which is true when their truth span a small percentage of the knowledge of the world we live in. There is so much more then evidence, which makes them bigots.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
"No, no I haven't. I have responded I have not attacked. I have no fear of mods going back through my post. The easiest way to stop my insults are to stop yours. "
Many people here have complained about you picking fights and being insulting. I'm sure many mods would agree too. You're welcome to believe whatever you want though; this is a religious forum after all.

Yes they have. You are absolutely correct. However, I have a great deal of faith in the moderators here to be fair and impartial. What you have failed to notice is that I am the lone Christian here. Everybody else is non-believers. I have seen it over and over again, atheists fall over each other to back up there lies. That is just what they do. It is their MO to discredit the Christian whether it be by using the truth or lies. I have just demonstrated one atheists acting in a dishonest manner, but no one here will mention anything to him because everyone here belongs to the same club as he does, you know the same as the hand Shakers.


"We are relatively young in comparison to the age of the earth. Primates, I believe, are just about 200 million years old. It took as long as it was necessary to take. "
Primates are actually only 60 million years old. Why was it necessary to take that long? What evidence do you have that it was necessary that it took that long? How did you know God's limits on what he can or cannot do, and what is necessary or not necessary for him?
Just to be pernickety.

50 million-year-old fossil is earliest known primate discovered so far. The earliest known primate skeleton has been found by palaeontologists, a 55 million-year-old tree-dwelling creature that lived in what is now central China.
Google

So, you think it was a long time, compared to what? Popping down the shop for a paper, a life time, a million life times, the age of the universe.

How did I know Gods limits. The same as I know many things about God. The Holy Ghost whispered it to my soul and I felt him. We can receive knowledge, even hidden knowledge, if we submit ourselves to the enticing of the Holy Ghost, the second comforter.

If the universe is entirely physical, then it wasn't necessary, it just happened this way because of the anthropomorphic principle, as well as random chance.

I cannot answer this as I do not understand what point you are making.

"God had no control over the results of the big bang. If he did then there would be no need for fine tuning. "
Again you seem to presume God's limitations. Also the universe is not finely tuned; there are constants of nature that could have been fine tuned more precisely, or fine tuned better for the development of life. There are an infinite number of combination of constants, and there is no specific set of constants that had to be chosen. It appears far more random than finely tuned--many combinations would likely produce the same outcomes as this universe. This is simply linear analysis.

No, I presume nothing. I am telling you what I have been told and what I have been told is like adding missing puzzles to a nearly comp, even picture.

I do not feel that there is anyone here who is serious enough to continue with that line of evidence.

"Faith alone is good enough for me. I am just enjoying the debate with those who do not believe the same as me. That is what this forum is about."
I disagree that faith is good enough for you. How would you know about Christianity if you had not been given any information or evidence about it? At some point you needed evidence to believe Christianity over Islam, or Judiasm, or Hinduism, etc. I mean if that's the faith you grew up with, then if you grew up in Iran you'd be saying the same things about Islam, or if you grew up in India you'd be saying the same thing about Hinduism or Buddhism, and thus inherited faith is problematic.

My faith is like Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. All the evidence points to it being true, indeed, we continue to find evidences that make it true, however, without Macroevolution being able to be tested by the scientific method it remains a theory, as it should. That is how my faith is. True but untested.

There is only one God. There are no true religions. God has never authorised any church to act in his name. Not one of them. They are all false.


All of the arguments you have made could be used to justify Allah, or Baal, or any other monothesitic belief.

Yes, but so what.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
"No, no I haven't. I have responded I have not attacked. I have no fear of mods going back through my post. The easiest way to stop my insults are to stop yours. "
Many people here have complained about you picking fights and being insulting. I'm sure many mods would agree too. You're welcome to believe whatever you want though; this is a religious forum after all.

Yes they have. You are absolutely correct. However, I have a great deal of faith in the moderators here to be fair and impartial. What you have failed to notice is that I am the lone Christian here. Everybody else is non-believers. I have seen it over and over again, atheists fall over each other to back up there lies. That is just what they do. It is their MO to discredit the Christian whether it be by using the truth or lies. I have just demonstrated one atheists acting in a dishonest manner, but no one here will mention anything to him because everyone here belongs to the same club as he does, you know the same as the hand Shakers.



Just to be pernickety.



So, you think it was a long time, compared to what? Popping down the shop for a paper, a life time, a million life times, the age of the universe.

How did I know Gods limits. The same as I know many things about God. The Holy Ghost whispered it to my soul and I felt him. We can receive knowledge, even hidden knowledge, if we submit ourselves to the enticing of the Holy Ghost, the second comforter.



I cannot answer this as I do not understand what point you are making.



No, I presume nothing. I am telling you what I have been told and what I have been told is like adding missing puzzles to a nearly comp, even picture.

I do not feel that there is anyone here who is serious enough to continue with that line of evidence.



My faith is like Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. All the evidence points to it being true, indeed, we continue to find evidences that make it true, however, without Macroevolution being able to be tested by the scientific method it remains a theory, as it should. That is how my faith is. True but untested.

There is only one God. There are no true religions. God has never authorised any church to act in his name. Not one of them. They are all false.




Yes, but so what.

"Everybody else is non-believers. I have seen it over and over again, atheists fall over each other to back up there lies. "

This is an inaccurate generalization. I'm not sure how this supports your argument that the mods would see your posts as acceptable.

"No, I presume nothing. I am telling you what I have been told and what I have been told is like adding missing puzzles to a nearly comp, even picture. "

"The same as I know many things about God. The Holy Ghost whispered it to my soul and I felt him. We can receive knowledge, even hidden knowledge, if we submit ourselves to the enticing of the Holy Ghost, the second comforter.

At what point do you trust the accuracy of your feelings and voices whispering in your head? Are your feelings 100% accurate? How do you know you can implicitly trust yourself? Many people feel that alien abductions are completely genuine. Many people believe they have felt the experiences of past reincarnation, and just as genuinely as you believe that they have attained special knowledge. So if you propose that people's beliefs and feelings can be wrong in some cases, how do you know yours also can't be wrong? Or do you accept that everyone's experiences, beliefs, and feelings are 100% genuine?

"There is only one God. There are no true religions. God has never authorised any church to act in his name. Not one of them. They are all false."

Including Christianity then? I suppose you're a deist, which is at least easier to justify than being a theist.

"My faith is like Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. "
Minus fossil records, genetic analyses, modern day observation of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, convergent evolution, thousands of scientifically peer reviewed papers, biochemical mechanisms, computer simulations of evolution, etc. Not nearly as reliable as Darwin's theory unless you've got a boat load of evidence. The problem with your analogy is that your faith is not based on empirical evidence, which is the basis for natural selection.

"Macroevolution being able to be tested by the scientific method it remains a theory, as it should."
Except fossil records are pretty good as evidence for macro evolution, same with genetic analysis.

"I cannot answer this as I do not understand what point you are making. "
The point was that a universe that is entirely physical would have properties that are consistent with what we observe-- A huge expanse of unnecessary stars and galaxies, unnecessarily long durations, the caprice of the destruction of 99% of the species of this planet over several billion years, etc. In a universe that is physical in origins, resulting from random chance, none of this things are contradictory. In a universe with an infinite all powerful God, God could have done it a better way.
 

McBell

Unbound
No all I asked, politely, was that we go through your claims one at a time and that you save me the trouble of backtracking through the thread, since I am new here and not very good at navigating yet. If you are unable, or unwilling to do so that is easy to understand.

$20 says he merely does not want his "arguments" shown to be the worthlessness they actually are... ...again.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
"Everybody else is non-believers. I have seen it over and over again, atheists fall over each other to back up there lies. "

This is an inaccurate generalization. I'm not sure how this supports your argument that the mods would see your posts as acceptable.

It is inaccurate, is it? Who else, posting right now, is a Christian. You cannot just say "inaccurate generalisation" without it meaning something, or referring to something.

If the moderators are monitoring this thread then they will do so impartially, unlike you, and see that I am retaliating and not attacking. You are posting to me. I am not posting to you. You are attacking, I am responding to those attacks, as I am to several posters here. If you cannot take it, but only give it, then I suggest you stop posting to me as I can give as good as you can.

"No, I presume nothing. I am telling you what I have been told and what I have been told is like adding missing puzzles to a nearly comp, even picture. "

"The same as I know many things about God. The Holy Ghost whispered it to my soul and I felt him. We can receive knowledge, even hidden knowledge, if we submit ourselves to the enticing of the Holy Ghost, the second comforter.

At what point do you trust the accuracy of your feelings and voices whispering in your head?

It varies as my spirituality varies and my biological chemistry changes all the time so does my spirituality, depending on what my senses are feeding it.

Are your feelings 100% accurate?

As regards to my communication with the Holy Ghost yes, every time I as I am given.

How do you know you can implicitly trust yourself?

Because the results are always positive so my trust increases everything I put Trust in the Holy Ghost.

Many people feel that alien abductions are completely genuine. Many people believe they have felt the experiences of past reincarnation, and just as genuinely as you believe that they have attained special knowledge. So if you propose that people's beliefs and feelings can be wrong in some cases, how do you know yours also can't be wrong? Or do you accept that everyone's experiences, beliefs, and feelings are 100% genuine?

I do not prose that. I do not know that. Maybe there are alien abductions and cases of reincarnation, or at least historical retrieval from our DNA. I know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and my Pudding is delicious to the taste and very satisfying.

"There is only one God. There are no true religions. God has never authorised any church to act in his name. Not one of them. They are all false."

Yes, I should have said faiths not religions. There are no authorised churches. God has not authorised anybody to set up his church anywhere and then to interpret his words. Religion is personal and is the relationship between one individual and his God. Congregations are a nice place to meet together but a false place to seek God and his desires for us. That comes in the quite of your bedroom whilst on your knees in earnest prayer and supplication. When that intelligence enters your body as a separate and distinct entity and bears witness to your soul that God lives and love all of his children and not those who are Catholic or Methodist.

Including Christianity then? I suppose you're a deist, which is at least easier to justify than being a theist.

Yes, I think that much of my beliefs tend to be similar to deists.

"My faith is like Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. "
Minus fossil records, genetic analyses, modern day observation of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, convergent evolution, thousands of scientifically peer reviewed papers, biochemical mechanisms, computer simulations of evolution, etc. Not nearly as reliable as Darwin's theory unless you've got a boat load of evidence. The problem with your analogy is that your faith is not based on empirical evidence, which is the basis for natural selection.

This is just silly. I am comparing my faith to a known theory. I am not discrediting the theory or anything related to evolution, or even evolution. I am comparing it to a process. Oh, bacterial development is microevolution, I am making my comparison to Macroevolution. That is why I used Darwin.

"Macroevolution being able to be tested by the scientific method it remains a theory, as it should."
Except fossil records are pretty good as evidence for macro evolution, same with genetic analysis.

Except nothing, it does not meet with the scientific method so no amount of scientific evidence will ever change it from a theory.
"I cannot answer this as I do not understand what point you are making. "
The point was that a universe that is entirely physical would have properties that are consistent with what we observe-- A huge expanse of unnecessary stars and galaxies, unnecessarily long durations, the caprice of the destruction of 99% of the species of this planet over several billion years, etc. In a universe that is physical in origins, resulting from random chance, none of this things are contradictory. In a universe with an infinite all powerful God, God could have done it a better way.

What about what we do not observe, cannot observe. How are you defining random chance, does it exist, or is it all organised chaos? Show me how God could have done it better. God can only do what can be done. Did you know that God, or anybody else in scripture, never referred to his power as infinite. In fact it is only mentioned three times in the entire KJV Bible and all of those in the Old Testament, none of which refers to power.
 
Last edited:

TheGunShoj

Active Member
No, I am not running away. I have agreed to debate whatever claim or opinion I have made. He said my presentation of scientific laws was abysmal. When I asked him to show me where, he could not produce anything that I had said. On what then did he Base his assertion? He has made a unfounded assertion. Yet you berate me. Why would you do that when I know that your posts are usually reasonable and constructive?
I wasn't berating you. I was stating what I observed. You have covered a lot of different scientific topics over hundreds of pages now. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest because I know how difficult it can be to locate a certain post within a range of 20 pages, much less finding several posts across 205. He sounded understanding to me, even stating that he wouldn't mind if you didn't want to rehash all the arguments. I don't know his true motives but again, benefit of the doubt.



I was going to answer this right up until the fell asleep bit. Evolution was not taught in my school and university barely touched on it and I have clarified that I am not a evolutionary biologist. Plus, of course, I asked why men are more intelligent then their closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom. I said what I said and was asked if I am saying that they evolved faster. I do not. I do not believe we are old enough to have evolved that much. The truth is a constant. I am telling truths. I will tell the same truth next week and next year and for as long as I live so when someone says that I have said something that is a lie I know that I never said it.
Okay now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, the sleep part was just a little quip, don't pay it any mind. The point was that it doesn't matter someone's education in a field, if they say something that is demonstrably incorrect, it's still incorrect. I could be wrong about what you stated about evolution and as I said in the other quote reply, digging through 205 pages for a quote is going to be a pain. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find time but I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.
 

adi2d

Active Member
I wasn't berating you. I was stating what I observed. You have covered a lot of different scientific topics over hundreds of pages now. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest because I know how difficult it can be to locate a certain post within a range of 20 pages, much less finding several posts across 205. He sounded understanding to me, even stating that he wouldn't mind if you didn't want to rehash all the arguments. I don't know his true motives but again, benefit of the doubt.



Okay now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, the sleep part was just a little quip, don't pay it any mind. The point was that it doesn't matter someone's education in a field, if they say something that is demonstrably incorrect, it's still incorrect. I could be wrong about what you stated about evolution and as I said in the other quote reply, digging through 205 pages for a quote is going to be a pain. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find time but I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.

The OP asked the question 'did humans evolve faster than other animals'. Doesn't seem to be a response since it was the first post in this thread
 

TheGunShoj

Active Member
The OP asked the question 'did humans evolve faster than other animals'. Doesn't seem to be a response since it was the first post in this thread

Oh, look! It is in the OP. See? I thought it was at least a few pages in, I would have been looking for ages! :jester5: In all fairness, it is poised as a question rather than an assertion so I'll give him that.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I wasn't berating you. I was stating what I observed. You have covered a lot of different scientific topics over hundreds of pages now. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest because I know how difficult it can be to locate a certain post within a range of 20 pages, much less finding several posts across 205. He sounded understanding to me, even stating that he wouldn't mind if you didn't want to rehash all the arguments. I don't know his true motives but again, benefit of the doubt.



Okay now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, the sleep part was just a little quip, don't pay it any mind. The point was that it doesn't matter someone's education in a field, if they say something that is demonstrably incorrect, it's still incorrect. I could be wrong about what you stated about evolution and as I said in the other quote reply, digging through 205 pages for a quote is going to be a pain. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find time but I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.

Thank You. :)
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
No, what I am peeved about is that you clearly made a assertion against my abilities to present scientific laws in connection with the supernatural, yet, when I call you on it you do not have a single quote to substantiate your impolite claim. Abysmal is a negative description of my abilities, worse still, you have not ascertained my level of education or knowledge in these fields and you have not disclosed your own in order to present a fair and level playing field. You are looking to exalt yourself, is my guess, which is why you used the word dialectic. I will absolutely not assist you in your attempts to belittle and discredit me, absolutely not. If you want to look at the OP and call me on my opinions on how the big bag could be the result of a God using Sir Isaacs Newton's thirds law of motion then I will answer your inquiry to the best of my ability. You just cannot post Yeah, come on thicko, I know more then you, that makes me a better person then you, so I must be an authority here, so theism is a complete lie. Is that how you were raised, because it is not how I was raised. It is arrogance and narcissistic.
You have described yourself as "not a scientist" and "not an evolutionary biologist." I have a bit of expertise as a scientist and as an evolutionary biologist, so take my word for it, whatever your level of education, your level of understanding is, in fact, abysmal. But level of education is just an appeal to authority and is completely irrelevant. As far as "dialectic" is concerned, that's an everyday term in our house ... so let's cut back on you lack of reasoning as to my use of the word. Look up St. John's College (Santa Fe or Annapolis) and understand that is where my son goes to school, and try to grasp the fact that my undergraduate education at Berkeley was conducted in a very similar fashion (look up Tussman Tutorials). I need no assistance to to belittle and discredit you, absolutely not, your doing a fine job all on your own.

Do you really think that everyone can not see through your simple charade ... you can't make your case so you try to shift the focus to a personal fight. Fine, I kick your *** there too, so you might a well stay on topic and keep the conversation at a higher level.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You have described yourself as "not a scientist" and "not an evolutionary biologist." I have a bit of expertise as a scientist and as an evolutionary biologist, so take my word for it, whatever your level of education, your level of understanding is, in fact, abysmal. But level of education is just an appeal to authority and is completely irrelevant. As far as "dialectic" is concerned, that's an everyday term in our house ... so let's cut back on you lack of reasoning as to my use of the word. Look up St. John's College (Santa Fe or Annapolis) and understand that is where my son goes to school, and try to grasp the fact that my undergraduate education at Berkeley was conducted in a very similar fashion (look up Tussman Tutorials). I need no assistance to to belittle and discredit you, absolutely not, your doing a fine job all on your own.

Do you really think that everyone can not see through your simple charade ... you can't make your case so you try to shift the focus to a personal fight. Fine, I kick your *** there too, so you might a well stay on topic and keep the conversation at a higher level.

You grossly misunderstand me. I make no appeal to authority through the university I attended or the level of education I have. I do not buy respect with appeals to authority either. You do. That is exactly what you have done here when boasting what you have achieved and what your son is achieving academically. It is pompous and preposterous. It is not a personal fight either. I am a Christian. I believe that Thou shalt not bear false witness. I am just fulfilling my duty to other members in an attempt to allow amicable and honest debate.

If you went to Berkley then you would know, as I do, Peter Duesberg. That is my appeal to celebrity.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I know of him, we do have our share of kooks.

As for our academic backgrounds, I only mentioned attendance (not degrees, honors, distinctions, etc.) and I only mentioned that to demonstrate why "dialectic" is a normal part of our dinner table conversation. I guess it is not part of yours, is that why you think the useof the word is an attempt at exultation? I can't help it if in your trailer park such language would be putting on airs, in our home and community it's just every day conversation. Like I said, I have no need to belittle and discredit you, absolutely none, you are doing a fine job all on your own.

If you want allow amicable and honest debate, now that you have concerns out in the open, I believe the ball was in your court.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I know of him, we do have our share of kooks.

As for our academic backgrounds, I only mentioned attendance (not degrees, honors, distinctions, etc.) and I only mentioned that to demonstrate why "dialectic" is a normal part of our dinner table conversation. I guess it is not part of yours, is that why you think the useof the word is an attempt at exultation? I can't help it if in your trailer park such language would be putting on airs, in our home and community it's just every day conversation. Like I said, I have no need to belittle and discredit you, absolutely none, you are doing a fine job all on your own.



If you want allow amicable and honest debate, now that you have concerns out in the open, I believe the ball was in your court.

Trailer parks in the UK are considered posh and upper classed, therefore, you complement me rather then insult me. Dialectic is a word that is in my vocabulary, however, it is a word that I rarely see being used anywhere that I frequent. On these forums poster will use thesaurus' to dupe you into believe that they are wise and knowledgeable because people feel intimidation from knowledge. I have a right to be here, I have a right to voice an opinion and I will be damned if I will let anyone intimidate me into shutting my mouth because they think they are cleverer then I am. I will have a diabectic with anyone one but I will defend myself if I am spoken down to. It is arrogance to expect people to shut up just because you believe you know better

.
But I believe that the thread has run its course now. I have put my case forward adequately and honestly. I do not expect anyone to run and jump into the nearest baptismal font. I am not an evangelist. I really could not care less if you think that Christians are a bunch of delusional idiots who must be mentally incapable because of what the choose to believe. You will know if you cocked up when you die, as will I. If you have cocked up then you will have some explaining to do. If I have cocked up it will not matter as there will be nothing to worry about.
 
Last edited:

adi2d

Active Member
I find it hard to believe that you think you have accomplished what you said in your OP.
Like when I asked you for evidence you said you would get to it (get your mojo) now you are saying you gave the evidence

It has been entertaining tho

Never saw anyone claiming the know because HG told them then came out with beauts like "God is helpless" "omnipotent means God can do what he can do" and my personal favorite "humans diverged from apes during the Cambrian"

Thanks for the chuckles if not the evidence you promised. I'm still a reasonable man looking for evidence of God
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I find it hard to believe that you think you have accomplished what you said in your OP.
Like when I asked you for evidence you said you would get to it (get your mojo) now you are saying you gave the evidence

It has been entertaining tho

Never saw anyone claiming the know because HG told them then came out with beauts like "God is helpless" "omnipotent means God can do what he can do" and my personal favorite "humans diverged from apes during the Cambrian"

Thanks for the chuckles if not the evidence you promised. I'm still a reasonable man looking for evidence of God

Sorry, where did I say God is helpless only that is something that I would not say unless it referred to a specific thing that God could not do without putting his marvellous work and wonder into jeopardy

You to can know that God lives by following the following instructions.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

I did not say that I had accomplished it, I said "I have put my case forward adequately and honestly" you have a habit of twisting what I have said and then putting it back in my mouth. Why not be a nice chappie, for once, and tell it like it is. Like with the Cambrian thing. I got it wrong and admitted I was wrong, with the reasoning being that I am not a evolutionary biologist. But you are depicting it like I still believe it. There is nothing wrong in being wrong because the next time I will know and not be wrong. What have your learned today. How to better insult a Christian?

This is just BS."Like when I asked you for evidence you said you would get to it (get your mojo) now you are saying you gave the evidence" I tried to bring in the anthropic principle but you and your gang derailed the thread preventing it from developing.

What do you get by posting garbage like this. Do you delude yourself into believing what you say. Does it get you off thinking that you got one over on a Christian. Does it help to take the frustration out of the bullies you work with. What motivates you into being nasty, sarcastic, insulting and crass?
 
Last edited:
Top