Blackjack and Design

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I mean verified, as in "more than just your say so".

Yes ... got it.

Meaning, as I said, it has to pass Satanic inspection.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's some real Pat Robertson-esque thinking you got going there, man. Disappointing.

Then I submit you haven't read the book of Revelation, have you?

 

[crjmurray]

It took two pages for this thread to go off the rails.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes ... got it.

Meaning, as I said, it has to pass Satanic inspection.

It has to pass basic rational thought. Of course, you would label such thought as being contrary to your religious views.

 

[AV1611VET]

It took two pages for this thread to go off the rails.

How much discussion do you want on your OP?

Ten pages?

Some subjects can be covered in a single post; some a whole page; some a whole thread; some multiple threads; and some go on into ∞ and beyond.

Has your OP, in your opinion, been satisfied?

 

[AV1611VET]

It has to pass basic rational thought.

Yes -- for the third time: I ... got ... it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You say this knowing that millions and millions of people say the exact same things about a hundred different Gods.
This is perhaps the strangest thing about religions I just do not understand, it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

What do think about the millions and millions of people who lived in the past who worshipped Gods that now no one worships? was it all a complete waste of time and effort? you must think it was because they did not worship the same God you now worship so they all went to hell, I am obviously wired differently to you.

Because the holy spirit passed me by I can happily say "I'm an atheist thank God".

Millions and millions of people don't say the exact same thing. There are only three religions that are monotheistic and two who have the same God of the three. The third do not say the same exact thing about experiencing God.

 

[keith99]

Then I submit you haven't read the book of Revelation, have you?

Unlike the majority you got the name right!

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike the majority you got the name right!

I cringe when people call it "Revelations".

 

[keith99]

Millions and millions of people don't say the exact same thing. There are only three religions that are monotheistic and two who have the same God of the three. The third do not say the same exact thing about experiencing God.

So how are Baha'i, Rastafari, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism Eckankar and Tenrikyo not Monothestic?

Be careful, your arguments against any of these likely apply as well or better to the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[selfinflikted]

Then I submit you haven't read the book of Revelation, have you?

Remember who you're asking, AV.

 

[crjmurray]

If you are equating a card game to a complex process then it is understandable how one can assume no designer.

Blackjack isn't complex?

 

[crjmurray]

If it makes you feel better to believe that God doesn't exist...

No one is saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying there's no need to invoke God in the process if it can be explained by natural means.

 

[justlookinla]

No one is saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying there's no need to invoke God in the process if it can be explained by natural means.

Humanity is the result of unplanned, uncontrolled, random/chance creation?

 

[whois]

No one is saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying there's no need to invoke God in the process if it can be explained by natural means.

that "if" clause is the stumbling block.
IF it can be explained by natural means.
so far, abiogenesis hasn't been able to do that.
the current theory of evolution is not complete either.
there are some that say darwin needs a rewrite:

Mazur says she was punished for getting out in front of the story and banned from the symposium but realized the story was bigger than Altenberg (which covered events beginning 500 million years ago) and spoke to scientists who were not invited, including those investigating pre-biotic evolution.

She came to the conclusion that evolutionary science suffers because many in the scientific establishment refuse to acknowledge that the old science has served its purpose and there is disagreement about what the new evolution paradigm is. She thinks the dam is now breaking because the public (who funds science) has become a party to the discourse via the Internet and seeks answers to fundamental questions about evolution that scientists so far can’t definitively answer.
www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245

 

[crjmurray]

Humanity is the result of unplanned, uncontrolled, random/chance creation?

I am politely asking you not to derail this thread anymore than it has been with your repetitive and intentionally irritating posts.

 

[justlookinla]

I am politely asking you not to derail this thread anymore than it has been with your repetitive and intentionally irritating posts.

I was simply responding to your "I'm saying there's no need to invoke God in the process if it can be explained by natural means."

Outta here.

 

[crjmurray]

that "if" clause is the stumbling block.
IF it can be explained by natural means.
so far, abiogenesis hasn't been able to do that.
the current theory of evolution is not complete either.
there are some that say darwin needs a rewrite:

Mazur says she was punished for getting out in front of the story and banned from the symposium but realized the story was bigger than Altenberg (which covered events beginning 500 million years ago) and spoke to scientists who were not invited, including those investigating pre-biotic evolution.

She came to the conclusion that evolutionary science suffers because many in the scientific establishment refuse to acknowledge that the old science has served its purpose and there is disagreement about what the new evolution paradigm is. She thinks the dam is now breaking because the public (who funds science) has become a party to the discourse via the Internet and seeks answers to fundamental questions about evolution that scientists so far can’t definitively answer.
www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245

I really don't care about abiogenisis for a couple of reasons. One it is still a hypothesis with not enough support. Two it has no bearing on the TOE.

I don't think anyone thinks there is zero debate amongst any scientific field. Evolution is no different. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the entire theory should be thrown out. You can confirm your bias with outliers like Noble all you want but the theory will not change fundamentally.

 

[whois]

I really don't care about abiogenisis for a couple of reasons. One it is still a hypothesis with not enough support. Two it has no bearing on the TOE.

I don't think anyone thinks there is zero debate amongst any scientific field. Evolution is no different. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the entire theory should be thrown out. You can confirm your bias with outliers like Noble all you want but the theory will not change fundamentally.

apparently it's more than noble.

 

[crjmurray]

apparently it's more than noble.

Hence the "like Noble".