Where is the Soul?
Budikka666
apart:
http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
The article begins with "Kate Bainbridge, a twenty-six-year-old
schoolteacher who had become comatose after a flulike illness, and was
eventually diagnosed as being in what neurologists call a vegetative
state."
Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist began studying patients like
Bainbridge. When he put her in a PET (positron-emission tomography)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
scanner and showed her pictures of her family, it seemed to generate a
response in the fusiform gyrus portion of her brain that was exactly
like that of a so-called "normal" person.
Rather than throw his hands up and praise god for a miracle like any
creationist or ID advocate would, Owen pursued the scientific method.
Because apparent image recognition might be an unreliable guide to
brain activity, Owen experimented with auditory stimuli rather than
visual, and switched to using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
imaging)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
scanner. He also fed the patients ambiguous sentences - one might
begin: "The shell was" leading the patient to think it was going to be
about a sea shell, but it would end with "fired at the tank" changing
the context entirely.
Since vegetative states are pretty much the end of the line, Owen
found only two people out of all those he tested who seemed to give an
appropriate response to this switch in meaning. To these two, he gave
the auditory request that they imagine they were playing a sport -
with Bainbridge it was tennis, with the other patient, soccer.
Bainbridge "produced a beautiful activation, indistinguishable from
those of the group of normal volunteers". The other patient responded
similarly.
The article goes on to discuss how poorly we have been able to define
consciousness, and therefore to determine whether it is present or
absent in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
Such patients have been effectively written off when, in fact, they
were able to recover to an extent with appropriate external
stimulation:
"[Joseph Giacino] recalled making rounds at the institute with two
eminent neurologists and stopping at the bedside of a woman who had
had a brain hemorrhage. The neurologists examined the woman, who lay
with her eyes half closed and did not respond to the doctors'
commands. The neurologists concluded that she was in a vegetative
state. 'So I sort of sheepishly said, 'Let me show you what happens
when we stimulate her,' Giacino recalled. He had been using a
technique called 'deep-pressure stimulation,' which involves squeezing
a patient's muscles with force and precision. Giacino started with the
woman's face and worked his way down to her toes, pinching her muscles
between his fingers. As he explained, the nerve endings of the muscles
send impulses to the brain stem, which relays them to other brain
structures and rouses the patient to consciousness. 'I did a cycle of
deep-pressure stimulation, and within a minute or so she was talking
to us,' Giacino said. 'The neurologists were flabbergasted.' The woman
was able to say her name and her husband's name, and answer simple
questions, such as 'Is there a cup at your bedside?' After a few
minutes, however, she became unresponsive again.
Another patient had electrodes implanted in his brain. "When the
electrodes were turned on in the man's thalamus, his speech improved,
his movements became more fluid, and he was able to chew and swallow.
When the researchers turned off the electrical stimulation, the man
soon relapsed. He is now being given regular doses of electrical
stimulation and is able to speak in short sentences and to chew and
swallow."
Prayer, Bible reading, divine revelation - none of it has led to a
single revelations about these people.
Scientific study, on the other hand, has led to interesting
discoveries. One of these is that the brain seems to be a series of
discrete modules, all of which have to be up and running before
consciousness can truly be present. This division of labor is shown
in people said to have "blindsight".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
Such people may be unable to register items in one field of vision
(say on their left) but acquire them clearly in the other. On such
patient was shown two identical pictures of a house, one for each eye,
except that one house had flames coming from it. The patient reported
seeing no difference between the houses, but when asked in which she
would prefer to live, almost always chose the house that wasn't
burning. This indicated that the information was being processed, but
at a subconscious level.
The question behind all this is: where is the soul?
If the soul is unable to influence us in any way whatsoever, then it
is meaningless and a complete waste of time and thought. Indeed, the
soul cannot even be said to meaningfully inhabit the body if it cannot
interact with it in any way.
On the other hand, if there is a soul which does interact with our
physical body, then why has it never been discovered?
There are those simpletons who would argue that the soul does indeed
interact, but its interaction is below the threshold of humanity's
ability to detect it.
Yeah, right. God is always just around the corner! No matter how
many corners are flooded with illumination by the brilliant light of
science, he's always around the next one.
But guess what? If the soul is undetectable, by what occult criterion
do they even pretend to claim that they have one?
Clearly, either there is no soul or it isn't able to influence us, or
control us, or make any effort on our behalf, or even pretend it can
make up for deficits, either mental or physical. Part of the brain
goes missing, so does part of our personality. There is no soul to
fill in the gap, to take over, to pick up the slack. We're entirely
physical and only physical according to the best evidence we have
available.
Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
either?
Budikka
Bill M
HEADS TUCK IN THEIR RELIGION.
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1192577819.1...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Bill M
to overcome their panic fear of the finality of death!
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1192577819.1...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Budikka666
> The soul only exists in the imaginations of religionists. They put it there
> to overcome their panic fear of the finality of death!
>
An' they got no *soul*, man!
Budikka
bob young
Budikka666 wrote:
The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
apart:
http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
WHAT is a soul?
Kindly define it in a common sense logical way.
Thanks
duke
>WHAT is a soul?
>Kindly define it in a common sense logical way.
Are you kidding!!! bud the dud can't even describe her big left toe that way.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
> > apart:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
>
> WHAT is a soul?
>
> Kindly define it in a common sense logical way.
Why should I define it? How is one supposed to define something for
which there's no positive evidence, which existing evidence denies,
and especially after I just got through posting the opening message in
this thread which denies the existence of any such thing?
Budikka
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1192748302.9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
look there are things science and physics are baffled about so just take a rest.
The physics don't know why particles behave differently when observed and when
not observed. Why should particles care??? they do!!! on some strange level
they decide whether to act as waves or particles..and they do so simultaniously
without contact, it might as well be the distance of the entire universe, they still do
this. So what the fuck is your explanation for this? The physics professors are
angry with this shit, because it defies reality on so many levels. It might as well
be as annoying as 'astrology is true'.
Saba
Budikka666
> look there are things science and physics are baffled about so just take a rest.
There are things we don't know so we should quit trying to find out?
> The physics
Er, that would be physicists.
> don't know why particles behave differently when observed and when
> not observed.
They don't behave differently just because we're watching them. They
behave as is their custom to behave. We just don't understand it
**YET**. But we will. Unless we take your advice and sit on our
asses and never try to learn anything new.
> Why should particles care??? they do!!!
No, they don't.
>on some strange level
> they decide whether to act as waves or particles.
They do as they do. We just don't understand it. The particles
themselves are not planning this. They don't seek to thwart us.
They're not deliberately trying to piss us off. They're not running
around giggling behind our backs.
>.and they do so simultaniously
> without contact, it might as well be the distance of the entire universe, they still do
> this. So what the fuck is your explanation for this?
My explanation is that we just don't understand it **YET**. But we
will. Unless we take your advice and sit on our asses and never try
to learn anything new.
But do share with me: This has precisely *what* to do with what I
posted?
>The physics professors are
> angry with this shit,
What a fucking lying full-of horseshit moron you are. The professors
are *angry*? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.
Intrigued? Curious? Yes. Angry? No.
> because it defies reality on so many levels.
It **IS** reality, dipshit. We just don't understand it **YET**. But
we will. Unless we take your advice and sit on our asses and never
try to learn anything new.
Budikka
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
I see, there's things that baffles science, and that they probably don't know alot
of thing yet like you many scientists are blown up asses that really know shit. Like
the miracle (that we don't understand **YET**)of how life originated, but claim they
do ..the list is long. A couple of strange sculls and we've originated from apes.
We who see intelligent planful creation as a solution, actually supported by facts
and likelyhoods of numbers know that it's something we dont' yet understand how
happened, but isn't any stranger than how the neutrons act differently for no reason
whatsoever. And you say'its just what they do' da da da.. boring.
Saba
>
Ips-Switch
"~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:hvGdnZTsjda...@telenor.com...
>
> I see, there's things that baffles science, and that they probably don't
> know alot
> of thing yet like you many scientists are blown up asses that really know
> shit.
But they're learning every day Saba. Slowly and surely the answers are
coming, just like the they learned about DNA and RNA.
Like
> the miracle (that we don't understand **YET**)of how life originated, but
> claim they
> do ..the list is long.
I don't think anyone ever claimed they KNOW how life actually originated at
this point. But there are clues and the answer will one day be found.
> A couple of strange sculls and we've originated from apes.
Not exactly. Both the apes and man originated from the same branch of the
mammalian tree. We share most of the same genes with them.
> We who see intelligent planful creation as a solution, ....
A "solution" is not an answer to the question of ancient life and how or
where it originated. To accept creation as an answer stops further inquiry
and knowledge right in it's tracks. Also Saba, there is no evidence of a
creation. We know from the fossils that life goes back billions of years
before the bible says a creation happened. Those who wrote Genesis were
unaware of this.
actually supported by facts
> and likelyhoods of numbers know that it's something we dont' yet
> understand how
> happened,
What "facts" are there to support creation? The scientists have no facts to
work on where creation is concerned. We don't yet understand how life
actually began in the seas. This is true, but the mystery is slowly being
unraveled, like peeling an onion, one small step at a time.
Steve O
> know alot
> of thing yet like you many scientists are blown up asses that really know
> shit. Like
> the miracle (that we don't understand **YET**)of how life originated, but
> claim they
> do ..the list is long. A couple of strange sculls and we've originated
> from apes.
The fact that you think evolution theory rests on the evidence of a few
strange "sculls" tells me something.
It tells me that you know jack shit about the subject.
Try educating yourself a little more, and see if you come to the same
conclusion.
> We who see intelligent planful creation as a solution, actually supported
> by facts
> and likelyhoods of numbers know that it's something we dont' yet
> understand how
> happened, but isn't any stranger than how the neutrons act differently for
> no reason
> whatsoever.
Strange how you never seem to come up with those facts, isn't it?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
Steve O
> know alot
> of thing yet like you many scientists are blown up asses that really know
> shit. Like
> the miracle (that we don't understand **YET**)of how life originated, but
> claim they
> do ..the list is long. A couple of strange sculls and we've originated
> from apes.
The fact that you think evolution theory rests on the evidence of a few
strange "sculls" tells me something.
It tells me that you know jack shit about the subject.
Try educating yourself a little more, and see if you come to the same
conclusion.
> We who see intelligent planful creation as a solution, actually supported
> by facts
> and likelyhoods of numbers know that it's something we dont' yet
> understand how
> happened, but isn't any stranger than how the neutrons act differently for
> no reason
> whatsoever.
Strange how you never seem to come up with those facts, isn't it?
panam...@hotmail.com
snippy
> Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> either?
Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
<g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
charles
thousands of years ago that we could consciously see ourselves as
something somewhat apart from our own bodies and, therefore, came to
call it a "spirit" which we then attributed to everything else,
assuming everything else had a consciousnes or "spirits" also. Then,
not wanting to think we were the same as other animals and things, we
came to call our own "spirit" a "soul" inorder to distinguish it.
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
> > Budikka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i melding
news:471a3396$0$1346$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
Many more things will unravel yes, and down the line a creation is going to
be closer to the reality than the alternative, I believe. There are hypothesises
about creation that will be answered far down the line, because it's not just
about a MacDaddy in the sky. Evidence is for those who see pretty abundant
already. Such as bible inspiration due to prophesies coming true, impossible
without true inspiration (from who)..? and you must've been a believer in God
howelse would you even have considered becoming a JW.Where you dumb then?
I don't think so... well, we'll all see. For now, lets agree to disagree.
Saba
Budikka666
wrote:
> "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i meldingnews:471a3396$0$1346$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
EITHER PRESENT YOUR FUCKING OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THIS OR SHUT-THE-
FUCK-UP WITH YOUR ASININE BLATHER. GOT THAT?
Budikka
Ips-Switch
>
> Many more things will unravel yes, and down the line a creation is going
> to
> be closer to the reality than the alternative, I believe.
What makes you believe this? No physical or scientific evidence can be
found for a creation, or sudden appearance of life as we know it.
There are hypothesises
> about creation that will be answered far down the line, because it's not
> just
> about a MacDaddy in the sky.
What are these hypothesizes? Who hypothesized them?
Evidence is for those who see pretty abundant
> already.
But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? Where is it to be found
Saba?
Such as bible inspiration due to prophesies coming true, impossible
> without true inspiration (from who)..?
No my dear, there have been psychics and seers in the past who also made
predictions that have come true. People with great insight can almost see
the future based on their great sensitivity and knowledge of human nature
and behavior.
and you must've been a believer in God
> howelse would you even have considered becoming a JW.Where you dumb then?
Indeed I was, and much younger and easily manipulated, tricked and beguiled.
David V.
Don't let the freaks get to you. They know they have no evidence
of any kind for their little sky daddies. That's why they play
games as they do.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
chibiabos
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> snippy
>
> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > either?
>
> Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/
Last night he was in Santa Barbara County. I finally got to see B.B.
King live. This is one incredible 82-year-old gentleman. He could only
play for an hour or so, and all the while sitting down with Lucille,
but I have never heard the blues played with more soul in that hour in
my entire life.
Les not quibble about "blues" and "soul." It's all good when it's
played by the Masters.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
duke
>On Oct 17, 11:44 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> > The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
>> > apart:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
>>
>> WHAT is a soul?
>>
>> Kindly define it in a common sense logical way.
>
>Why should I define it?
You can't. you have no idea what it is, bud the dud.
Oldgu...@gmail.com
became a living soul. The body and a spirit combined is a soul.
panam...@hotmail.com
> In article <1192901493.735614.234...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > snippy
>
> > > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > > either?
>
> > Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> >http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/
>
> Last night he was in Santa Barbara County. I finally got to see B.B.
> King live. This is one incredible 82-year-old gentleman. He could only
> play for an hour or so, and all the while sitting down with Lucille,
> but I have never heard the blues played with more soul in that hour in
> my entire life.
>
> Les not quibble about "blues" and "soul." It's all good when it's
> played by the Masters.
Amen, brother! I saw him about 20yrs ago. I'm glad to hear he's still
playing. Then again, the way those guys got screwed on royalties-they
probably *need* to. I saw Son Thomas in college-the archetecture
students hired him for a private party.
Still kicking myself for never going to see John Lee Hooker.
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 18, 12:44 am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Budikka666 wrote:
snippy
> The Soul Is The flesh and Bone body with a spirit in it . And it
> became a living soul. The body and a spirit combined is a soul.
Nah, collard greens, cornbread, and black-eyed peas combined with
gran'ma's chow-chow is soul.
http://southernfood.about.com/od/picklesrelishes/r/bl90718d.htm
<aside>
One day when I was about 13, my dad & I were riding in the car. It was
very quiet, until quite out of the blue he said, "..son, you know some
black folks, right?"
"..Uh, yeah?" I managed to stammer.
"What is `soul food'?"
"Well, you know...fried chicken, blackeyed peas, collard greens, all
that sort of stuff."
"So, basically, everything I've eaten my whole life?"
"Yup."
"So why do they call it that?"
"Don't it soothe your soul to eat it?" <grin>
He laughed very loud.
Hmm...come to think of it, my criteria for believing in gods has
changed again. Now, I'll believe in gods if they'll let me have a beer
with my dad, and my gran'ma's fried chicken just one last time.....
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
655321
> On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> snippy
>
> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > either?
>
> Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/
It's moving: http://myspace.com/139522321
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
Robibnikoff
"Michael Rippie" <mic...@thelastchurch.org> wrote in message
news:iqnoh3latr53nnkji...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:40:26 -0700, 655321
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1192901493.7...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
Earth has a heart? Where is it located? Got a picture you'd like to share
with the class?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
Do you have an issue with your cap lock, take a vacation baby then we'll talk.
S
>
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
>
> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> news:c9ydnTn606Q...@telenor.com...
>>
>> Many more things will unravel yes, and down the line a creation is going to
>> be closer to the reality than the alternative, I believe.
>
> What makes you believe this? No physical or scientific evidence can be found for a creation, or
> sudden appearance of life as we know it.
I believe it in the physical evidence, and bible evidence, historically, scientifically,
everything I know alltogether tip the scales towards it.
>
> There are hypothesises
>> about creation that will be answered far down the line, because it's not just
>> about a MacDaddy in the sky.
>
> What are these hypothesizes? Who hypothesized them?
There are some, I've posted them before but they are as filled with integrity and as valid
as any hypothesises.
>
> Evidence is for those who see pretty abundant
>> already.
>
> But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? Where is it to be found Saba?
Not in some bones screwed together to become what they want it to become,
if that's what you're looking for? Evidence is in the calculations too, numbers and
calculus. If that can't prove it to you, then nothing can. Why do scientists seriously
look for little green men in the universe? well, they have calculated there simply
must be other lifeforms out there? why is this any easier to believe than a creating
intelligent planner that surely is logical knowing everything looks, feels, and is
thought out and planned in this worlds systems, microsystems an macrosystems.
Just for you to ponder, instead of just repeating what they are saying in this NG.
>
> Such as bible inspiration due to prophesies coming true, impossible
>> without true inspiration (from who)..?
>
> No my dear, there have been psychics and seers in the past who also made predictions that have
> come true. People with great insight can almost see the future based on their great sensitivity
> and knowledge of human nature and behavior.
I can tell you right now, but I have no time to go deeply into it, that the likelyhood
of those prophecies being 'lucky' and coincidental are ZERO. You understand that right?
Then a ton of questions offer themselves.
>
> and you must've been a believer in God
>> howelse would you even have considered becoming a JW.Where you dumb then?
>
> Indeed I was, and much younger and easily manipulated, tricked and beguiled.
How do you know you're not tricked and beguiled now ?
>
>> I don't think so... well, we'll all see. For now, lets agree to disagree.
Saba
>>
>> Saba
>>
>
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:8oGdnXO3as-0G4ba...@sti.net...
It speaks volumes that you people have to be soothed when someone represents
their ideas, differing from yours. Wow, there must be much at stake .. All I said
was that there are valid HYPOTHESESES that exists in the creation Theory, and it
provoces such a lunatic reaction, even just mentioning hypothesis, demanding evidence
on the spot. Themselves forgetting that Evolution theory is ONLY A THEORY, and
that nobody demands an absolute clear cut evidence for it on the spot, shouting as
madmen. Yet, nobody questions it, what a hypocritical mumbojumbo ordeal.
Saba
mick white
>
> It speaks volumes that you people have to be soothed when someone represents
> their ideas, differing from yours. Wow, there must be much at stake .. All I said
> was that there are valid HYPOTHESESES that exists in the creation Theory, and it
> provoces such a lunatic reaction, even just mentioning hypothesis, demanding evidence
> on the spot. Themselves forgetting that Evolution theory is ONLY A THEORY, and
> that nobody demands an absolute clear cut evidence for it on the spot, shouting as
> madmen. Yet, nobody questions it, what a hypocritical mumbojumbo ordeal.
>
A scientist's position is that the "evolutionary" theory may be right or
wrong, he is open to the possibilty that it is wrong.
You seem to be stuck in your beliefs, could you be wrong?
Mick
Robibnikoff
"chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:211020071018263449%ch...@nospam.com...
> In article <1192901493.7...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> <panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> snippy
>>
>> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
>> > either?
>>
>> Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>>
>> http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/
>
> Last night he was in Santa Barbara County. I finally got to see B.B.
> King live. This is one incredible 82-year-old gentleman. He could only
> play for an hour or so, and all the while sitting down with Lucille,
> but I have never heard the blues played with more soul in that hour in
> my entire life.
>
> Les not quibble about "blues" and "soul." It's all good when it's
> played by the Masters.
Every heard of Johnny Copeland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Copeland
My husband and I saw him a couple of times at a local place called The
Turning Point in Piermont, NY. He put on a great show (may he rest in peace,
etc.)
charles
Do you find it necessary to present your objections in such an
offensive, crude way? Why not write with a little more understanding
and a lot less hate? If you hate ignorant people, you should stay
away from them. Myself, every Saturday, I go with a friend to take
her 58 year old daughter of a friend out and the daughter has an
abysmally low I.Q. of, believe it or not, only 19. I don't hate her.
She can't help it.
I gain the impression you are also a Free Thinker. When you use foul
language as you do, you put us all in a bad light and give the
Fundamentalists reason to view us as "vulgar trash." You discredit us
all! I want those "Born Again" people to realize that we, not they,
have the so-called high moral ground.
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"mick white" <mi...@mickweb.com> skrev i melding news:471cb3df$0$15343$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so there's no way
he would propose the alternative, an intelligent creation. Can you say the
same about me? Yes, but I'm right. Hahaah! just kidding. Just saying that
the possibility of evolutionists being 'wrong' is only if they accept the possibility
of an intelligently executed creation. Me, I don't see how all came to be
without that.
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"charles" <charles...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1193068995.9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Budikka,
>
>
> Do you find it necessary to present your objections in such an
> offensive, crude way? Why not write with a little more understanding
> and a lot less hate? If you hate ignorant people, you should stay
> away from them. Myself, every Saturday, I go with a friend to take
> her 58 year old daughter of a friend out and the daughter has an
> abysmally low I.Q. of, believe it or not, only 19. I don't hate her.
> She can't help it.
>
What has this got to do with believing an intelligent making of the universe,
it has nothing to do with low IQ. You're just disrespecting that daughter
by saying such things, like is she responsible for being such a low IQ'd
idiot like we creationists are? I think you're the idiot here.
> I gain the impression you are also a Free Thinker. When you use foul
> language as you do, you put us all in a bad light and give the
> Fundamentalists reason to view us as "vulgar trash." You discredit us
> all! I want those "Born Again" people to realize that we, not they,
> have the so-called high moral ground.
The evolutionist fundamentalists are just human beings as anybody else,
I don't care, but it does speak volumes. Why can't they be calm about it?
They're calm when scientists present the facts of 11 dimensions by mathematical
calculations, and although it cannot intuitively be visualized, the do exist.
So are Budikka going to throw a fit about that too? And that is just one
example. Never mind string theory, and the fact that the more research
they're doing, the more they learn they DON'T understand about the universe.
Are you guys going to howl into the night because of it? I think so.
Saba
Robibnikoff
<Oldgu...@gmail.com> wrote
snip
> The Soul Is The flesh and Bone body with a spirit in it . And it
> became a living soul. The body and a spirit combined is a soul.
Uh huh. BTW, aren't you DEAD?
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:8oGdnXO3as-0G4ba...@sti.net...
>> evidence of any kind for their little sky daddies. That's
>> why they play games as they do.
>
>
> It speaks volumes that you people have to be soothed when
> someone represents their ideas, differing from yours.
I don't. Is hyperbole your best argument?
> Wow, there must be much at stake .. All I said was that there
> are valid HYPOTHESESES that exists in the creation Theory....
>
There are none, and creationism is not a theory, it is religious
dogma.
> Themselves forgetting that Evolution theory is ONLY A THEORY
By saying that evolution is only a theory proves that you know
nothing about science and how it works and it proves that you
know nothing about the FACT of evolution.
We get morons like you in here all the time trying to tell us
that your little god did it all and then whine when we don't
automatically flop to your side because of your childish arguments.
Come back when you actually know what you're talking about.
People like you, talking out of their ass, just dirty up our forum.
David V.
>
> An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so
> there's no way he would propose the alternative, an
> intelligent creation.
"Evolutionist" is a condescending, derogatory, term used by
creationists. Starting an argument with that term only shows us
your closed mind and tells us that you have nothing intelligent
to add. You can propose any alternative you want. Just be
prepared to have it shot down if you do not provide adequate support.
> Can you say the same about me?
Yes. You refuse to accept anything other than your "goddidit."
> Yes, but I'm right. Hahaah! just kidding. Just saying that the
> possibility of evolutionists being 'wrong' is only if they
> accept the possibility of an intelligently executed creation.
> Me, I don't see how all came to be without that.
Why should we accept something that has no basis in science or
rational thought?
charles
intelligent making of the universe,
it has nothing to do with low IQ. You're just disrespecting that
daughter
by saying such things, like is she responsible for being such a low
IQ'd
idiot like we creationists are? I think you're the idiot here.""
You are saying I should RESPECT someone with an I.Q. of 19? You say I
am the "idiot" so I am supposed to believe you don't respect normal
people but insist on insult them as being real idiots. You surely
know how irrational you are being. Why be so rude to people? I do
not hate idiots and I treat them kindly but I do not respect them. Do
you respect them? Why?
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
On Oct 22, 9:20 am, "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <veron...@frisurf.no>
wrote:
> "charles" <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1193068995.9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David V.
>
> What has this got to do with believing an intelligent making
> of the universe, it has nothing to do with low IQ.
It has been demonstrated many times that those with higher IQ's
and those with degrees in the sciences, are less prone to believe
in gods.
> The evolutionist fundamentalists are just human beings as
> anybody else, I don't care, but it does speak volumes. Why
> can't they be calm about it?
We are calm, we're just bored with ill educated people like you
babbling on about their sillyness.
> They're calm when scientists present the facts of 11
> dimensions by mathematical calculations, and although it
> cannot intuitively be visualized, the do exist.
Those dimensions exist in math, not the real world. Explaining
why to you would be a waste of time.
The Chief Instigator
>>> snippy
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Copeland
You're both a bit off: The Soul is Philadelphia's AFL team, owned by one Jon
Bongiovi. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 6, San Antonio 5 (SO) (October 19)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 27 at San Antonio, 7:05
Ralph
When you have any physical evidence for an intelligent creation, let us
know. Your own personal incredulity doesn't count for squat.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>Budikka,
>
>
>Do you find it necessary to present your objections in such an
>offensive, crude way?
Why not?
You post your tripe in an atheist NG, and expect us to be tolerant?
> Why not write with a little more understanding
>and a lot less hate? If you hate ignorant people, you should stay
>away from them.
This is an atheist News Group: You came to us.
>Myself, every Saturday, I go with a friend to take
>her 58 year old daughter of a friend out and the daughter has an
>abysmally low I.Q. of, believe it or not, only 19. I don't hate her.
>She can't help it.
True, but the rest of you, can.
Your ignorance is willful, as is your stupidity.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Kill Filed by David Morgan, and his Mam.
Dubh Ghall
<vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>What has this got to do with believing an intelligent making of the universe,
>it has nothing to do with low IQ.
Yea it does, it has everything to do with it.
John Baker
wrote:
>Saba...wrote: ""What has this got to do with believing an
>intelligent making of the universe,
>it has nothing to do with low IQ. You're just disrespecting that
>daughter
>by saying such things, like is she responsible for being such a low
>IQ'd
>idiot like we creationists are? I think you're the idiot here.""
>
>You are saying I should RESPECT someone with an I.Q. of 19? You say I
>am the "idiot" so I am supposed to believe you don't respect normal
>people but insist on insult them as being real idiots. You surely
>know how irrational you are being. Why be so rude to people?
She's a troll. She isn't here to discuss or debate, but merely to
insult and belittle.
>I do
>not hate idiots and I treat them kindly but I do not respect them. Do
>you respect them? Why?
Because most of them are more intelligent than she is.
>
>charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
>
Ips-Switch
> he would propose the alternative, an intelligent creation.
Because there is no evidence for a creation, none at all. What about
another alternative such as space-aliens from another star system seeding
this planet with life? Have you considered that possibility? An
intelligent designer wouldn't have made all the mistakes we see, all the
diseases, the man-eaters such as lions and tigers. There would be no
deformity or mental illnesses either in humans or the animal or in the plant
kingdoms. There would be no tornadoes, deadly volcanic eruptions or floods
or tsunami. There is no reason to consider or suspect a magical fantastical
creation.
Can you say the
> same about me? Yes, but I'm right. Hahaah! just kidding. Just saying that
> the possibility of evolutionists being 'wrong' is only if they accept the
> possibility
> of an intelligently executed creation. Me, I don't see how all came to be
> without that.
Because that's all you're familiar with. It's all you know.
>
> Saba
>
Ips-Switch
> What has this got to do with believing an intelligent making of the
> universe,
> it has nothing to do with low IQ. You're just disrespecting that daughter
> by saying such things, like is she responsible for being such a low IQ'd
> idiot like we creationists are? I think you're the idiot here.
But there is no physical or scientific evidence for a creation or that the
gods of old even exist. IQ has nothing to do with it. Education and
independent thought and research do.
Ips-Switch
>
> "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i melding
> news:471b837f$0$1346$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>
>> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>> news:c9ydnTn606Q...@telenor.com...
>>>
>>> Many more things will unravel yes, and down the line a creation is going
>>> to
>>> be closer to the reality than the alternative, I believe.
>>
>> What makes you believe this? No physical or scientific evidence can be
>> found for a creation, or sudden appearance of life as we know it.
>
> I believe it in the physical evidence,
What physical evidence do you know of pointing to a creation?
> and bible evidence,
The story in Genesis was based on an even older creation myth, as was the
story of the Ark.
> historically,
You are aware they cannot find one shred of evidence the Hebrews wandered in
the desert all those years aren't you?
scientifically,
How scientifically? There is no scientific evidence of an intelligent
creation.
> everything I know alltogether tip the scales towards it.
But what are you basing this belief on?
>
>>
>> There are hypothesises
>>> about creation that will be answered far down the line, because it's not
>>> just
>>> about a MacDaddy in the sky.
>>
>> What are these hypothesizes? Who hypothesized them?
> There are some, I've posted them before but they are as filled with
> integrity and as valid
> as any hypothesises.
I'm sorry I missed them all. Can you post them, from a neutral source -
again?
>> Evidence is for those who see pretty abundant
>>> already.
>>
>> But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? Where is it to be found
>> Saba?
> Not in some bones screwed together to become what they want it to become,
> if that's what you're looking for?
No, I'm looking for the physical and scientific evidence you claim you have
of a sudden intelligent creation. I'm willing to look at it if it's from a
neutral source.
Evidence is in the calculations too, numbers and
> calculus.
How? What do they have to do with evolution or a creation?
>If that can't prove it to you, then nothing can.
How is it proof? ????
Why do scientists seriously
> look for little green men in the universe? well, they have calculated
> there simply
> must be other lifeforms out there?
What "scientists" are looking for little green men? Are you talking about
the Seti (sp?) program? They're trying to pic up radio signals from space,
not hoping to see these little green men.
why is this any easier to believe than a creating
> intelligent planner that surely is logical knowing everything looks,
> feels,
It's not logical. It's mythical. A logical creator would not have created
man, animals and plants to suffer and die of disease, mental illnesses,
deformities. There would be no volcanoes, no floods or deadly fires, no
tsunami, no tornadoes and no plant and animal disease or parasites.
and is
> thought out and planned in this worlds systems, microsystems an
> macrosystems.
> Just for you to ponder, instead of just repeating what they are saying in
> this NG.
Those things have already been pondered for many many years by a large
number of people. No evidence was found for a creation, a worldwide flood
that covered the earth for almost a year etc.
>
>>
>> Such as bible inspiration due to prophesies coming true, impossible
>>> without true inspiration (from who)..?
>>
>> No my dear, there have been psychics and seers in the past who also made
>> predictions that have come true. People with great insight can almost
>> see the future based on their great sensitivity and knowledge of human
>> nature and behavior.
> I can tell you right now, but I have no time to go deeply into it, that
> the likelyhood
> of those prophecies being 'lucky' and coincidental are ZERO. You
> understand that right?
No one claimed they were "lucky" or "coincidental." Aren't you reading
what I wrote?
> Then a ton of questions offer themselves.
Which questions?
>> and you must've been a believer in God
>>> howelse would you even have considered becoming a JW.Where you dumb
>>> then?
>>
>> Indeed I was, and much younger and easily manipulated, tricked and
>> beguiled.
>
> How do you know you're not tricked and beguiled now ?
Because of the scientific evidence freely available to anyone who seeks the
truth and is willing to give up the ghosts and myths of the past. Because
there was no scientific or physical evidence to be found for a creation.
Plus the fact that if we were created the creator did a truly horrible job.
duke
>The Soul Is The flesh and Bone body with a spirit in it . And it
>became a living soul. The body and a spirit combined is a soul.
Welcome back.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robibnikoff
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr6jn...@eris.io.com...
Whatever ;)
Budikka666
LIED:
> It speaks volumes that you people have to be soothed when someone represents
> their ideas, differing from yours.
You have yet to present an idea. Exactly which part of "present the
evidence or shut-the-fuck-up-with-your-asinine-blathering" is it on
which you need remedial ed?
> Wow, there must be much at stake ..
Yes there is, and it starts with forcing lies down children's
throats. If you think I will lie down even for a minute and let your
ilk do that, you are SERIOUSLY mistaken.
>All I said
> was that there are valid HYPOTHESESES that exists in the creation Theory,
THEN PRESENT ONE OF THESE "HYPOTHESESES" (LoL) AND SUPPORT IT ASSWIPE.
We're waiting.
[Rest of standard Sad & Graceless LIES flushed where they belong]
Budikka
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
>
> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> news:7qadndp5MZo...@telenor.com...
>>
>> An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so there's no way
>> he would propose the alternative, an intelligent creation.
>
> Because there is no evidence for a creation, none at all. What about another alternative such as
> space-aliens from another star system seeding this planet with life? Have you considered that
> possibility? An intelligent designer wouldn't have made all the mistakes we see, all the
> diseases, the man-eaters such as lions and tigers. There would be no deformity or mental
> illnesses either in humans or the animal or in the plant kingdoms. There would be no tornadoes,
> deadly volcanic eruptions or floods or tsunami. There is no reason to consider or suspect a
> magical fantastical creation.
But we're here, everything is here. It coming about on its own is even a bigger
miracle, if the numbers were shown to you. But the dorks have an 'explanation'
for impossible numbers and odds as well. Well o.
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:GeSdnToyIIpkSIHa...@sti.net...
> ~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~ wrote:
>>
>> What has this got to do with believing an intelligent making of the universe, it has nothing to
>> do with low IQ.
>
> It has been demonstrated many times that those with higher IQ's
> and those with degrees in the sciences, are less prone to believe
> in gods.
oh so it has nothing to do with them going through a grinding mill of
evolutionistic wishywashy brainwash so that they cannot even begin
to think for themselves?
thanx for proving that point
>
>> The evolutionist fundamentalists are just human beings as anybody else, I don't care, but it does
>> speak volumes. Why can't they be calm about it?
>
> We are calm, we're just bored with ill educated people like you
> babbling on about their sillyness.
>
>> They're calm when scientists present the facts of 11
>> dimensions by mathematical calculations, and although it
>> cannot intuitively be visualized, the do exist.
>
> Those dimensions exist in math, not the real world. Explaining
> why to you would be a waste of time.
many things exist outside human range, can you get that into your skull..I wonder.
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
science,that's opinions. Well then, isnt evolution a shitty thing doing a horrible 'job'?
how does that fit into the survival of the very fittest? are the remaining organisms
fit or not? tons of paradoxical arguments lie in that belief. It's a dream that they
have, it's an even more impossible alternative than creation, one of the reasons
I believe it happened by intelligent making.
Saba
David V.
> "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i melding
> news:471d18ce$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
>> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in
>> message news:7qadndp5MZo...@telenor.com...
>>
>>> An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so
>>> there's no way he would propose the alternative, an
>>> intelligent creation.
>>
>> Because there is no evidence for a creation, none at all.
>> What about another alternative such as space-aliens from
>> another star system seeding this planet with life? Have you
>> considered that possibility? An intelligent designer
>> wouldn't have made all the mistakes we see, all the
>> diseases, the man-eaters such as lions and tigers. There
>> would be no deformity or mental illnesses either in humans
>> or the animal or in the plant kingdoms. There would be no
>> tornadoes, deadly volcanic eruptions or floods or tsunami.
>> There is no reason to consider or suspect a magical
>> fantastical creation.
>
>
> But we're here, everything is here.
Which is proof that there is no god.
> It coming about on its own is even a bigger miracle, if the
> numbers were shown to you. But the dorks have an 'explanation'
> for impossible numbers and odds as well. Well o.
yes, the usual dork explanation is "goddidit." Then they make up
lies, impossible numbers, and really stupid explanations to
support those lies.
You really should take that medication your doctor said you
should be taking.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:GeSdnToyIIpkSIHa...@sti.net...
>
>> ~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~ wrote:
>>
>>> What has this got to do with believing an intelligent
>>> making of the universe, it has nothing to do with low IQ.
>>
>> It has been demonstrated many times that those with higher
>> IQ's and those with degrees in the sciences, are less prone
>> to believe in gods.
>
>
> oh so it has nothing to do with them going through a grinding
> mill of evolutionistic wishywashy brainwash so that they
> cannot even begin to think for themselves?
Actually, that's exactly what happened to you.
> thanx for proving that point
And you have proven mine beyond a doubt.
>>> They're calm when scientists present the facts of 11
>>> dimensions by mathematical calculations, and although it
>>> cannot intuitively be visualized, the do exist.
>>
>> Those dimensions exist in math, not the real world.
>> Explaining why to you would be a waste of time.
>
> many things exist outside human range, can you get that into
> your skull..I wonder.
Again, just because you claim that something is outside human
range does not mean you get to invent a god and put it there. I
guess reality is outside of your range. That's why you need
mythological gods. Religion is for those that cannot handle reality.
David V.
>
> It isn't very horrible, how can one argue with these types of
> opinions, that's not science,that's opinions.
You mean like your opinions?
> Well then, isnt evolution a shitty thing doing a horrible
> 'job'? how does that fit into the survival of the very
> fittest?
Do you know what that term means? Do you know that the fact of
evolution is not based on the "survival of the fittest"? Do you
know what evolution is?
> are the remaining organisms fit or not?
yes.
> tons of paradoxical arguments lie in that belief. It's a dream
> that they have, it's an even more impossible alternative than
> creation, one of the reasons I believe it happened by
> intelligent making.
It is painfully obvious that nothing intelligent was involved in
your creation.
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:mqWdnYE-U4-tVYLa...@sti.net...
I didn't put anything anywhere. We're here, that, and the impossible odds
of it magically occuring on its own selfgenerating parts that came to be
a whole cell in the past, makes my proposal the only legitimate one.
Is it really that hard, why so thick in the head?
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
>> There are some, I've posted them before but they are as filled with integrity and as valid
>> as any hypothesises.
>
> I'm sorry I missed them all. Can you post them, from a neutral source - again?
>
S
David V.
>
> I didn't put anything anywhere.
No, but you should put your medications where you can find them.
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:H8GdnZIwJ52YVILa...@sti.net...
Why is everything, from micro to macrosystems hard-wired, screwed together,
wellpacked, wellcalculated, innate logical and reasonable, instincually and
intuitively formed and made into what we know of today? uh oh because
ittevoluttioned.. It just. happened. Pop! there it was. I dont think so.
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
just look at the table down on the site. Those are the scientific
inquiries that can be generated on the basis of ID.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:2sadnTclt-S5UILa...@sti.net...
> ~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~ wrote:
>>
>> I didn't put anything anywhere.
>
> No, but you should put your medications where you can find them.
well if it wasn't for a mastermind you wouldn't have a brain to tell me that.
S
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:H8GdnZIwJ52YVILa...@sti.net...
>
>> ~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~ wrote:
>>
>>> It isn't very horrible, how can one argue with these types
>>> of opinions, that's not science,that's opinions.
>>
>> You mean like your opinions?
>>
>>
>>> Well then, isnt evolution a shitty thing doing a horrible
>>> 'job'? how does that fit into the survival of the very
>>> fittest?
>>
>> Do you know what that term means? Do you know that the fact
>> of evolution is not based on the "survival of the fittest"?
>> Do you know what evolution is?
>>
>>
>>> are the remaining organisms fit or not?
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>
>>> tons of paradoxical arguments lie in that belief. It's a
>>> dream that they have, it's an even more impossible
>>> alternative than creation, one of the reasons I believe it
>>> happened by intelligent making.
>>
>> It is painfully obvious that nothing intelligent was
>> involved in your creation.
>
>
Answer my questions and we can continue. Unless you prove that
you actually know what you're talking about why should I waste my
time trying to educate you...... or sorry.... I forgot.....
you're leaning impaired.
David V.
> No link is going to be neutral to you or anybody opposing so
> just look at the table down on the site. Those are the scientific
> inquiries that can be generated on the basis of ID.
I looked. Nothing scientific there.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:2sadnTclt-S5UILa...@sti.net...
>
>> ~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~ wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't put anything anywhere.
>>
>> No, but you should put your medications where you can find
>> them.
>
>
> well if it wasn't for a mastermind you wouldn't have a brain
> to tell me that.
Prove it.
Ips-Switch
>> the truth and is willing to give up the ghosts and myths of the past.
>> Because there was no scientific or physical evidence to be found for a
>> creation. Plus the fact that if we were created the creator did a truly
>> horrible job.
>>
>>
> It isn't very horrible, how can one argue with these types of opinions,
> that's not
> science,that's opinions. Well then, isnt evolution a shitty thing doing a
> horrible 'job'?
In some aspects yes. But evolution has no intelligence, no direction, no
conscience,... it just happens as those best suited to a situation survive
and reproduce. They leave behind offspring even better adapted to the given
conditions. And unfortunately this also applies to communicable disease and
parasites that plague us and the animals and plants.
> how does that fit into the survival of the very fittest? are the remaining
> organisms
> fit or not?
Of course it fits with survival of the fittest. The weakest and less
adaptable die off fist leaving less descendants.
tons of paradoxical arguments lie in that belief. It's a dream that they
> have,
It has nothing to do with dreaming and everything to do with physical
evidence. Dreaming is giving up research and claiming Goddidit. It's
stopping the quest for answers in it's tracks and choosing to remain
ignorant and superstitious.
> it's an even more impossible alternative than creation,
Why? It's natural. Godidit is unnatural. It's magical thinking. It's
dreaming. It's closing one's mind to knowledge.
one of the reasons
> I believe it happened by intelligent making.
Because you know no better. All you read are pro-creation websites and
literature. You remain ignorant and in the dark.
>
> Saba
>
Ips-Switch
> Why is everything, from micro to macrosystems hard-wired, screwed
> together,
> wellpacked, wellcalculated, innate logical and reasonable, instincually
> and
> intuitively formed and made into what we know of today? uh oh because
> ittevoluttioned.. It just. happened. Pop! there it was. I dont think so.
Just asking questions like this and your comments show you know very little
about evolution. What you do know seems to come from on sided pro-creation
sites and literature, not from neutral scientific sources.
Ips-Switch
> No link is going to be neutral to you or anybody opposing so
> just look at the table down on the site.
I'm not an opposer. I'm just not a believer in Bronze age myths and fables
or supernatural superstitious stories of the ancient past. NEUTRAL means
those with no axe to grind. You don't find them on pro-creation or
pro-evolution sites. You find them on NEUTRAL sites as I'm sure you already
know.
Those are the scientific
> inquiries that can be generated on the basis of ID.
>
> http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
You can't be serious. Why do you consider a religious site NEUTRAL? They
are not neutral. Please see above. Religious sites are not neutral as they
want you to believe in magic, in the supernatural on faith alone without any
physical evidence.
>
> Saba
>
BuddyThunder
Why the failure of imagination to understand how it could have all
happened naturally without the need to resort to invented gods for
explanatory power?
Dubh Ghall
<vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>
>"Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i melding
>news:471d18ce$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>
>> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>> news:7qadndp5MZo...@telenor.com...
>>>
>>> An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so there's no way
>>> he would propose the alternative, an intelligent creation.
>>
>> Because there is no evidence for a creation, none at all. What about another alternative such as
>> space-aliens from another star system seeding this planet with life? Have you considered that
>> possibility? An intelligent designer wouldn't have made all the mistakes we see, all the
>> diseases, the man-eaters such as lions and tigers. There would be no deformity or mental
>> illnesses either in humans or the animal or in the plant kingdoms. There would be no tornadoes,
>> deadly volcanic eruptions or floods or tsunami. There is no reason to consider or suspect a
>> magical fantastical creation.
>
>But we're here, everything is here.
Okay, that is evidence that we are here, and that everything else is,
but that is all it is evidence for.
>It coming about on its own is even a bigger miracle, if the numbers were shown to you.
The numbers have been shown to us, many times.
Unfortunately, the "numbers" are irrelevant, for a number of reasons.
First off, they are an attempt to calculate the probability of an
event which no one claims to have happened.
In their ignorance, creationists have assumed that the first
life-form/cell, sprang full formed from the primordial slime.
No scientist has ever made such a claim, but creationists insist that
scientists must believe that is what happened.
They don't.
Second.
No creationist is able to explain the source of these "numbers", or
how they are calculated.
You bandy them about, but cannot tell us how they were arrived at.
Until you can produce viable formulae, that explain your assertions,
then the numbers are worthless.
>But the dorks have an 'explanation'
By "dorks", I assume that you refer to people who actually know what
they are talking about.
>for impossible numbers and odds as well. Well o.
>
>Saba
>
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Kill Filed by David Morgan, and his Mam.
Dubh Ghall
<vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>It isn't very horrible, how can one argue with these types of opinions, that's not
>science,that's opinions.
You keep telling your self that, it saves you from thinking.
Dubh Ghall
Arguments and assertions, based on incredulity, dishonesty, and
wishful thinking, are not science.
John Baker
You'd do well in future to avoid projecting your own intellectual
shortcomings onto others.
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:aau0i3198ib6680hf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:12:58 +0200, "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~"
> <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> skrev i melding
>>news:471d18ce$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>>
>>> "~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>>> news:7qadndp5MZo...@telenor.com...
>>>>
>>>> An evolutionist has his Evolution Theory as his castle, so there's no way
>>>> he would propose the alternative, an intelligent creation.
>>>
>>> Because there is no evidence for a creation, none at all. What about another alternative such
>>> as
>>> space-aliens from another star system seeding this planet with life? Have you considered that
>>> possibility? An intelligent designer wouldn't have made all the mistakes we see, all the
>>> diseases, the man-eaters such as lions and tigers. There would be no deformity or mental
>>> illnesses either in humans or the animal or in the plant kingdoms. There would be no tornadoes,
>>> deadly volcanic eruptions or floods or tsunami. There is no reason to consider or suspect a
>>> magical fantastical creation.
>>
>>But we're here, everything is here.
>
> Okay, that is evidence that we are here, and that everything else is,
> but that is all it is evidence for.
Not if the event of life starting by itself is impossible. One would have to look
for some serious alternative. The only one is wilfull creation,that's all thats left.
>
>
>
>>It coming about on its own is even a bigger miracle, if the numbers were shown to you.
>
> The numbers have been shown to us, many times.
>
> Unfortunately, the "numbers" are irrelevant, for a number of reasons.
>
> First off, they are an attempt to calculate the probability of an
> event which no one claims to have happened.
>
> In their ignorance, creationists have assumed that the first
> life-form/cell, sprang full formed from the primordial slime.
No we don't necessarily say that. Even the smallest type of beginning would
have not been able to form a cell in the end, no matter how redicolous the
first step was. The result is impossible, without help. If scientists say otherwize
its because the alternative is crazy(God/IQ)
>
S
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"BuddyThunder" <nos...@paradise.net.nz> skrev i melding news:472061c3$1...@clear.net.nz...
Ehm now you pooped in you pants. If you claim you have to utilize imagination
to have it "happen" then I guess the Evolution theory or the origin of life is an
anything goes for you guys too ain't it? lol. At least my hypothesis is in tune with
what actually happens.
Saba
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
"~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> skrev i melding
news:-LudnTexu7I...@telenor.com...
Btw nearly all of the 'natural' opposed to 'supernatural'(as they call it)
has fell short already. Without a creation everything fails, from big
theories to the small.
S
>
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
But you don't get that without handling of the first matter to transform into living matter
wouldn't have come to be,its impossible. They do agree, but their impossibility is
more possible than the 'impossibility' creationists offer. I told you it's no neutral site
for you that represents creation logic. Just look at the tables, they are standalone
hypotheses. Already the 'supernatural' coloumns have been proven closer to truth.
Actually its what we see now, and will see more of, and the coincidental theories
will cave in, and they already have. Just look at the tables.
>
>>
>> Saba
>>
>
~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~
>
>>
>> http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
Just take these examples:
with creation evidence for a Single transcendent beginning (science claims it is this)
evidence will increase, while for the noncreation theory it will be refuted.
Fine tuning: "design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge(sporadic
and coincidental fine tunings) But no such luck, because more examples of extreme fine tuning
will be found, indicating true design.
about the Uniqueness of earth we all know who's been right and is going to be more
right about this. No other lives anywhere,no green men.(sorry,children).
Christian ID shows why earth-like planets are and will be found to be rare or non-existent
in the future.
Noncreationists hypothesises that Existence of life in the universe will be found to be
abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics (why wouldn't
it be,yadayada). But ID has proven that advanced life will be found only on earth.
They say life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria) while ID'ers says Life has always been
complex (and it is, fully formed, thought-out and will forever show that it was always this).
And the infamous fossils are proof of ID's hypothesis: No restriction on designs with the
possibility that new designs would be created "overnight", while Non-ID stays in a mess
where complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly.. no such luck in the fossil
material.
ID already applies. Evidence is for ID not nonID. Sorry folks, go home and weep.
Saba
James Beck
says...
> No other lives anywhere,no green men.
>
go 'poof' and leave behind only the vacuum in your head?
Dubh Ghall
<vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>>>But we're here, everything is here.
>>
>> Okay, that is evidence that we are here, and that everything else is,
>> but that is all it is evidence for.
>
>Not if the event of life starting by itself is impossible.
That remains to be shown.
As far as the origins of life are concerned, we have found the
building blocks.
But we are in the same position that our forebears were in, five
hundred years ago. They had all the components to build a computer,
gold, silicon, carbon, etc, they could even conceive of the idea of a
thinking machine. (Read about Roger Bacon, a 13th century monk.)
What they didn't know was how it all went together.
...And that is our problem.
>One would have to look
>for some serious alternative.
Were life occurring naturally, proven impossible,then some serious
alternative would become necessary, yes.
But so far, that has not been proven,
Fact is, everything we learn in that field indicates that it DOES
happen naturally.
>The only one is wilfull creation,that's all thats left.
That also poses it's own problems.
Questions like, "Where did the creator come from?"
>>
>>>It coming about on its own is even a bigger miracle, if the numbers were shown to you.
>>
>> The numbers have been shown to us, many times.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the "numbers" are irrelevant, for a number of reasons.
>>
>> First off, they are an attempt to calculate the probability of an
>> event which no one claims to have happened.
>>
>> In their ignorance, creationists have assumed that the first
>> life-form/cell, sprang full formed from the primordial slime.
>
>No we don't necessarily say that.
Many do, it is an opinion which has been expressed often enough in
these NGs.
>Even the smallest type of beginning would
>have not been able to form a cell in the end,
Why not?
>no matter how redicolous the
>first step was. The result is impossible, without help.
So creationists keep telling us, but they never offer an explanation
as to why.
Will you?
CAN you?
Dubh Ghall
You make these assertions, but you offer no evidence.
Dubh Ghall
<vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>
>"~s.a.b.a g.r.a.c.i.l.e~" <vero...@frisurf.no> skrev i melding
>news:wrmdnUD878-...@telenor.com...
>>
>
>>>
>>> http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
>
>Just take these examples:
>
>with creation evidence for a Single transcendent beginning (science claims it is this)
>evidence will increase, while for the noncreation theory it will be refuted.
An unsupported assertion, that is not science.
>
>Fine tuning: "design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge(sporadic
>and coincidental fine tunings) But no such luck, because more examples of extreme fine tuning
>will be found, indicating true design.
An unsupported assertion, that is not science.
>
>about the Uniqueness of earth we all know who's been right and is going to be more
>right about this. No other lives anywhere,no green men.(sorry,children).
An unsupported assertion, that is not science.
>Christian ID shows why earth-like planets are and will be found to be rare or non-existent
>in the future.
An unsupported assertion, that is not science.
>Noncreationists hypothesises that Existence of life in the universe will be found to be
>abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics (why wouldn't
>it be,yadayada). But ID has proven that advanced life will be found only on earth.
No it hasn't, that is just another unsupported assertion, that is not
science.
>
>They say life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria) while ID'ers says Life has always been
>complex (and it is, fully formed, thought-out and will forever show that it was always this).
An unsupported assertion, that is not science.
>
>And the infamous fossils are proof of ID's hypothesis: No restriction on designs with the
>possibility that new designs would be created "overnight", while Non-ID stays in a mess
>where complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly.. no such luck in the fossil
>material.
>
That is as wild and as foolish an unsupported assertion, as I have
ever heard, and is NOT science.
>ID already applies. Evidence is for ID not nonID.
Yet the evidence is never produced: Why is that?
That is not science.
DärFläken
. At least my hypothesis is in tune with
> what actually happens.
>
And what actually happens?
Ips-Switch
>
> Not if the event of life starting by itself is impossible. One would have
> to look
> for some serious alternative. The only one is wilfull creation,that's all
> thats left.
>>
No it isn't. Some people believe this planet was seeded from somewhere
else in the Universe. You appear to reject this possibility. At one time
we didn't know how life worked, how traits were inherited, what caused
disease either. No we know about miscoscopic life forms, DNA, genes etc.
Ips-Switch
>> are not neutral. Please see above. Religious sites are not neutral as
>> they want you to believe in magic, in the supernatural on faith alone
>> without any physical evidence.
>
>
> But you don't get that without handling of the first matter to transform
> into living matter
> wouldn't have come to be,its impossible.
You can't know if that's impossible. The warm saline oceans were ripe for
life and that's where life started. Man once said man flying in a machine
was impossible. They said sailing under the Ocean was impossible. They
said transplanting organs was impossible. Did they not? And now we do all
three every day of the week. Do we not? We will have the answer soon
enough as to how life began. All the mysteries accredited to the gods are
being unraveled and show no gods or supernatural forces were needed or
involved.
They do agree, but their impossibility is
> more possible than the 'impossibility' creationists offer.
Creationists offer no physical or scientific evidence whatsoever. They
offer the writings of early Bronze Age man as evidence. This is not
evidence. All religions have different creation stories and all are from
men's imaginations.
I told you it's no neutral site
> for you that represents creation logic.
I found nothing logical there. Just the same creationist claims based on
the bible/religion.
Just look at the tables, they are standalone
> hypotheses.
But they mean nothing! It's neither logical or scientific. Can't you see
that? They're little different than the numbers and tables OBVES keep
posting here.
> Already the 'supernatural' coloumns have been proven closer to truth.
> Actually its what we see now, and will see more of, and the coincidental
> theories
> will cave in, and they already have. Just look at the tables.
Where is this "PROOF?" If there was "proof" everyone on earth would have
heard about it as they did when the first airplane took flight. I saw no
physical evidence or scientific proof on that Creationist site.
Now why can't you provide a neutral scientific site showing physical
evidence/proof of a creation?
>>>
>>> Saba
>>>
Ips-Switch
>
> Btw nearly all of the 'natural' opposed to 'supernatural'(as they call it)
> has fell short already.
How did they fall short with all the physical evidence for evolution and
none for creation? How does that make sense to you?
Without a creation everything fails, from big
> theories to the small.
Exactly. That's why theists cling so desperately to a magical supernatural
fantastical creation myth. They dare not accept the physical evidence for
evolution no matter how much accumulates.
>
> S
>>
>
>
Ips-Switch
> Just take these examples:
>
> with creation evidence for a Single transcendent beginning (science claims
> it is this)
> evidence will increase, while for the noncreation theory it will be
> refuted.
Where is the scientific physical evidence for this claim? I saw none on
that site.
>
> Fine tuning: "design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete
> knowledge(sporadic
> and coincidental fine tunings) But no such luck, because more examples of
> extreme fine tuning
> will be found, indicating true design.
Will be found scientifically when and by who?
> about the Uniqueness of earth we all know who's been right and is going to
> be more
> right about this. No other lives anywhere,no green men.(sorry,children).
And you know this HOW? Has your nonpscientific religious ID writer someone
visited the billions of galaxies that surround us to chek them for life?
Sorry Saba, I doubt he has.
> Christian ID shows why earth-like planets are and will be found to be rare
> or non-existent
> in the future.
Where does it show that?
> Noncreationists hypothesises that Existence of life in the universe will
> be found to be
> abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and
> physics (why wouldn't
> it be,yadayada). But ID has proven that advanced life will be found only
> on earth.
How has it scientifically proven there is no other life in the millions of
other galaxies? Why do you make such claims with nothing to back them up?
> They say life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria) while ID'ers says
> Life has always been
> complex (and it is, fully formed, thought-out and will forever show that
> it was always this).
Where is it showing this? Where is their evidence? You keep making endless
claims and show us no evidence or proof of anything. Give us some neutral
sites where scientists have this evidence and proof you speak of. Skip
the non scientific religious sites as none has evidence of proof of ID.
They just expect people to take their word for it and believe in the
supernatural and magical thinking.
> And the infamous fossils are proof of ID's hypothesis: No restriction on
> designs with the
> possibility that new designs would be created "overnight", while Non-ID
> stays in a mess
> where complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly.. no such luck
> in the fossil
> material.
>
> ID already applies. Evidence is for ID not nonID. Sorry folks, go home and
> weep.
I think you need to go home and weep because you have shown no evidence or
proof to back anything you have said. You just keep making the same claims
and provide no evidence for a magical creation whatsoever. Sorry Saba, now
Budikka666
> It isn't very horrible, how can one argue with these types of opinions, that's not
The only thing that lies is the so-called intelligent so-called design
creationists as has been demonstrated more than once.
Now if you want to shed that mantle, bring your scientific evidence
that overturns evolution, present it right here in this thread and
defend it.
Or bring your positive scientific evidence which shows intelligent
design creation.
The scientists have done their job. They're presented their
scientific evidence in peer reviewed publications around the world for
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.
Where's *your* evidence?
Bring it on and let's discuss it, or have the intellectual integrity
to admit that the only people expressing pure opinions here are the so-
called intelligent so-called design creationists.
Budikka
Budikka666
SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
Scientists cannot find an iota of evidence for the soul or any logical
rationale as to what it is, or where it is, or what it does, or how
it's even supposed to interact with the material world.
I'm going to take this as proof that there isn't one.
It's pretty pathetic, isn't it? I put out this request to the entire
online world in these public fora. This is the most critical thing to
your eternal existence and not one of FOUR BILLION BELIEVERS can even
hope to defend it or support it?
How pathetic is that?
How on Earth (or even in "Heaven") do you hope to live in eternal
bliss with your god if you don't even have a soul?
I spit on your juvenile fairy tales.
Budikka
BAM
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1193355985.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
Self movement is evidence of a soul.
BAM
Enkidu
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
So flatworms have a soul?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government
when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
Jos
Amoeba have souls?
Michael Gray
>"BAM" <mcca...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
>@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>>
>> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:1193355985.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>
>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
>So flatworms have a soul?
As must bi-metallic strips.
Michelle Malkin
news:56cUi.9310$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
heaven when they die?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
BuddyThunder
So you can't read for comprehension and you lack imagination. Look out
world!
duke
>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>So flatworms have a soul?
Yep, a flatworm soul.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Nope, no life there.
duke
wrote:
>So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>heaven when they die?
But you have a human soul that you disregard.