RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:06:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle How in good conscience could she continue with her extreme beliefs once she was made to realise Jesus was a brain eater? "Jesus: And I said drink this wine it is my blood. God: YOU SAID WHAT?! Jesus: I said "drink this wine it is my blood." I was trying to make it a ceremony. God: But that's vampirism... vampiric thing "drink my blood." That's pagan. You've got pagan things on day one of the new religion! Jesus: Oh... sorry. God: Did you say anything else that could have screwed up things forever and ever? Jesus: No... God: Nothing about bread? Jesus: Yes... God: What did you say? Jesus: I said... eat this bread... it is... my... favorite! It was hot and had all the crinckly bits in it and it and I loved it and it was...Alright I said it was my body ok? God: That's cannibalism! You got vampirism and cannibalism on day one of the new religion! And you died the on Easter... the biggest pagan celebration in the history of ever!" ~Eddie Izzard

mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:08:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle How in good conscience could she continue with her extreme beliefs once she was made to realise Jesus was a brain eater? Apparently it is taken on faith that the prescience of Joshua (Jesus is spanish) in that he saw the coming of the cannibals and missionarys. Once again what more proofs do you need?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:11:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 What point? All you did was completely ignore what I wrote, and create a straw man. Where did I say that genetic mutations are unlikely? Please come out from the footnotes. We're not talking about minor gray areas that you can dichotomize. ID. The entire concept. The presumption that the improbability of something must indicate sentient design (as if non-sentient design wasn't all over the place). Exactly. Far from a straw man, it is the crux of the matter. ID's claim is that evolution couldnt happen in the time frame of the existence of the earth because "random mutations" are too low probability an event. Between this and your misstatement about Behe and the IC of the eye, I think you really need to brush up on your ID.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:11:43 AM)
quote: Oh really? did you read Darwin's Black Box? He explicitly uses the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. I said "as I recall" because Behe was so easily dismissed that I havent bothered to open it in years. However I did confirm it. Page 29. Please quote the relevant portion, I just looked up page 29 and nowhere does he call the eye irreducibly complex.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 quote: Oh really? did you read Darwin's Black Box? He explicitly uses the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. I said "as I recall" because Behe was so easily dismissed that I havent bothered to open it in years. However I did confirm it. Page 29. Please quote the relevant portion, I just looked up page 29 and nowhere does he call the eye irreducibly complex. I'll have to pull it out again when I get home. Perhaps we have different editions.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:12:58 AM)
quote: Exactly. Far from a straw man, it is the crux of the matter. ID's claim is that evolution couldnt happen in the time frame of the existence of the earth because "random mutations" are too low probability an event. Please quote an IDer saying that random mutations are low probability events. quote: Between this and your misstatement about Behe and the IC of the eye, I think you really need to brush up on your ID. Please quote the relevant portion in Darwin's Black Box, I'm looking at the page and nowhere does he say the eye is irreducibly complex.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:14:51 AM)
quote: I'll have to pull it out again when I get home. Perhaps we have different editions. Um, there are only two editions of Darwin's Black Box, the original one in 1996, and the second one a few years ago where all he did was add a chapter.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:16:13 AM)
quote: Oh really? did you read Darwin's Black Box? He explicitly uses the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. I said "as I recall" because Behe was so easily dismissed that I havent bothered to open it in years. However I did confirm it. Page 29. Certainly seems to be what others thought was on page 29 as well.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Please quote the relevant portion in Darwin's Black Box, I'm looking at the page and nowhere does he say the eye is irreducibly complex. Let's try rewording the question: Does Behe imply that there hasn't been enough time for an eye to evolve (on page 29)?

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:18:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I know this crazy USA woman, catholic, fishing for souls in Amsterdam. I haven't heard from her since I told her that I had concluded that Leonardo da Vinci showed Jesus eating the brain of John the baptist in his painting of the last supper. Leonardo knew he existed, Ron. How in good conscience could she continue with her extreme beliefs once she was made to realise Jesus was a brain eater? I think she rejected my conclusion. However, being interested in truth only, I do not see the fact of Jesus being a brain eater as a reason to reject his message nor Christianity. He was just a man of his times, acting as he was raised and indoctrinated to do. I have no problem with Jesus being a brain eater, nor should anyone else.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:19:37 AM)
For crying out loud...now I'm getting sucked into another nonsensical excerpt of a book that is irrelevant because if you want to argue for ID there is still no reason that the designer need be the abrahamic god. It's actually preposterous and narcissistic to presume it is even if ID had any substantive premise of its own in the first place!

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:20:47 AM)
FR: Evolving eyes is easy. If I recall correctly, evolution has done so at least twenty times.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:20:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I have no problem with Jesus being a brain eater, nor should anyone else. Wait... Are brains kosher?

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:22:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Please quote the relevant portion in Darwin's Black Box, I'm looking at the page and nowhere does he say the eye is irreducibly complex. Let's try rewording the question: Does Behe imply that there hasn't been enough time for an eye to evolve (on page 29)? No, he was simply talking about an argument between mathematicians regarding how long it should take for the eye to evolve. It says nothing about the eye being irreducibly complex, nor was Behe making any argument regarding the eye. You can see for yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Darwin%27s+Black+Box&ei=1hB7StyXD6G8zgS6q5m8DA#v=onepage&q=eye&f=false

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle How in good conscience could she continue with her extreme beliefs once she was made to realise Jesus was a brain eater? "Jesus: And I said drink this wine it is my blood. God: YOU SAID WHAT?! Jesus: I said "drink this wine it is my blood." I was trying to make it a ceremony. God: But that's vampirism... vampiric thing "drink my blood." That's pagan. You've got pagan things on day one of the new religion! Jesus: Oh... sorry. God: Did you say anything else that could have screwed up things forever and ever? Jesus: No... God: Nothing about bread? Jesus: Yes... God: What did you say? Jesus: I said... eat this bread... it is... my... favorite! It was hot and had all the crinckly bits in it and it and I loved it and it was...Alright I said it was my body ok? God: That's cannibalism! You got vampirism and cannibalism on day one of the new religion! And you died the on Easter... the biggest pagan celebration in the history of ever!" ~Eddie Izzard aww NZ, didnt realize you cared that much [:)] Izzard... exactly what i expected

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:25:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Are brains kosher? According to The Last Supper by da Vinci, his jewish pupils were horrified, which is why they or he replaced it by the wine and bread ritual. In any case Jesus was an outsider, who wanted to convert the Jews to a more civilized religion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:26:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: Oh really? did you read Darwin's Black Box? He explicitly uses the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. I said "as I recall" because Behe was so easily dismissed that I havent bothered to open it in years. However I did confirm it. Page 29. Certainly seems to be what others thought was on page 29 as well. And regardless of the page, it is clear from several internet sites that Behe uses the eye as an example of IC. It may not have been his focus, but other ID proponents have made it a key example in their arguements.

intenze -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:28:10 AM)
I cannot believe evolution and God are being drawn in together. They are not mutally exclusive. Evolution and fundamentalism are. Show me a bunny fossil from the Precambrian age and I will dissolve my belief in evolution and renew my faith in the exact wording of the Bible, whatever the hell that is.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:28:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Please quote the relevant portion in Darwin's Black Box, I'm looking at the page and nowhere does he say the eye is irreducibly complex. Let's try rewording the question: Does Behe imply that there hasn't been enough time for an eye to evolve (on page 29)? No, he was simply talking about an argument between mathematicians regarding how long it should take for the eye to evolve. It says nothing about the eye being irreducibly complex, nor was Behe making any argument regarding the eye. You can see for yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Darwin%27s+Black+Box&ei=1hB7StyXD6G8zgS6q5m8DA#v=onepage&q=eye&f=false page 29 isnt in your link "The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency."

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:29:26 AM)
quote: And regardless of the page, it is clear from several internet sites that Behe uses the eye as an example of IC. It may not have been his focus, but other ID proponents have made it a key example in their arguements. Ok, I'll wait for the right page number and quote. Thus far, there is no evidence that Behe regards the anatomy of the eye to be irreducibly complex.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125