Terror raids (2 Viewers)

[veterandoggy]

- Many other religions make exactly the same claim. Why is your one special? Surely the earth, trees, bunnies etc. are therefore equally valid proof of the existence of hundreds of other gods? One supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other.
- Unfortunately, everything you describe can also be explained in mundane, rational, scientific terms, without the need to invoke a Creator.
- What about the nasty things in life? Guinea worms, anthrax, mosquitoes; all the blood-sucking, parasitical, disease-bearing, poisonous beasties that kill us and each other in horrific ways? Watched any nature programmes recently? What about the millions of planets that do not support life (as we know it?) are they the creator's failures?

well, saying our religion is the correct religion is different to saying that god exists. that is a different battle. for you, they could be reason that many gods exist, but you are asking of any gods existence, not one.

they can? oh yeah, darwin may give you reason for creation, but i would like to hear rational, scientific terms stating WHY the earth is set up so perfectly, and also why water is able to have these qualities, without saying that the properties and qualities of oxygen and hydrogen when they combine form these circumstances.

what about the nasty things in life? they were also created for a reason: to test our patience and reliance on god. and the other planets may have been made so that we will always have something to learn about, as education is vital in all beliefs, im sure you will at least agree on that.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

If intelligent design exists why do humans have an appendix? Surely this a redudant feature which would not come about through any "intelligent" design.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"

But that's almost exactly what happened. The parts for the 747 came through a chaotic system where noone knew exactly where their materials were going. The miners would have mined the steel, not because they planned for it to go into the 747, but because there was demand for it. And so forth.

The 747 came about from what was desirable for 100 or more parties to trade, and such desire led to an incredibly well designed aircraft.

Evolution came about from what was desirable in a given environment, and led to well designed living systems.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well, saying our religion is the correct religion is different to saying that god exists. that is a different battle. for you, they could be reason that many gods exist, but you are asking of any gods existence, not one.

But you believe specifically in the existance of a muslim God... so shouldn't your belief be specifically related to the existance of a muslim God? I can attribute the creation of the earth to anything I want, just as you can, but as I said it can all be explained in much simpler natural ways through science rather than such super-natural explanations.

they can? oh yeah, darwin may give you reason for creation, but i would like to hear rational, scientific terms stating WHY the earth is set up so perfectly, and also why water is able to have these qualities, without saying that the properties and qualities of oxygen and hydrogen when they combine form these circumstances.

When we are dealing with arguments I feel we have to draw the line somewhere. For example, I could ask you the following;

"Can you prove, beyond all doubt, that you are a real living person, just as you perceive yourself to be, and not a disembodied brain in a mad scientist's laboratory being fed complex stimuli?"

You cannot. Is that a good reason to believe that you are just a brain in a jar?

I would say no. However, to take your thinking on this matter to it's logical extreme, it might well be a good reason to believe it.

We have to draw the line somewhere. If there is a wealth of strong evidence from a variety of different sciences supporting a theory, and little or no solid evidence to refute that theory, then should we accept the theory as being quite close to the mark? Or reject it because we can conceive of any number of far-fetched and impossible-to-prove (i.e. supernatural) hypotheses that would invalidate it were they true?

In science, if one piece of solid evidence is found that refutes a particular theory, then that theory must be wrong - it can be shot down by a "magic bullet". For example, if a fossil human skull was found wedged between the teeth of a fossil T. Rex, then the theories of evolution, paleontology and many other sciences would be fatally flawed. Unfortunately, this does not seem to apply to religious beliefs - if you find a dozen good reasons to show that Noah's Flood did not happen, the true believer will simply cling onto all the remaining reasons and continue to believe regardless of any fatal flaws in that belief. If a true believer were Captain of the Titanic, the scene might have been something like this:
"Captain! We've hit an iceberg! We're sinking!"
"Nonsense, laddy. This ship is built of the finest steel."
"What's that got to do with it? We're taking on water!"
"Maybe so, but our engines are among the best in the world."
"Are you mad?!? We're going down!"
"Don't worry so - this ship is unsinkable. It says so here in the manual, and I have total faith in that."
"The ship is breaking apart! We're all going to die!"
"Balderdash. See how the Swiss-made clocks still function perfectly. And the fine oak-panelled walls - what craftsmanship. How can such a vessel sink?"
"Aiee! glub.. glub.. glub.."

 

[Capitalist Pig]

well, saying our religion is the correct religion is different to saying that god exists. that is a different battle. for you, they could be reason that many gods exist, but you are asking of any gods existence, not one.

they can? oh yeah, darwin may give you reason for creation, but i would like to hear rational, scientific terms stating WHY the earth is set up so perfectly, and also why water is able to have these qualities, without saying that the properties and qualities of oxygen and hydrogen when they combine form these circumstances.

what about the nasty things in life? they were also created for a reason: to test our patience and reliance on god. and the other planets may have been made so that we will always have something to learn about, as education is vital in all beliefs, im sure you will at least agree on that.

Water has these qualities because the first cells were created in water, and this has continued to be the case. We need water to replenish the water within our cells.

 

[Generator]

Why is it that few (if any) scientists not in favour of intelligent design seem to to suggest that the world is perfect? Oh, yes, that's right, it's because the world isn't perfect.

Just because the conditions exist for life, that doesn't mean that they are perfect in any sense of the world.

 

[veterandoggy]

If intelligent design exists why do humans have an appendix? Surely this a redudant feature which would not come about through any "intelligent" design.

i already gave a reson in another post, but it is religious. it is because we wil be resurrected from it, since it doesnt decay. to me it seems very intelligent unfortunately.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

since it doesnt decay

Wtf? are you trippin`?

 

[Generator]

Moonlight, are you sure that we cannot use the term nutter? Even when it's a more than appropriate term?

 

[veterandoggy]

ill look for evidence, until then, and afther then, may i say that i do not wish to spend the rest of my next year and a half living off these forums, and if anyone's mind is still the same after a year and a half of arguing then another 2 years of arguing will not make any difference. im not going to deny god's existence and you arent going to admit it, so there is no need for more arguing.

 

[veterandoggy]

wasnt this about terror raids? lmao its amazing, i forgot where we went off track

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ill look for evidence, until then, and afther then, may i say that i do not wish to spend the rest of my next year and a half living off these forums, and if anyone's mind is still the same after a year and a half of arguing then another 2 years of arguing will not make any difference. im not going to deny god's existence and you arent going to admit it, so there is no need for more arguing.

It's not about that at all, it's about attacking each other's beliefs. Some beliefs people hold are utterly wrong, and they just seem to not be willing to conceed when one of their arguments has been knocked down that perhaps their belief is in fact rather shaky.

 

[veterandoggy]

look, ill answer the appendix issue as i said i would, but that will be all from me for god's existence, and creation.

scrap the thing about decay. i found something better....

By Michael Matthews

The human appendix—once scorned by evolutionists as a useless ‘vestigial organ’—long ago earned the respect of medical doctors. Unfortunately, this truth has not filtered down to textbooks and the popular press. Just recently, the Associated Press distributed an article to US newspapers on the appendix 1, warning readers that doctors often misdiagnose other ailments as ‘appendicitis’ and opt for removal. (A major study found that 15% of removed appendixes were normal.)

The AP article reinforced the persistent belief that the appendix is a useless organ, leftover from our evolutionary past, by claiming ‘the appendix … has no real function.’

We all might be dead, in fact, if we were born without an appendix.

You see, the appendix is a highly specialized organ with a rich blood supply, not what you would expect from a degenerate, useless structure. It has long been known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines (see Frederic H. Martini, Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, 1995).

A clue to the appendix’s function is its strategic position where the small bowel meets the colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria that are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas. The appendix’s main role is likely to be in early childhood. The organ’s highly concentrated lymphoid follicles, which play an important role in the immune system, develop about two weeks after birth—at the same time that the colon begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria.

At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 ‘vestigial’ structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero. No organ should be removed without good reason!

i was a little lazy to bold anything, but it is all part of my side of the argument. no doubt a rebuttal will follow, but ill be a spectator for this subject from this post onwards (i hope).

 

[Capitalist Pig]

The only "evidence" i can find saying that appendix's are not useless are on highly biased religious sites, while all neutral sites will say the exact opposite. This would indicate that perhaps the religious are drawing conclusions that are extremely far fetched because they suit their argument.

And there are plenty of other parts of living organisms which are redundant.

EDIT: And even if the appendix did serve a function, the frequency of malfunction would indicate that overall it does more harm than good because much of the time appendicitis would kill the person without surgery.

 

[veterandoggy]

The only "evidence" i can find saying that appendix's are not useless are on highly biased religious sites, while all neutral sites will say the exact opposite. This would indicate that perhaps the religious are drawing conclusions that are extremely far fetched because they suit their argument.

And there are plenty of other parts of living organisms which are redundant.

EDIT: And even if the appendix did serve a function, the frequency of malfunction would indicate that overall it does more harm than good because much of the time appendicitis would kill the person without surgery.

yeh, and 15% of operations were incorrect

At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 ‘vestigial’ structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero. No organ should be removed without good reason!

someone got post happy! im going away from my computer to prevent my further posting, and ultimately my dormant post count...

 

[Capitalist Pig]

yeh, and 15% of operations were incorrectsomeone got post happy! im going away from my computer to prevent my further posting, and ultimately my dormant post count...

15% is nothing. This means 85% of operations were correct and if we must have a 15% error then this is completely acceptable margin given what is at stake if the appendix bursts.

 

[SashatheMan]

i already gave a reson in another post, but it is religious. it is because we wil be resurrected from it, since it doesnt decay. to me it seems very intelligent unfortunately.

omg you are so wrong. dude its tissue, its decays like everything else. and what do you mean by resurrected from it.? you said muslims dont belive in resurrection.

do you understand how stupid you sound when you make such statements. every organ in the human body decays, thats why archiologists dont find remains of skeletons with an appendix sitting inside.

please think logicaly before you even type any more completly wrong information.

 

[SashatheMan]

In science, if one piece of solid evidence is found that refutes a particular theory, then that theory must be wrong - it can be shot down by a "magic bullet". For example, if a fossil human skull was found wedged between the teeth of a fossil T. Rex, then the theories of evolution, paleontology and many other sciences would be fatally flawed. Unfortunately, this does not seem to apply to religious beliefs - if you find a dozen good reasons to show that Noah's Flood did not happen, the true believer will simply cling onto all the remaining reasons and continue to believe regardless of any fatal flaws in that belief. If a true believer were Captain of the Titanic, the scene might have been something like this:
"Captain! We've hit an iceberg! We're sinking!"
"Nonsense, laddy. This ship is built of the finest steel."
"What's that got to do with it? We're taking on water!"
"Maybe so, but our engines are among the best in the world."
"Are you mad?!? We're going down!"
"Don't worry so - this ship is unsinkable. It says so here in the manual, and I have total faith in that."
"The ship is breaking apart! We're all going to die!"
"Balderdash. See how the Swiss-made clocks still function perfectly. And the fine oak-panelled walls - what craftsmanship. How can such a vessel sink?"
"Aiee! glub.. glub.. glub.."

hhaa thats a good explanation on how veterandoggy thinks, and all other religios sheep

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Thankyou for that insight, oh idol of idiot-worshippers.

I vote we get some sort of labotomising machine in here. I probably should not say these things.

Quoted because I'm sure you'll edit it.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

But he might delete your post too chadd. Who was that directed at?