Atheist knowledge

[Marty_d]

MILF ?Please enlighten me .

 

Only found out what BLING ment the other day ,

 

At this rate ill be litterate by the end of tha week !

Mike, how do I put this delicately.

 

It refers to young good-looking mothers (yummy mummies, if you will) - and stands for a "Mum I'd Like to F***".

 

If you really want to be enlightened on a surprising number of words and expressions you may not be familiar with, I'd suggest "Roger's Profanisaurus" as some light reading...

 

 

[AVOCET]

Still dont get it

 

Whers the richard crainium button ?

 

 

[AVOCET]

Mike, how do I put this delicately.

It refers to young good-looking mothers (yummy mummies, if you will) - and stands for a "Mum I'd Like to F***".

 

If you really want to be enlightened on a surprising number of words and expressions you may not be familiar with, I'd suggest "Roger's Profanisaurus" as some light reading...

Finally , an answer i can understand

 

 

[turboplanner]

Except for the part about the people saying "it worked for us". Where are these people?

That's a bit of a worry, now you're taking literal meanings from Facthunter.

 

The big problem is, to our minds at their present state of development, which seems to be dropping year by year lately, it is intangible - just like asking someone to prove or prove a photo of the edge of the universe - we can't come to terms with infinity.

 

there is no sense of fairness in the way the world operates. Why did those lucky enough to be born in Christs time get to see a couple of fish and a loaf of bread feed thousands, Moses part the Red Sea right in front of a lot of people, we don't see any of that today and yet are still expected to believe.

This may come as a surprise to some but before Jesus was dead, crosses were just crosses, and the Nasorean Logos included two curved brush strokes that formed a fish. Their priests and Christs were considered "fishers of men (new believers).

 

However, I've mentioned a few times the information about Saul/Paul and I'd say the loaves and fishes story is BS.

 

The parting or the red sea is said by some who have looked at the location to be a tidal effect, but that's a much older story from the Old Testament.

 

Why was I born in Australia where I can feed myself and have money left over for an iPad so I can waste time on this crap, while the little kid in Bangladesh or somewhere has to search through the swamp to find a rat to eat. Again, not fair.....

Fear not, many of them are taxi drivers and nightclub owners in London these days. I really don't know where you get the idea that God lives your life for you.

 

 

[skeptic36]

That's a bit of a worry, now you're taking literal meanings from Facthunter.The big problem is, to our minds at their present state of development, which seems to be dropping year by year lately, it is intangible - just like asking someone to prove or prove a photo of the edge of the universe - we can't come to terms with infinity.

 

This may come as a surprise to some but before Jesus was dead, crosses were just crosses, and the Nasorean Logos included two curved brush strokes that formed a fish. Their priests and Christs were considered "fishers of men (new believers).

 

However, I've mentioned a few times the information about Saul/Paul and I'd say the loaves and fishes story is BS.

 

The parting or the red sea is said by some who have looked at the location to be a tidal effect, but that's a much older story from the Old Testament.

 

Fear not, many of them are taxi drivers and nightclub owners in London these days. I really don't know where you get the idea that God lives your life for you.

So, a while back you where saying how new research was proving the Bible to be accurate, but now the miracles said to have been performed are BS or the results of normal things occurring in nature?

 

As for the rest of your reply, sorry but I can't see how it relates to what I wrote at all

 

 

[turboplanner]

So, a while back you where saying how new research was proving the Bible to be accurate

Not the WHOLE Bible, this is what I posted in #112 "I've been studying ancient civilizations and it's interesting that some stories in the Bible can not only be corroborated by hard evidence, but can be pinned down to a year, months and time of day. This is due to the massive amount of evidence being produced and stored thanks to the digital age.

 

but now the miracles said to have been performed are BS or the results of normal things occurring in nature?

In #735 I posted: "Instead he invented a new cult to which he gave the Greek name “Christians”, as a translation of the Hebrew word messiah. He called Jesus, a man he never knew, “Christ”, and started to build a following around himself. Because Paul had no understanding of the terminology of the Nasoreans, he was the first person to apply “literalism” to the allegory in Jesus’s teachings and a miracle working god/man was created out of a Jewish patriot. He claimed that he had the support of Simon Peter, but this was just one of a whole framework of lies. Simon Peter issued a warning against any other authority but the Nasorean leadership:

 

The Romans were attracted to Saul/Paul's magic, became Christians and the Roman Catholic Church started, and the New Testament was written after that, so it follows that you would need to be very wary to believe ANYTHING in the New Testament.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If someone does not believe in a particular scientific theory that is fine, no problem but if they then go on to assert that said scientific theory has been discredited then that can be challenged, it is fair in this circumstance to ask for the evidence behind the assertion.

The problem for you Octave is that you are arguing about a theory that was never proved, and Darwin was honest enough to admit that, however, aside from what we've already seen on this thread, here's another interesting link for you http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/sep/6/darwins-error-disproving-theory-evolution/, and if you google "Darwin Theory Disproved, you will see quite a number of discussions

 

As an example the assertion that there are no transitional fossils, I posted a link with a huge list, I was hoping for a well argued rebuttal and all I got was a restating of the original proposition.

Probably because everyone else was over it after the first few posts. If you want to spend time on this, I'd recommend sites which focus on the battle between "Evolutionists", "Creativists" and "Catastrophists" and I'm sure you will find hours of information.

[turboplanner]

It looks to me as if some atheists see the BIBLE virtually as God. I wouldn't look at it from on year to next. To me in some cases it's a history book, in others a manual on how to behave, and in others just advertising.

 

 

[eightyknots]

The problem for you Octave is that you are arguing about a theory that was never proved, and Darwin was honest enough to admit that, however, aside from what we've already seen on this thread, here's another interesting link for you http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/sep/6/darwins-error-disproving-theory-evolution/, and if you google "Darwin Theory Disproved, you will see quite a number of discussions

Probably because everyone else was over it after the first few posts. If you want to spend time on this, I'd recommend sites which focus on the battle between "Evolutionists", "Creativists" and "Catastrophists" and I'm sure you will find hours of information.

That is a great article Turbz. It touches on the issue of irreducible complexity.

 

 

[rgmwa]

.... here's another interesting link for you http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/sep/6/darwins-error-disproving-theory-evolution/, ...

Out of curiosity I had a look at that article which talks about the impossibility of a complex organ like a flagellum evolving by evolutionary processes. It concludes by saying:

 

"The example of the bacterial flagellum shows that the existence of complex biological structures that require for their operation the simultaneous functioning of their multiple parts cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian theory of evolution. In fact, according to this theory, such structures should not really exist at all.

 

This means the theory is less than inadequate. Not only does it fail to account for what we see, it implies that what we see should not even exist in the first place. Any theory that is so at odds with observable reality is quite obviously false.

 

So how did the superbly-designed motor of the bacterial flagellum come into existence? The only reasonable inference is that it was fashioned by a transcendent intelligence.

 

The term that is usually used to refer to such intelligence is God."

 

All he is doing is replacing one theory (evolution) with another theory (God) because he hasn't got a clue how else to explain it. I'd hardly call that progress, and it certainly isn't very convincing.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[eightyknots]

Out of curiosity I had a look at that article which talks about the impossibility of a complex organ like a flagellum evolving by eveolutionary processes. It concludes by saying:"The example of the bacterial flagellum shows that the existence of complex biological structures that require for their operation the simultaneous functioning of their multiple parts cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian theory of evolution. In fact, according to this theory, such structures should not really exist at all.

 

This means the theory is less than inadequate. Not only does it fail to account for what we see, it implies that what we see should not even exist in the first place. Any theory that is so at odds with observable reality is quite obviously false.

 

So how did the superbly-designed motor of the bacterial flagellum come into existence? The only reasonable inference is that it was fashioned by a transcendent intelligence.

 

The term that is usually used to refer to such intelligence is God."

 

All he is doing is replacing one theory (evolution) with another theory (God) because he hasn't got a clue how else to explain it. I'd hardly call that progress, and it certainly isn't very convincing.

 

rgmwa

I find it pretty convincing RgMwa. It is, in fact more believable that a designer framed the universe, the stars, the planets and -in the case of observable Earth- the various living things that populate our planet; similarly, the laws of physics, genetics and chemical bonds. Random chance seems far too unbelievable, certainly less believable that such complex things such as the bacterial flagellum, an insect's multi-faceted eye or a mammal's reproductive system came into being without any design. Frequently we hear "evolution designed it this way" or similar words. Evolution simply cannot design but I believe God can (and has).

 

Science, by observation, can record these stupendous designs ...and marvel at it. Ultimately, it reflects on God as the wonderful designer.

 

 

[rgmwa]

I find it pretty convincing RgMwa. It is, in fact more believable that a designer framed the universe, the stars, the planets and -in the case of observable Earth- the various living things that populate our planet; similarly, the laws of physics, genetics and chemical bonds. Random chance seems far too unbelievable, certainly less believable that such complex things such as the bacterial flagellum, an insect's multi-faceted eye or a mammal's reproductive system came into being without any design. Frequently we hear "evolution designed it this way" or similar words. Evolution simply cannot design but I believe God can (and has).

Science, by observation, can record this design ...and marvel at it. Ultimately, it reflects on God as the wonderful designer.

That's fine 80kts. If you feel that God is a better theory than evolution as a way of explaining living things and the natural world, then feel free to believe that. It doesn't mean that you're right any more than it means Darwin was wrong.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[AVOCET]

That is a great article Turbz. It touches on the issue of irreducible complexity.

I remember reading this when it first came out ,

 

Ide forgotten this and much more as we go on in life ,

 

Just goes to show how people foolishly believe , like sheep ,the most educated , and literate , and ultimately bully any one who has , what the word of God says , is a child like Faith .

 

I think this qualifies as ; Evidence of things not seen .

 

Mike

 

 

[eightyknots]

That's fine 80kts. If you feel that God is a better theory than evolution as a way of explaining the natural world, then feel free to believe that. It doesn't mean that you're right and more that it means Darwin was wrong.rgmwa

By the same token, rgmwa, you can continue to believe that everthing came into being through the processes of Darwinism/evolution without any designer. It all comes down to one thing: what does one believe -what is ultimately more plausible.

 

In my opinion, the main reason why people do not wish to acknowledge that God created everything is simple. If God designed everything, we must be accountable to him in some way. Our consciences tell us that somewhere in our life we have said something nasty, taken something we shouldn't have, hurt someone unjustly, etc, ...we may have to face the music for this. This is so abhorrent that people cling to the illogical explanation of Darwin (no designer) rather than believing what is pretty obvious, that there must be a divine designer, God.

 

 

[AVOCET]

I remember my Dad who was an Athiest saying to me ; never argue with drunks , fools ,bully's and know it all's

 

 

[horsefeathers]

I find it pretty convincing RgMwa. It is, in fact more believable that a designer framed the universe, the stars, the planets and -in the case of observable Earth- the various living things that populate our planet; similarly, the laws of physics, genetics and chemical bonds. Random chance seems far too unbelievable, certainly less believable that such complex things such as the bacterial flagellum, an insect's multi-faceted eye or a mammal's reproductive system came into being without any design. Frequently we hear "evolution designed it this way" or similar words. Evolution simply cannot design but I believe God can (and has).

Science, by observation, can record this design ...and marvel at it. Ultimately, it reflects on God as the wonderful designer.

ahhh what absolute horsehockey.

 

How you guys can argue against something, without the faintest understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution, gives me pause to wonder about what critical thinking process (if any) you guys bring to bear in all other aspects of your life.

 

Like I (and many others) have said, go read a scientific explanation of evolution with your eyes and mind open.'

 

....Random chance SEEMS far too unbelievable.... sheesh - don't believe in it, go read evolutionary theory, then you don't have to believe it, you can read evidence.

 

There are probably more pages published per month just about aspects of evolution, than are contained the entire bible. Go read a few articles, and for god's sake try to get out from behind a few well-worn, intellectually dishonest phrases.

 

And by the way, do you BELIEVE in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics?? No? Neither do I. We both accept that it is a valid description of the phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction. We don't BELIEVE the theory, but we all accept it as the best current description of a natural behaviour ( and a bloody accurate description at that).

 

Same for the theory of Evolution. Just suck it up, accept it and get over your goat herder ramblings.

 

 

[eightyknots]

ahhh what absolute horsehockey.

How you guys can argue against something, without the faintest understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution, gives me pause to wonder about what critical thinking process (if any) you guys bring to bear in all other aspects of your life.

 

Like I (and many others) have said, go read a scientific explanation of evolution with your eyes and mind open.'

 

....Random chance SEEMS far too unbelievable.... sheesh - don't believe in it, go read evolutionary theory, then you don't have to believe it, you can read evidence.

 

There are probably more pages published per month just about aspects of evolution, than are contained the entire bible. Go read a few articles, and for god's sake try to get out from behind a few well-worn, intellectually dishonest phrases.

 

And by the way, do you BELIEVE in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics?? No? Neither do I. We both accept that it is a valid description of the phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction. We don't BELIEVE the theory, but it currently os the best description of natural behaviour ( and a bloody accurate description at that).

 

Same for the theory of Evolution. Just suck it up, accept it and get over your goat herder ramblings.

Thanks for your post, horsefeathers.

 

You wrote about the mechanism of evolution. I have read a number of books trying to explain this but the more I read it the more I became convinced that all these complex things found in every creature (even basic creatures such as bacteria) are very unlikely to have come together by pure chance. After a great deal of critical thinking, ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that it is virtually impossible for all that to have happened in the way described in these publications. I am also sceptical of all the cover ups that have taken place to give evolutions more credence. These cover ups have been exposed over time but they were deliberate because scientist were so desperate to prove Darwinism that they falsified things to get published.

 

The problem is that evolution books 'clutch at straws' and quote observations within a species and then expect the reader to believe that complete species changes took place which are widely different ...despite the fact that millions of years have been given. Can anyone really believe that horses will one day grow feathers?

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Erich Von Daniken was right , we came from aliens( as easy to believe as all the other god stuff)

 

 

[AVOCET]

HORSE FEATHER SAID :Same for the theory of Evolution. Just suck it up, accept it and get over your goat herder ramblings. Quote.;

 

That qualifies as bullying , Trying to end an argument on your terms ,

 

Mike

 

 

[horsefeathers]

The problem is that evolution books 'clutch at straws' and quote observations within a species and then expect the reader to believe that complete species changes took place which are widely different ...despite the fact that millions of years have been given. Can anyone really believe that horses will one day grow feathers?

Clutching at straws??? The literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published each year doesnt sound like straw clutching. And coverups hey - the last refuge when you refuse to face your own beliefs with a critical eye. Show me (an actual, peer-reviewed example) and not more slogans, of an actual coverup. Go on - JUST ONE ACTUAL COVERUP - Nup, didnt think you could.

 

And for evolutionary mechanisms, try reading "In Search of the Double Helix", by John Gribbin. You will become a little better educated

 

 

[turboplanner]

Show me the plans and the carbon dating results and I'll believe it. Until then, it's just conjecture.

The Basilica of St Denis in Paris was the first one, but the architects (or Master Masons are unknown)

 

There is a mixture of contemporary features and new ones in it, so there should be drawings around in at least some of the Cathedrals.

 

The material the Templars found had been buried in 70AD, 1058 years before the Templars dug it up and the information they found could be much older than this.

 

In the reference material I've found so far, nothing the Templars found has been destroyed (other than the treasures and money), so you may yet get to see some carbon dating.

 

Here's a couple of photos of St Denis - almost all windows Sources: Bordelled, Milkbreath

 

And a link, with another take on those times, and current, with the digging ongoing this time by the PLO..http://www.rense.com/general7/tunnel.htm

 

[ATTACH]47496._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]47497._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[bexrbetter]

Probing by aliens has also been reported many times in the last few decades, however if there was other intelligent life in the universe, I can't see them wanting to travel for light years in order to play "hide the probe" with mid-western hillbillies.

All this "probing" and "hot pokers in the rear" talk and Julie Bishop, I'm getting excited!

 

UFO's, Devil, Bigfoot and other beasts, all these sightings get scorned for no proof so there's certainly no reason why a sighting of a God or miracle is any different.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Horse feather said ;

 

How you guys can argue against something, without the faintestunderstanding of the mechanisms behindevolution, gives me pause to wonder

 

MECHANISMS ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Clutching at straws??? The literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published each year doesnt sound like straw clutching.

You should be able to provide plenty of proof of your own then.

 

And for evolutionary mechanisms, try reading "In Search of the Double Helix", by John Gribbin. You will become a little better educated

You probably forgot you already said that, and the co-discoverer doesn't seem to be sharing Gribbin's excitement

 

 

[turboplanner]

Horse feather said ;How you guys can argue against something, without the faintestunderstanding of the mechanisms behindevolution, gives me pause to wonder

 

MECHANISMS ?

I wondered about that too