ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Michelle Bachmann for President?

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 5:52 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:53 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:25 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:15 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 5:58 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 7:34 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 4:09 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 20 2011, 9:14 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 20 2011, 6:20 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 20 2011, 12:48 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 20 2011, 11:57 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 19 2011, 6:53 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 19 2011, 6:30 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>If things happened by random chance, well, so what? That doesn't invalidate our existence, our morals, or anything at all. It doesn't even preclude the possibility of a god.

>Asking, "if there's a god, shouldn't we find out what it wants" indicates that you don't truly know, therefore arguing from a theological point of view is inherently self-contradictory.
If it happened by random chance, then there is no God.  If there is no absolutes or reason to our existence.

And my asking the question is more in lines with addressing your view - not asking on my behalf.

How can your god be omnipotent and yet it is apparently impposbile for him to set up the universe so that it happens by random chance?

If you want to know something specific about my views, ask me a direct question.

Since He set it up, by definition, it cannot be random chance.

So a god that can do anything can't do a certain thing. Blatant contradiction.

No, it's not.  If I set up an equation of 1+1, it can't randomly = 2.  When anyone designs something, it's not a random chance, it's designed.

So why can't God have set up the universe to allow life to develop through the process we call evolution?

Not something I believe mind you, just asking the question.

Because He said he didn't.  He said he created plants and fish and animals and man.

Yes, but he didn't say what prodesses He used. He didn't say "and I didn't use the processes of evolution to create". He said He created. If humans are so incapable of understanding how He created, then how can we be sure of what method He used?

If we do understand the method, then why can't we reproduce it.?

When He told us He created, He would have been speaking in the language that could be understood by his audience - sheep herders, fishermen, etc. He would have hardly brocken into a detailed discussion of organic chemistry. It would have been received as nonsensical. So He used words that made sense to the people of the time. He "created", leaving it up to us to suppose what method He might have used.

I'll have to give you points for trying to confuse the issue by combining God creating with anti-God evolution.... but it still doesn't hold water.  If a carpenter created a table, he didn't go plant a tree and walk away from it for a few years, come back and the tree grew into the perfect table.

The reason we can't reproduce it is we're not God.  We cannot make stuff out of nothing.  When a scientist can figure out how to speak things into existence - even simple rock out of nothing, then we're getting somewhere.

Even after the initial creation story in Genesis, God continues to create life throughout this world.  As Jer 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."  I see that God has created each and every one of us and has a plan for us.  That could NEVER have happened via any form of evolution.

Nonsense. Computers have already generated designs using principles of evolution. Why couldn't God go one better, use such tools, and already know the outcome?

Sounds like the same illogic people use to support pyramid schemes.  If the foundational argument is wrong, the rest doesn't count.


Frankly, I don't even understand how you feel this is a response to the point I made. At any rate, it is no skin off my teeth as I don't believe in the existence of such a God in the first place.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 5:56 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:51 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:22 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:19 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 6:03 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 21 2011, 7:38 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 21 2011, 4:14 am

>

>

>

>

>

>

>BamBam: Sadly, critical thinking is no longer taught in many/most schools.  As Dr. Thomas Sowell discusses, people can't think beyond step one.  This is why people support entitlements and eating the rich - they can't do the math and don't understand simple consequences. 

>caltrek2: It is people who oppose entitlements that can't seem to think beyond step one. Abolish entitlements and you have effectively privatised social security, putting Wall Street in charge of our retirement programs. The same Wall Street that inflated and then burst the housing bubble. You don't need to be an Einstein to see what is wrong with that picture.

>
Amazing how you keep blaming "Wall Street" - how about just blaming the specific people that cause the problem.  Capitalism isn't the problem - dishonest people are.

It's the same illogic that have peeople trying to "eat the rich" - it's not logical.  Politicians can ALWAYS spend more money that the private sector makes.

Those that believe in entitlements don't understand basic math (nor the concept that they're now dependent on the government to live) - the money isn't there.  That's why Ponzi schemes are illegal.

 

You can go on and on blaming other folks for what happened, the fact of the matter is that when the private sector was handling the housing loan industry, the bubble inflated and then burst. Now you want the same private sector set up for Social Security. So when that blows up you will be saying, well, it was all the result of human greed.

Duh.

I want a system that works, not one where I know in advance what the excuse will be for not working.

Well, considering that before the bailouts, the top 10 banks held 55% of the industry's assets, but because they were too big to fail, and with the new regulations to stop it from happening again, the top 10 banks now own 77%.....  Duh...

Not really - I want Social Security to die - but it's going to take a while to do it.  We need to establish individual responsibility in the USA, not government control.  People should NEVER be dependent on the government for their food or housing or medical care or education.

And the government's system doesn't work - that was proven a long time ago.  That's why it's illegal in the private market.

Right, so your solution is to siphon off social security into the hands of those too big to fail banks?

I don't think so.

Let people choose for themselves where they want to invest and how they want to save instead of having the government steal it.  Pyramid schemes are unethical and stupid.


There are now options for opting out of the Social Security system. Perhaps they should be expanded. In the meantime, I am quite happy with how the system is working and would advise against major changes. I simply don't see it as a matter of the government stealing,  unless conservatives are successful in siphoning off trust fund money in order to pay for defense spending. Therein lies the danger, that "borrowing" can morph into "stealing".


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

roseandzippin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 180

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 8:37 am

Meh, I vote for Janeway. 

mardok

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12348

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 9:19 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

> Evolution is not a good theory — it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.


 


you say this as if it is a bad thing. sorry but I prefer the old Pagan religions over the conflicting and misguided nature of the Christian and Muslim faiths, so in essence to me you are saying evolution is a good theory.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 9:22 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory — it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Space doesn't need to come from anywhere. It is just there. That is why it is called space.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
2. Where did matter come from?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The Big Bang. Just a belief on my part supported by some evidence.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Either they have always existed, or they came into being along with the universe. Did God have a choice in how He constructed the universe?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The "perfection" is a matter of perception. It is what it is. Perfection is a subjective judgement.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Way above my paygrade.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">About 4 billion years ago, give or take a billion. Best theory is that it was the result of complex chemical processes. Those porcesses that generated some sort of reproducing cycle were the most likely to continue. Eventually this led to the development of life. We were not there to witness the event, so we can only infer from available evidence. If you understand the how, why is not a necessary question.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">See above.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Not sure I understand the question.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">"Want" is not necessary. That it happened is sufficient. Both the individual and the species have mechnisms built in for self-perpetuation.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Synergestic effects. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Some configurations are more efficient than others.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Interesting idea. Highly speculative until you can find evidence of such a creator. Evidence of the creator, not the creation.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Evolution takes place at all levels. That includes the complexity of the geneitc code at the most basic levels. Differences tend to be quantitavie. Quantitative differences can eventually result in qualitative differences.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">See the writings of Lynn Margolis. She knows far more about that subject than do I.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
b. Single-celled animals evolve?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">That is a long story.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
c. Fish change to amphibians?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Fish did not change to amphibians. Some of their descendants crawled up onto land. Over time their descendants took on more and more of the traits of modern amphiphibians. 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">As the environment dried out or amphibians migrated to dryer climates (as did other creatures) the process of evolution resulted in the development of reptiles.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Reptiles may have developed feathers for insulation purposes. Over time, these feathers may have failtated short glides which eventually turned into the ability to fly.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">See above. By now, you should be able to figure out plausible explanations for yourself.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">They don't defy such explanation. Certain people merely refuse to accept expalantions offered. Not a bad thing in that it can help science move forward.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
20. How did thought evolve?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 

>


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 9:32 am

Had to break my response in two due to memory problems.


 


17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


If animals used mimicry to positive effect, they would have had to have the basic components at hand to effectively do the mimicing. So a combination of answers given that as a starting point are possible.


18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.


Why not. Why could they not evolve. Would not they help to promote the survival of the species?


 


19. How did photosynthesis evolve?


Good question. Part of the answer involves the effective utilization of sunlight as an energy source.


20. How did thought evolve?


Once brains developed to a certain level of complexity, thought became possible.


 


21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?


At some point, this method of reproduction proved effective.


 


22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?


You will have to list the "other" kinds for me to make a choice.


23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?


A coel...what? Which is basically what I would say today. 


 


24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?


Good question. I will have to get back to you on that one.


 


25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?


Its the details in between that are important.


 


26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?


No. The question is what was the nature of that something that existed before.


IMHO


 


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 9:34 am

Quote: mardok @ Jul. 23 2011, 9:19 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

> Evolution is not a good theory — it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

 

you say this as if it is a bad thing. sorry but I prefer the old Pagan religions over the conflicting and misguided nature of the Christian and Muslim faiths, so in essence to me you are saying evolution is a good theory.


 


Yes, paganism is under-rated.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 11:06 am

For the record, I was responding to a point maid by Mardok. I don't assume any responsibility for the authenticity of his (or her) citation.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 11:24 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 23 2011, 5:52 am

>Frankly, I don't even understand how you feel this is a response to the point I made. At any rate, it is no skin off my teeth as I don't believe in the existence of such a God in the first place.
Obviously


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 11:27 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 23 2011, 5:56 am

>There are now options for opting out of the Social Security system. Perhaps they should be expanded. In the meantime, I am quite happy with how the system is working and would advise against major changes. I simply don't see it as a matter of the government stealing,  unless conservatives are successful in siphoning off trust fund money in order to pay for defense spending. Therein lies the danger, that "borrowing" can morph into "stealing".
Of course the people that refuse to take responsibility for themselves are happy with the system - it allows them to siphon of money from others that are responsible.  Most don't see it as "stealing" because the government, by proxy, is doing it for them.  Lack of understanding is the majority of the issue - and for those that do understand that it's theft & a Ponzi scheme and don't care - it's an Integrity issue.


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 2:07 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 23 2011, 11:24 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 23 2011, 5:52 am

>

>Frankly, I don't even understand how you feel this is a response to the point I made. At any rate, it is no skin off my teeth as I don't believe in the existence of such a God in the first place.
Obviously


Now see there, some times we can agree.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jul. 23 2011, 2:38 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 23 2011, 2:07 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 23 2011, 11:24 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Jul. 23 2011, 5:52 am

>

>

>Frankly, I don't even understand how you feel this is a response to the point I made. At any rate, it is no skin off my teeth as I don't believe in the existence of such a God in the first place.
Obviously

Now see there, some times we can agree.

Not the first time, and hopefully not the last.


Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum