Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Come to my arms my Queen! 

Tried not to......had to laugh.

[Rhiannon]

That is ,with all due respect, largely a myth. Since you have rocked up here in now I take it that you are referring to me. If so you would be dishonestly ignoring my cues and using your own on what you wanted me to say.

We ALL face judgment, we are all under judgment from ultimate truth....however that truth conceives itself to be.

As I said, I know you believe you face judgement too. But as a believer you think you are ultimately saved. Unless you believe you get saved through being a nice person (unlikely, since a lot of the people you dismiss on here are nice) or you are a universalist, then you think both the atheists and other theists such as myself face damnation.

I've spent most my life hanging out with Christians of one kind or another, and the satisfaction taken by far too many at the thought of unbelievers being judged and damned is no myth. Sadly. I've even seen priests use it to give the bereaved a good emotional kicking, all for their soul's sake of course. But if you say you don't I have to take your word for it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said, I know you believe you face judgement too. But as a believer you think you are ultimately saved. Unless you believe you get saved through being a nice person (unlikely, since a lot of the people you dismiss on here are nice) or you are a universalist, then you think both the atheists and other theists such as myself face damnation.

I have not mentioned damnation let alone decided who is damned and who is not. We all face judgment. That is what is being sidestepped here.

[Rhiannon]

I have not mentioned damnation let alone decided who is damned and who is not. We all face judgment. That is what is being sidestepped here.

You said that judgement precedes heaven. Unless you are a universalist then you also believe that judgement precedes damnation.

I can't sidestep something that doesn't exist. How can I face up to something that is no more real than Santa deciding if I've been good or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said that judgement precedes heaven. Unless you are a universalist then you also believe that judgement precedes damnation.

I can't sidestep something that doesn't exist. How can I face up to something that is no more real than Santa deciding if I've been good or not?

Demonstrate that we are judgment free. You can't really say can you.

[Rhiannon]

Demonstrate that we are judgment free. You can't really say can you.

Don't think I need to do that. Demonstrate God first, then we'll talk about the reality of judgement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't think I need to do that. Demonstrate God first, then we'll talk about the reality of judgement.

I think you need to explain your sidestepping of the question of judgment and the similar avoidance by others since each time you do this you are providing grounds for the God you deny.

[Rhiannon]

I think you need to explain your sidestepping of the question of judgment and the similar avoidance by others since each time you do this you are providing grounds for the God you deny.

Ok, let's try again. I don't believe Santa will judge me as good or bad because Santa doesn't exist.  Does that give evidence for the judgement of Santa?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok, let's try again. I don't believe Santa will judge me as good or bad because Santa doesn't exist.  Does that give evidence for the judgement of Santa?

sidestep via levity by all means.......still sidestepping.

[Rhiannon]

sidestep via levity by all means.......still sidestepping.

You're asking me to face up to something made-up. Are you going to face up to the fact that you mash fairies every time you mow the lawn?

[Leonard James]

You're asking me to face up to something made-up. Are you going to face up to the fact that you mash fairies every time you mow the lawn?

He wouldn't recognise a fact even if it bit his arse! He's too used to living in fairyland.

[Alan Burns]

None found to date Alan, the man virtually buried your deluded lot at the time, it took some time before you lot found another way to turn yourselves inside out and explain that you now understood what Darwin actually meant, as usual, it's a wonder your lot haven't found a way of claiming him as one of your own, that's what you religios usually do.

ippy

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.  What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.  There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth. And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.  Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation.  In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.

[ippy]

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.  What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.  There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth. And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.  Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation.  In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.
[/quote,

Go and look into the mirror Alan, you'l see evidence there and all around if you allow yourself to see life as it is, no one has put up a viable challenge to his theory.

Read a good biography about Darwin you wont get as many brownie points as you might think you could get if yo don't use the brain, you think some mystic figure has given you, to its fullest extent;
he, she or it wont like it, you not using your "gifts"?

I don't know Alan, you haven't got a shred of evidence and you still keep rambling on about this religion nonsense; it looks to me you're trying your best to convince yourself of something with this never ending thread of yours.

ippy

[Leonard James]

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.  What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.  There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth. And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.  Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation.  In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.

Hi Alan,

I'm afraid you have swallowed the creationist's idea of evolution, and it is completely misleading.

Yes, the majority of mutations are detrimental, and the organisms affected by them never reproduce. The mutations which confer advantage, however, survive and are inherited by their progeny.

Now think about this carefully. You are talking as if the detrimental mutations affect all the rest of life, and that is entirely false ... they don't. So your talk of them negating the good ones is total nonsense. The surviving beneficial modifications continue to evolve further, completely unaffected by their peers which fail. Can't you see that?

[ippy]

...  until we get to heaven 

I see Alan, yes the unknown?

Don't let it worry you too much, try to not lose any sleep over it.

ippy

[torridon]

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.  What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.  There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth. And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.  Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation. 

It looks like you just haven't understood the concept of selection.  First off, the overwhelming majority of mutations will not be passed on at all to progeny.  Secondly, the tendency over time is for beneficial mutations to be conserved whereas detrimental mutations will not as they add nothing to reproductive fitness. So when you go look at an animal today, consider that you are looking at the outcome of billions of incremental adaptive improvements; you don't see the vaster number of detrimental mutations that have occurred during the development of that genome, because they have not been conserved, they have been discarded through the entirely natural process of selection.

In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.

It looks like you just haven't understood the difference between evolution by natural selection and biogenesis yet.  Clearly people working in biogenesis research don't agree with your above sentiment.  I think you are just looking for gaps in knowledge that you can squeeze a god into.  It wouldn't make any sense that a god would use supernatural powers to create a seed of life and then stand back and let natural forces run with it, just intervening now and then to fiddle with the detail to make sure that natural processes did in fact produce his intended design. What makes more sense, imo, is to accept that reality is a single thing operating on natural principles; carving off little bits of it as supernatural just smacks of desperation.

[Gordon]

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.  What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.  There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth. And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.  Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation.  In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.

This is perhaps the best written fallacy-fest we've seen for some time: but a fallacy-fest nonetheless.

[Alan Burns]

Hi Alan,

I'm afraid you have swallowed the creationist's idea of evolution, and it is completely misleading.

Yes, the majority of mutations are detrimental, and the organisms affected by them never reproduce. The mutations which confer advantage, however, survive and are inherited by their progeny.

Now think about this carefully. You are talking as if the detrimental mutations affect all the rest of life, and that is entirely false ... they don't. So your talk of them negating the good ones is total nonsense. The surviving beneficial modifications continue to evolve further, completely unaffected by their peers which fail. Can't you see that?

But can't you see that the beneficial mutations are still vulnerable to elimination by the overwhelming number of detrimental mutations which will occur in future generations.  They are not immune.

Natural selection has been shown to work as a short term fine tuning process, but to extrapolate this into the major development process in life is extreme optimism.

[Shaker]

Darwin was one of God's creation as we all are.

Unevidenced assertion, of course.

What he discovered was that we came into existence by a gradual process of discrete steps.

In a nutshell, yes.

There is a big question mark over whether the crude process of natural selection is sufficient to produce the extreme complexity found in life on this earth.

No question mark for people who know what they're on about, Al.

And there is the question of how all the billions of beneficial mutations needed to create life were produced by natural unguided forces which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative.

Except that isn't true.

Also there is a quandry in the statistical fact that for every beneficial mutation there would be many thousands of detrimental mutations  produced which would be capable of negating any survival advantage inherrent in a beneficial mutation.

A tear-jerkingly mistaken misunderstanding of the process.

In short, the real probability of life coming into existence by natural unguided forces is a definitive definition of absolute zero.

You've been told, and had it explained to you in great detail by people like Professor Davey, that you're wrong on this, so why do you continue to repeat it? Didn't you get it the first time round and need it reframing in smaller words?

Seriously Alan; if you're going to try to discuss a scientific matter such as evolution and not look like a humungous tool, learn the damned subject. Put your Bible down and start reading any of the layman-level introductions available, of which there are many.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unevidenced assertion, of course.In a nutshell, yes.No question mark for people who know what they're on about, Al.Except that isn't true.A tear-jerkingly mistaken misunderstanding of the process.You've been told, and had it explained to you in great detail by people like Professor Davey, that you're wrong on this, so why do you continue to repeat it? Didn't you get it the first time round and need it reframing in smaller words?

Seriously Alan; if you're going to try to discuss a scientific matter such as evolution and not look like a humungous tool, learn the damned subject. Put your Bible down and start reading any of the layman-level introductions available, of which there are many.

Well I am an evolutionist but I am not desperate for it like you guys.
For you guys it forms the bedrock for an unevidenced universal Darwinism but as with philosophical materialism Universal Darwinism is just another gussy up.

Please therefore use Darwin properly and not as some sentimental emotional crutch.

[Shaker]

Well I am an evolutionist but I am not desperate for it like you guys.
For you guys it forms the bedrock for an unevidenced universal Darwinism but as with philosophical materialism Universal Darwinism is just another gussy up.

Please therefore use Darwin properly and not as some sentimental emotional crutch.

Philosophical materialism - check.

Gussy up - check.

Sentimental - check.

There's only Stalinism missing and we'd have had the full Vlad template.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophical materialism - check.

Gussy up - check.

Sentimental - check.

There's only Stalinism missing and we'd have had the full Vlad template.

Not actually answering my post         Check

what do gullible atheists hand over to new atheist writers and booksellers?      Check

[Leonard James]

But can't you see that the beneficial mutations are still vulnerable to elimination by the overwhelming number of detrimental mutations which will occur in future generations.  They are not immune.

Of course they are not immune, but you have failed to understand my explanation. No matter how many organisms die through detrimental mutations, those that don't will still continue to multiply and evolve. In fact if there were no killing mutations, life would become extinct, since the resources to continue would quickly become exhausted. So detrimental mutations are an essential for evolution to continue.

Natural selection has been shown to work as a short term fine tuning process, but to extrapolate this into the major development process in life is extreme optimism.

Nonsense. The problem is that humans have been around to observe it for only the blink of an eye in the enormous time span necessary for major changes to be observed.

[Sebastian Toe]

Philosophical materialism - check.

Gussy up - check.

Sentimental - check.

There's only Stalinism missing and we'd have had the full Vlad template.

Turds?
Never forget the turds, he loves to drop one in now and again!

[torridon]

But can't you see that the beneficial mutations are still vulnerable to elimination by the overwhelming number of detrimental mutations which will occur in future generations.  They are not immune.

I already covered this for you in 6428.  This is the nature of selection. Granted, in humans with our universal health care, deleterious mutations could accumulate, but broadly speaking in nature, selection is the sharp process by which 'beneficial' mutations are conserved and deleterious ones are discarded and so do not 'overwhelm' anything.