The morality and foolishness of the Christian God

Thank you for proving my point...

__________________
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

The place where you made your stand never mattered. Only that you were there... and still on your feet. Stephen King

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." Thomas Sowell

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What point is that? I eviscerated your rambling rants and you just ignore them and post spam you stole from Creationist websites. I fail to see any point you've made than that you are woefully ill prepared to engage in an actual debate on this subject.

- eta I found where you stole that wall of text
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
and don't worry, when I have some free time, I'll eviscerate it as well. Creationists tend to be pretty ignorant of science and post a lot of walls of text like this on their websites without realizing that what they're posting is in error.

__________________
(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Soooo. anyway...

The author of this garbage doesn't understand science or what a theory is. Theories are broad in scope, but focused as well. Germ theory of disease explains why diseases happen - a broad topic - but it does not cover how organisms evolve, came into existance, the formation of the earth, turtles all the way down. The same is true of evolutionary theory, and using language like "come into existance" borders on the pathetic. Evolution starts with the first primordial life - regardless of how it came into existance. Humans are rather late to the life party. If one looks at the existance of life on earth as a calendar, then modern H. sapiens evolved about Dec. 21st or so.

No, this is addressed by Astrophysics and Geology.

No, that would be abiogensis. Of course it doesn't really matter where the primordial lifeform comes from, be it abiogenesis, panspermia, or fiat creation by God, evolution would happen to it after it started to replicate.

Bizarre framing of the "question", but evolutionary theory does explain that in a way more cogent than any other. I fail to see how this is a problem.

Metaphysical manure. The sun and earth were formed via processes known as primordial and stellar nucleosynthesis, stellar fomation, planetary accretion and plate tectonics - all well understood by astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, physicists and chemists. The earliest life was likely not a "cell" per se, but self-replicating polymers that eventually led to proto-life and then to life as we know it. That is the perview of chemists, biochemists and microbiologists. None of these processes are "random, mindless or blind", and are guided to a certain extent by the laws of physics and chemistry.

[quote=Metal Minister;60513960]{snip more metaphysical garbage}
EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed.{snip quote mining and a horrible misunderstanding of 1LoT vs. the actual law}

Unless one wants to get into a turtles all the way down debate, the Big Bang Theory - which was formulated by a Catholic priest btw - does not suggest either that the universe "created itself" or that it has always existed. The singularity that began expanding was extant at the advent of the universe we know and are trying to understand today. That is very different from "created itself" and quite far from Steady State Theory which is the only scientifically viable "always existed" option.

The author of this garbage doesn't actually understand the 2LoT. That's not surprising because the common Creationist straw man of 2LoT would prevent an acorn from becomming an oak tree, an embryo from becoming a baby, the big Island of Hawaii from existing. It's an almost Poe worthy joke whenever a Creationist uses this "argument".

Pure straw man on the part of Creationists. Abiogenesis suggests that the chemicals that make up life can form an organism by a method quite different from the Creationist straw man version, but again, evolution doesn't rest on the source of primordial life. If it exists and reproduces, it will evolve.

- cont.

__________________
(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Oh how cute! The author of the stuff you're stealing is trying to use the IC "argument. And best of all they quote mine Darwin in the process...

How pathetically PRATTish. How many websites exist that show how Darwin - 160 years ago and with no knowledge of genetics - goes on to explain how "the eye" could have evolved? I'm sure, because you only read that quote mine, think he just threw up his hands and realized the futility of his blasphemy shortly before he recanted on his death bed as heard by Lady Hope.

Emotional garbage language aside, sorry, but yes, there has been a mechanism not only put forth but evidenced - mutation and natural selection, the basis of evolutionary theory when Darwin proposed it 160 years ago and still valid to this day.

I was going to snip this but it's just too rediculous. Does the author of this garbage think that all these systems suddenly appeared in humans suddenly when we evolved suddenly or something?

Body plan - humans are Bilaterians.
Digestive system - humans are Deuterostomes.
Nervous system - humans are Chordates.
Skeletal - humans are Vertebrata, Craniata and Tetrapods.
Muscular and Immune - humans are Mammals and Primates.
Brain - humans are Primates, Hominds and Hominans.

I again fail to see where the problem is.

More than Creationism.

EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.[/quote]

Oh brother. Not only do they use the anachronistic 19th Century term "missing link" they exhibit no understanding of how fossils are formed. Of course I asked you in my earlier replies that you ignored before going on your stolen, cut and pasted Gish Gallop if you were familiar with the Passenger Pigeon and the American Bison so it's clear you took no effort to educate yourself on the subject of fossils.

Wow, just when I thought the author of that cut and pasted garbage you stole couldn't get any worse, they post that stuff.

This is an awesome example of the abuse of science and language, and reliance on metaphysics that most Creationists engage in when "debating" this subject. As you'll see, it's also one that requires more than a quote mine or unsupported assertion in order to discuss.

Take cave fish for example. Those that have gone blind. Is the mutation that shuts off the development of eyes "positive" or not? Well, if one lives in a totally dark environment, and the development of eyes would be a total waste of energy/calories, then yeah, it's a positive change caused by a mutation. Fish that don't waste energy/calories in developing and maintaining eye function have a selective advantage in totally dark environment over those that do waste energy/calories on useless organs. From a human perspective, not developing eyes would be seen as a negative adaptation, but from the perspective of the cave fish, it's positive.

So, there's my long paragraph fairly succinctly explaining why a mutation humans might consider "negative" is actually "positive" and why we shouldn't try to foist our value judgements on the - and not the quotes - "direction" evolution takes.

I think you're in over you head dude and should take your spam to another venue, but if you want to be continued to be schooled on this subject, keep posting and I'll keep correcting your lie based misconceptions.

__________________
(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos