omnipotent beings discussion

Kevinward777 said:
When I see a painting I know there must have been a painter, a building requires there to be a builder etc. But when a man looks at creation, the trees, birds, flowers, fish, animals, perfect symbiotic systems, the anatomy of all living things, and presumes a creator he’s a fool. Though, go tell people we share the DNA of a banana and that we have evolved from common bacteria and they’ll crown you a genius. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Really Ken....The watchmakers analogy....come on...so many flaws to this argument
But I think Douglas Adams said it best:
 
Okay ... I am going to blame excessive isolation ... but I was thinking ...

If we asked nicely .. one of the 15 churches worldwide that has the true foreskin of Christ relics ... to allow us take a DNA swab ...

We could recreate God in a test tube ... insert the fetus into a girl called Mary ... and do the whole immaculate birth thing again ....

But this time tell him to talk straight ... in easily understood language ...
 
MuzztheEagle said:
If all bacteria are just bacteria - then why is there good bacteria and bad bacteria. I.e. the bacteria that help us digest food and make my sour beer compared to the sorts of bacteria that will eat you alive and are resistant to antibiotics or the ones which cause death and illness across the world like e-coli. Why did (your) god make bacteria and make us so dependent and vulnerable to it?
(Let me guess, mysterious ways 😉 )
Hell, what sort of purpose does a virus (and our susceptibility to them) serve from an intelligent design perspective?
Click to expand...
Why are there good and bad people?
 
Woodsie said:
Sorry to be picky ... but ole charlie never had a we are related to bananas moment ... the relationship between all life wasn't made until far more recently when the DNA of most of the life forms was mapped ....
Click to expand...
Correct, however it has been squeezed into his theory just the same by the Darwin believing evolutionists.
 
Woodsie said:
Sorry to be picky ... but ole charlie never had a we are related to bananas moment ... the relationship between all life wasn't made until far more recently when the DNA of most of the life forms was mapped ....
Click to expand...
My goodness! I may have just witnessed an observable evolutionary change unfold. @Woodsie and the word sorry in the same post.
 
MuzztheEagle said:
Ambulocetus.....but...that's not a whale I hear you cry! Well would it be a whale if it HAD legs?
View attachment 14337
How about Georgiacetus or Dorudon?
What's more, whales still have the (now very small) bones of their hind legs! For what purpose did an intelligent designer include them I wonder?
View attachment 14338
As we seem to be going down the young earth + intelligent design route; How did kangaroos and platypuses etc. get to Australia (and no where else)?
Click to expand...
Huh? I thought dinosaurs were wiped out BILLIONS of years ago by a giant space rock. But I could be wrong because it was a REALLY LOOOOOONG time ago and I wasn’t there to see it for myself, so you’ll need to have faith that I’m telling you the truth.
 
Kevinward777 said:
Huh? I thought dinosaurs were wiped out BILLIONS of years ago by a giant space rock. But I could be wrong because it was a REALLY LOOOOOONG time ago and I wasn’t there to see it for myself, so you’ll need to have faith that I’m telling you the truth.
Click to expand...
None of what I posted were dinosaurs. Nor did whales evolve from dinosaurs. All of listed species were mammals and lived well after the time of dinosaurs.
But while we're on the subject; what are dinosaur fossils from your perspective? Did they make it onto the ark or did they just miss out?
 
MuzztheEagle said:
None of what I posted were dinosaurs. Nor did whales evolve from dinosaurs. All of listed species were mammals and lived well after the time of dinosaurs.
But while we're on the subject; what are dinosaur fossils from your perspective? Did they make it onto the ark or did they just miss out?
[/https://youtu.be/Sr5lY0TcdAw
Click to expand...
 
MuzztheEagle said:
I should post something explaining why that whole thing is wrong....and mostly just incoherent nonsense. But really.....why on earth would you post a video from this guy?
Click to expand...
Please do? It’s not just from that one guy, but from many various individuals.My general experience of people who write/say I should write/say something to disprove this as nonsensical garbage but don’t, is due to the fact they can’t. I posted the guy above because he explains it in very simple terms. So you should be able to debunk him in equally simple terms @MuzztheEagle old mate. But you will probably have to consult with one of those really smart guys who will explain it like this.
1587194989956.jpeg
 
Kevinward777 said:
Can an evolutionist give me one example of observable evidence of any species changing its kind (that is science after all.)
Click to expand...
The blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

New species evolve by diverging away from established ones and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct.
 
Kevinward777 said:
Please do? It’s not just from that one guy, but from many various individuals.My general experience of people who write/say I should write/say something to disprove this as nonsensical garbage but don’t, is due to the fact they can’t. I posted the guy above because he explains it in very simple terms. So you should be able to debunk him in equally simple terms @MuzztheEagle old mate. But you will probably have to consult with one of those really smart guys who will explain it like this.
View attachment 14342
Click to expand...
He uses the definition of universe existing as Time, Space and Matter - scientifically this refers to the universe as it exists in its current state. Note: It is not accepted that the universe came into being from the big bang - but it's current state. Scientists don't know what came before the big bang as our current laws of the universe break down....but that's not to say nothing came before it)
He uses another definition of the universe. Essentially, the universe is everything that has and will always exist.
But the two are not equivalent (unless you can prove that the universe did come into existence with the big bang....and as I have said to you in the past; this is not a claim made by (the overwhelming majority) of physicists (it's always easy to find one or two nutters). So efforts to show how the breakdown of time and space (in the universes current state) lead to
a creator are, pointless. It's a basic equivocation error:

The next is special pleading, I.e the universe must have been created but because God doesn't exist within those rules (which I just applied to everything else) he is therefor exempt from them. And because he is exempt from them he is God....blah blah blah cue circular logic.

It's essentially the first cause/cosmological argument it has been broken down for a very long time now.

BUT....here is the big thing about the whole argument: I DON'T CARE, nor should anyone else. If there was a/multiple creator/s for the universe (and I don't believe there wasn't one, I just don't believe in one as there is no evidence to suggest it) then what can we possibly know about it's motives for doing so or our purpose (if we have one) on Earth. I don't care if someone wants to take on this idea for the sake of comfort, it's when people start to assume intentions of such an entity that we run into trouble. "God cretated the universe and:"
"he hates fags"
"beat/murder your children"
"bomb the infidels"
"enslave the blacks"
"women are the lesser"
etc etc etc....
There is nothing in this argument that gives any legitimacy to any specific religion. So we are still back at:
"God tells me that we should ALL do this"
"Why? Where is your evidence"
"I don't need evidence I have faith!!!"
"that's what those(other religious) guys said....and they think you're wrong.....maybe you should just keep your faith to yourself then....they're a lot bigger/angrier than you!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Members online

Total: 390 (members: 8, guests: 382)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
8
Guests online
382
Total visitors
390
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom