Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Yes, it does that quite well. But I'm sure you have noticed that it does not address many issues of human life - which I maintain is not natural at all.

The total failure of science to address these problems is evident and that is what Edmund Husserl and other (mainly earlier) philosophers are trying to address. Fresco's is a more modern school of philosophy which threw in the towel on trying to solve them and decided to embrace 'whatever seems to work'. It has become very popular and may work for some but not all. It has the advantage of not having to explain the shortcomings of science with regard to the 'big questions of life'.

Having said that, philosopy per se will not necessarily lead you to an answer but it might nudge you out of a local 'low' point of mental entropy that people tend to get stuck in. That is the central thing that the abstract I quoted was addressing. Science is wonderfully able to describe the physical nature of the universe but then people get stuck as that for the only tool to address problems that it can't fix.

Repeating a mantra and laughing, even for 15 years, is far from advancing an argument.

First of all I don't believe that an Omnipotent perfect God was the only intelligence involved in evolution. Second of all, it appears that once the non living matter was put in place it was left to run unguided like a clock. Natural evolution appears to have had some help especially, with abiogenesis and the quick adaptations that you pointed out.



Why would I need to create new evidence outside of what science is doing. We have plenty of evidence. We just need a proper interpretation of the evidence across many fields of study from physics, chemistry, and biology to philosophy, anthropology, history, and theology. When then leaders in these fields quit feeling threatened be leaders in other fields and actually start communicating they will figure it out.

It's time for that to happen. The tower of babel story in the bible was to split man up so they couldn't become like God until the end was near and then the truth would be revealed in a time of Christian enlightenment.

[quoteWhat I find interesting about the ID crowd is the very fact that they can't see nor explain what their god looks like. Some kind of comic character who is able to be all around this planet at the same time to watch each human, and listen to every prayer. Quite a feat, if I say so myself.][/quote]

When God stands in front of you in His human form he looks like Jesus Christ as He revealed Himself to the apostle Thomas in the gospel according to John:

27 Then "Jesus" saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

But, his thoughts and intellect are not confined to one body and limited to a few having complete control over a few atoms in our brains like ours. His intellect has no physical bounds, and has complete control of every atom and everything because he created it all.

He gave you control of some of the atoms in your brain when you were conceived. All He asks in return is that you ask Him how he would like you to use them to fulfill "His" purpose for you.

That's quite interesting: he has a penis? For what purpose?

So we would know he is male and so he could procreate and urinate if he wanted to when he lived on earth. What do you use your penis for, something else?

Why god has a penis is not consistent with who god is. Does he really need to eat and drink? Who does he have sex with? Himself? We all know what that means. LOL No more virgin births? How come? The christian god came on the scene only 2000 years ago, and this planet is 4.5 billion years old. Kind of late on the scene, don't you think?

God having a penis is consistent with the Eternal Word of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us as a man 2000 years ago. Jesus the Eternal Word of God, is the same God that created the universe, and always existed with God as the Word of God even before he created the universe. He did not come into existence 2000 years ago.

How many times do you need that explained to you?

If you want to talk about Christianity and the God of Christianity at least debate Christian beliefs the way they believe them. Christianity according to “the now atheist” cicerone “by definition” is not Christianity. I am not going to define your atheism for you. But, I will make you use words as defined by mainstream cultural norms and when possible the way the Eternal Word “Jesus” defines them.

yea, but that story that he sacrificed himself for the sins of man didn't last very long, did it? I would sacrifice myself too, if I just slept for an extra few hours. That's not dead by any stretch of the imagination. More like dead sleep; which we all need once in awhile.

Also, why did god appear only 2000 years ago when homo sapiens walked this planet for 200,000 years? Bad memory? LOL

Also, according to the bible, Jews are the chosen people. Are you a Jew?

I didn't read the whole article, but here's one that sounds interesting on the subject. http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/are-jews-gods-chosen-people

No mantra, just a well-founded expression of the scientific consensus. There's really no argument, except from the god-botherers, who, behind a shield of dishonesty, advance a claim for which they provide no evidence. The ball is in the court of the ID crowd, and they just stand around looking silly and dropping things. Provide some evidence, and there might, might mind you, be something to argue.

But you know that. You and BJ have been asked time and again for evidence, and you don't provide any. That's because you have none.

You realize how silly your "negotiations" sound? You keep revealing entirely new partners in this and the more you present the more your assertions just lay there , evidence -free.


Sam thing. Noone on your side ever takes time to explain qhere and why and HOW this data supports your beliefs. I think the reason is because noon has any idea what theyre even talking about. You seem to be drawing conclusions while waiting for someone to come along and do these "propr interpretations"

Vience is pretty clear about the origins and dispersions of language. This is an area of study herein a "Tower of Babel" is an interesting and useful tale but is only that. Kinda like Uncle Remus.

And farmer

Read embeddeddimensions.com and ask me auestions about it.

I'm sure it is evolutionary and religious nonsense to you until I clarify it

Bite me--you have the burden of proof with your magic sky daddy BS. All of your narrative begins with the assumption--never demonstrated--that there is a magic sky daddy. I don't look for your to explain anything to me. I ask for proof and you don't provide any. For Dog's sake, a few pages ago you were puking up some nonsense to the effect that progress in human security came from christianity! Humanity made some gains in material security despite christiainity, not because of it.

You have a huge burden of proof, and all you offer are crypto-religious bromides.

why not make "Embedded dimensions" self explantory. Its all just a bunch of unlinked wikis . Anything that s yours, why not make into a story and use a different font or color. That way we can read where you are going. Right now your mixture of scripture and fractured science makes absolutely no sense and is kind of embarrassing to science and religion.

Just wondering what your motive is to continue conversation with those who embrace evolutionism. You mentioned above 15 years?
Depending on the individual and how receptive they are being to truth, whether it be a Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Islamist, atheist/evolutionist etc. I may spend more time on some people than others.
Maybe the bigger part of myself engaging as much as possible is for my personal growth.
Do you find the people you converse with on here sharpen your’debating’ skills and knowledge? ( I used quotations because really, there is no debate ya know;)

Bob Hazen , a well known mineralogist, has been involved in "big data" assessments of the appearance of mineral species on earth based on stratigraphy of shield and sedimentary basins as well as radionuclide age dating. The evidence is showing that, besides the "Gret Oxygenation event" that occured several billion years ago, there are and additional 6 key appearance sequences of minerals that depict the interaction of the "GEOSPHERE and the BIOSPHERE". Of the 5500 or so named minerals, at least 70% demonstrate that the bisophere has mediated the occurence of minerals through time.
The analyses were done by a bunch of early career geoscientists bioscientists, coders, and chemists. These young scientists, using well known stat tools like "Affinity analyses" (specifically MARKET BASKET)
can show that, in the earliest days of the planet were a mere 12 to 50 actual mineral species. These then were mediated by living organisms and allowed for the interaction of water and oxygen to create salts etc.
They are using these techniques in Martian rover data to see where specific minreal deposits could be expected to occur that could indicate life.

look up tinunculite and look at its association.

The tactic of insisting that your opponent has not given any evidence to respond to is ages old. If your claim were true, you'd have to be a fool for going on with the conversation this long, but still, you persist with it.

The core argument of ID is that random chance in nature could not account for the emergence of life from non-life. Your single attempt at a counter argument is to say that certain clays make a suitable medium for nucleotides to bind together and hence, that accounts for the DNA/RNA chains needed for a living organism. Others have said this is just another claim of irreducible complexity and dismiss it with "That has been debunked long ago." Do you really think that assertion is a real argument? Bring it on if you have proof of such 'debunking'.

Random self linking amino acids or nucleotides does not account for the needed organization and order required for it to be the code describing all the many things that are required for an organism to maintain homeostasis. Not to mention the rest of the cellular machinery required to read the DNA code, translate it and manufacture the many molecular machines (proteins) needed.

All that adds up to an enormous amount of information for which you have not shown a source for. Even 'science' knows there is always an intelligent source for information and that is the bedrock that the SETI project rests on. I think your only response to that was "Ha Ha ha ha....".

Another here just bluntly said "There is no information there." and that is just denial of the scientific school to which they claim allegiance. To that there is no possibility of reasoning with so I won't try.

I have advanced the argument that mathematical probability can show the improbability of abiogenesis ever happening (something like one chance in 2.3 x 10^503). Douglas Axe showed the same sort of odds for even a simple protein (1 in 10^77). The only reply to that has been "with enough time anything can happen", which is not a real reply, just denial. Show me your math that shows why that is not only possible but 'inevitable' , as some here have said.

And just saying "Well, it happened, so it can happen by chance since there is no intelligence behind it." is obviously a circular argument along with an unprovable assertion and again there is no way to reason with it.

Those are just a few of the many arguments ID gives as evidence for an intelligent actor behind life. So don't keep repeating the bullshit about ID not giving any evidence for their argument.

If you'd like to engage any of these or other points brought up in this or other similar threads I'd be happy to oblige. Otherwise I'm done with your claim of 'No evidence'.

My motive is in seeing how others form their opinions and conclusions about anything, but especially about things related to 'The Big Questions of Life'. It's also to see how and if my own conclusions hold up to criticisms.

My main interest as far as A2K goes is sociology and what is right and wrong with society and how could it be changed for the better. Oddly, I can find no real interest in the subject. People's attitude is it's 'human nature' and you can't change it. It's even more inflexible than religion. And so I look for the answers in subjects that are tangent to questions about society. Questions about religion, evolution, origin of life, etc are just such tangents.

I think it was Setanta who mentioned 15 years. I'm not sure how long I've been 'here', I think it's only 4-5 years. Not really relevant, seniority doesn't mean much to me.


Nothing wrong with that. I spend whatever time is necessary to come to a conclusion, learn something new or come to a dead end. Dead ends are just that, no need to pursue them further.


Maybe, but it's incidental to what I'm after. I learn a few things along the way but sadly, as you said, there is very little real debating here. To actually debate requires that you support all assertions with reasoned arguments and always be prepared to change your mind.


I know. But did you say that based on the way some invalidly engage in debate or because you or others are not prepared to change your mind?

Your last response to my question or two was removed (it seems)because I accidentally hit that thumbs down button, this has happened before ....🤷🏼‍♂️

Well said tho👍

What it means when the author of psalm 14 wrote ‘only a fool says in his heart there is no god’......
https://www.gotquestions.org/fool-heart-no-God.html