1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Good, since you don't know, but act like you do, I will go on.  Os there anything I have presented which is not objective fact?  Read carefully now.

[Lewis Carroll]

Good, since you don't know, but act like you do, I will go on.  Os there anything I have presented which is not objective fact?  Read carefully now.

 

Your entire last post was based on the "Christian view"... Which is based on the Bible and other Christian doctrine... which is based on... Opinion?

 

You're presenting information and basing its truth/legitimacy on where it comes from...

 

 

 

 

The only thing I claimed to know was that man came before woman... And you're stating that I am wrong?

 

"21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."…"

 

-cited from The Bible

Edited by MajinBrian, 11 November 2014 - 01:27 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You are a funny bigot.  The objective truth is that I was giving the Christian.  Is that true or not?  Second,  What is naturally true if we left God out of the picture?  I said it was complex where male and female came from.  Which came first the chicken or the egg, cartoon man?  You seem to know enough that it gives you the right to call people names.  Lets hear it.  How did maleness and femaleness come about?

[serp777]

 

Good, since you don't know, but act like you do, I will go on.  Os there anything I have presented which is not objective fact?  Read carefully now.

 

Your entire last post was based on the "Christian view"... Which is based on the Bible and other Christian doctrine... which is based on... Opinion?

 

You're presenting information and basing its truth/legitimacy on where it comes from...

 

 

 

 

The only thing I claimed to know was that man came before woman... And you're stating that I am wrong?

 

"21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."…"

 

-cited from The Bible

 

That's a classic cartoon. Completely forgot about it; it completely demonstrates shadow hawk logic.

 

This cartoon addresses sh's sex argument.

Edited by serp777, 11 November 2014 - 04:21 AM.

[serp777]

You are a funny bigot.  The objective truth is that I was giving the Christian.  Is that true or not?  Second,  What is naturally true if we left God out of the picture?  I said it was complex where male and female came from.  Which came first the chicken or the egg, cartoon man?  You seem to know enough that it gives you the right to call people names.  Lets hear it.  How did maleness and femaleness come about?

 

Neither came first. There were always at least 1000 humans around to keep the gene pool diverse enough. The human transformation took place over thousands of years. It was never the simple strawman you portray of the chicken and the egg predicament.

 

Check out the documentary becoming human from nova.

 

 

There is a thing called mitochondrial eve, but it is not the biblical eve at all.

 

"

Not the biblical Eve

Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.^[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

• is not a fixed individual
• had a mother
• was not the only woman of her time, and
• Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.

"

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Good, since you don't know, but act like you do, I will go on.  Os there anything I have presented which is not objective fact?  Read carefully now.

 

Your entire last post was based on the "Christian view"... Which is based on the Bible and other Christian doctrine... which is based on... Opinion?

 

You're presenting information and basing its truth/legitimacy on where it comes from...

 

 

 

 

The only thing I claimed to know was that man came before woman... And you're stating that I am wrong?

 

"21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."…"

 

-cited from The Bible

 

That's a classic cartoon. Completely forgot about it; it completely demonstrates shadow hawk logic.

 

This cartoon addresses sh's sex argument.

 

So Intelligent.  Typical.  And they are even impressed with this! 

Nothing in the above posts addressed the subject of sex nor does it answer how male and female came into existence which was my question.  Since I am not a young earth creationist and have never been it also misses the point.  I am an intelligent design theorist and have argued the point in another thread on Intelligent design here in this section.  http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129
I will leave that argument for that thread.  However as an aside though neither the now dated video nor the discussion of Adam and Eve relate to my questions I do find the subject of genetics fascinating.  Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are far from settled science.  Just a couple of years ago they were separated by a lengthy period of time but the latest theorizing puts them in the same time frame.   http://www.nature.co...in-time-1.13478
http://www.reasons.o...-adams-birthday
http://www.reasons.o...somal-adam-live
http://www.nytimes.c...link.html?_r=1
http://www.sci-news....adam-01282.html
http://www.icr.org/article/7685/282/

I could go on with an extensive reference but it is off topic here.  I myself have hade my Y Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA tests done tracing back my own ancestry.  https://www.familytreedna.com/   Do it for yourself.

Let me repeat, where did sex come from?  Back to the subject.

 

[Lewis Carroll]

So Intelligent.  Typical.  And they are even impressed with this! 

 

 

Nothing in the above posts addressed the subject of sex nor does it answer how male and female came into existence which was my question.  Since I am not a young earth creationist and have never been it also misses the point.  I am an intelligent design theorist and have argued the point in another thread on Intelligent design here in this section.  http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129
I will leave that argument for that thread.  However as an aside though neither the now dated video nor the discussion of Adam and Eve relate to my questions I do find the subject of genetics fascinating.  Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are far from settled science.  Just a couple of years ago they were separated by a lengthy period of time but the latest theorizing puts them in the same time frame.   http://www.nature.co...in-time-1.13478
http://www.reasons.o...-adams-birthday
http://www.reasons.o...somal-adam-live
http://www.nytimes.c...link.html?_r=1
http://www.sci-news....adam-01282.html
http://www.icr.org/article/7685/282/

I could go on with an extensive reference but it is off topic here.  I myself have hade my Y Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA tests done tracing back my own ancestry.  https://www.familytreedna.com/   Do it for yourself.

Let me repeat, where did sex come from?  Back to the subject.

 

 

 

I'm still waiting to hear how "sex and where it came from" is relatable to the topic of this thread - "IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???"

Edited by MajinBrian, 12 November 2014 - 02:46 AM.

[shadowhawk]

  Majin Brian:  I'm still waiting to hear how "sex and where it came from" is relatable to the topic of this thread - "IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???"

 

Hardly, you have been blowing smoke on everything else beside this subject.  So, next...

[platypus]

What if God told The Pope and evolution is real? That should make some people reconsider their worldview..

 

BTW this is what happens when creationist pastors meet more evolved people overseas:

 

[serp777]

 

 

 

Good, since you don't know, but act like you do, I will go on.  Os there anything I have presented which is not objective fact?  Read carefully now.

 

Your entire last post was based on the "Christian view"... Which is based on the Bible and other Christian doctrine... which is based on... Opinion?

 

You're presenting information and basing its truth/legitimacy on where it comes from...

 

 

 

 

The only thing I claimed to know was that man came before woman... And you're stating that I am wrong?

 

"21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."…"

 

-cited from The Bible

 

That's a classic cartoon. Completely forgot about it; it completely demonstrates shadow hawk logic.

 

This cartoon addresses sh's sex argument.

 

So Intelligent.  Typical.  And they are even impressed with this! 

Nothing in the above posts addressed the subject of sex nor does it answer how male and female came into existence which was my question.  Since I am not a young earth creationist and have never been it also misses the point.  I am an intelligent design theorist and have argued the point in another thread on Intelligent design here in this section.  http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129
I will leave that argument for that thread.  However as an aside though neither the now dated video nor the discussion of Adam and Eve relate to my questions I do find the subject of genetics fascinating.  Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are far from settled science.  Just a couple of years ago they were separated by a lengthy period of time but the latest theorizing puts them in the same time frame.   http://www.nature.co...in-time-1.13478
http://www.reasons.o...-adams-birthday
http://www.reasons.o...somal-adam-live
http://www.nytimes.c...link.html?_r=1
http://www.sci-news....adam-01282.html
http://www.icr.org/article/7685/282/

I could go on with an extensive reference but it is off topic here.  I myself have hade my Y Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA tests done tracing back my own ancestry.  https://www.familytreedna.com/   Do it for yourself.

Let me repeat, where did sex come from?  Back to the subject.

 

SH the cartoon is applicable because using the bible as a primary source, which you have done, is ridiculous .Not to mention ironic considering you're quick to attack any sources of evidence that you didn't provide. You use your opinions/interpretations of the bible to justify your faith in Christianity, which then validates your ambiguous opinions of the bible. This makes you a roman catholic christian instead of a protestant, or an Anglican, or an eastern orthodox christian, or etc.

 

Although the origin of male and female is not simple, you don't need intelligent design to explain it, like you don't need intelligent design to explain anything else that evolved. Your logic is not good--that because something seems complicated, intelligent design is reasonable theory. Sexes likely emerged from the fact that organisms share genes; this system then developed over time to become sophisticated enough to where the first sexes could be seen. Many evolutionary theories provide logic showing that sexes assist with survival of the fittest, and therefore align well with evolution.

 

"

The Lottery Principle

The Lottery Principle was first suggested by American biologist George C. Williams in his monograph, Sex and Evolution.^[12]  Williams’ idea was that sexual reproduction introduced genetic variety in order to enable genes to survive in changing or novel environments.  He used the lottery analogy to get across the concept that breeding asexually would be like buying a large number of tickets for a national lottery but giving them all the same number.  Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, would be like purchasing a small number of tickets, but giving each of them a different number.

The essential idea behind the Lottery Principle is that since sex introduces variability, organisms would have a better chance of producing offspring that will survive if they reproduce a range of types rather than merely more of the same."

 

"

The Tangled Bank Hypothesis

The Tangled Bank Hypothesis suggests that sex evolved in order to prepare offspring for the complicated world around them.  The “tangled bank” phraseology comes from the last paragraph of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in which he referred to a wide assortment of creatures all competing for light and food on a “tangled bank.”  According to this concept, in any environment where there exists intense competition for space, food, and other resources, a premium is placed on diversification. "

 

"

The DNA Repair Hypothesis

Think about this.  Why are babies born young?  Stupid question—with a self-evident answer, right?  Evolutionists suggest otherwise.  The point of the question is this.  Our somatic (body) cells age.  Yet cells of a newborn have had their clocks “set back.”  Somatic cells die, but the germ line seems to be practically immortal.  Why is this the case?  How can “old” people produce “young” babies?  In a landmark article published in 1989, Bernstein, Hopf, and Michod suggested that they had discovered the answer: ‘We argue that the lack of ageing of the germ line results mainly from repair of the genetic material by meiotic recombination during the formation of germ cells.  Thus our basic hypothesis is that the primary function of sex is to repair the genetic material of the germ line.’"

 

Why Sex?

"‘We think that meiosis became tied to two-parent sex and that meiosis as a cell process, rather than two-parent sex, was a prerequisite for evolution of many aspects of animals.... [M]eiosis seems intimately connected with complex cell and tissue differentiation. After all, animals and plants return every generation to a single nucleated cell’^[44] [emp. added]."

 

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

 

 

"However as an aside though neither the now dated video nor the discussion of Adam and Eve relate to my questions I do find the subject of genetics fascinating."

Huge fallacy. Age of the video is not relevant to the correctness of said video. And actually mitochondrial adam and eve are relevant for the emergence of the fist humans, which was not intelligently designed by any means as shown by the evidence. So even if something was previously intelligently designed to generate the first males and females, there's no evidence that there was intelligent design to elevate humans specifically, and no evidence that would distinguish humans in the eyes of that intelligent designer.

 

Not to mention you have not shown that any intelligent design is the work of the intervening Christian God instead of Allah, or alien overlords, etc. This intelligent design would be impossible to prove I might add. Given that there are nearly an ifninite number of possibilities, the chances of it being your particular God is slim at best. This simply means that you're probably wrong, not that you're definitely wrong. We should go with whatever is most probable and has the most reasonable number of assumptions. We know evolution has an ample amount of evidence,and we know that many theories support the emergence of sexual reproduction, so there is no reason to assume that intelligent design is a reasonable counter theory, given that it is the most complex and requires an explanation for how the intelligent designer emerged, or if he was intelligently designed as well.

 

[shadowhawk]

Platypus: 

What if God told The Pope and evolution is real? That should make some people reconsider their worldview..

BTW this is what happens when creationist pastors meet more evolved people overseas:

You can believe in Evolution and have a Theist worldview.  Read section "One>"  Who are the more evolved people overseas? 

[platypus]

 

Platypus: 

What if God told The Pope and evolution is real? That should make some people reconsider their worldview..

BTW this is what happens when creationist pastors meet more evolved people overseas:

You can believe in Evolution and have a Theist worldview.  Read section "One>"  Who are the more evolved people overseas? 

 

Yes, but can you be a creationist catholic these days? The more evolved people are the Scandinavians in the video.

[shadowhawk]

Response to serp777.  http://www.longecity...-58#entry697675
The cartoon is a logical fallacy and bigotry.  It reminds me of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda against the Jews.  No evidence.  I am not a Roman Catholic though I do not consider that a bad thing.

Just saying by declaration something evolved does not make it so.  You have provided no evidence as usual.  This is not a criticism of evolution, only your thinking it answers the question of irreducible complexity.  You have not given any answer to this and it is certainly not the Lottery Principle; The Tanged Bank Hypothesis, or the DNA Repair Hypothesis.  Let’s see you scientifically repeat what ever one you guess is right.
 
As for the Video which was presented, the science has gone beyond it.  Despite that it does not address the issue of design.  If you want to debate it in the appropriate thread on ID, I would be happy to.  Humans who are intelligent designers were designed by what?
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Platypus: 

What if God told The Pope and evolution is real? That should make some people reconsider their worldview..

BTW this is what happens when creationist pastors meet more evolved people overseas:

You can believe in Evolution and have a Theist worldview.  Read section "One>"  Who are the more evolved people overseas? 

 

Yes, but can you be a creationist catholic these days? The more evolved people are the Scandinavians in the video.

 

Sounds like racism to me, the kind many Evolutionists have held.  The pope is a creationist.  Many Catholics hold all kind of views.   Your statement shows you lack knowledge of what you are talking about and this is not the place or time to correct you.

[serp777]

Response to serp777.  http://www.longecity...-58#entry697675
The cartoon is a logical fallacy and bigotry.  It reminds me of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda against the Jews.  No evidence.  I am not a Roman Catholic though I do not consider that a bad thing.

Just saying by declaration something evolved does not make it so.  You have provided no evidence as usual.  This is not a criticism of evolution, only your thinking it answers the question of irreducible complexity.  You have not given any answer to this and it is certainly not the Lottery Principle; The Tanged Bank Hypothesis, or the DNA Repair Hypothesis.  Let’s see you scientifically repeat what ever one you guess is right.
 
As for the Video which was presented, the science has gone beyond it.  Despite that it does not address the issue of design.  If you want to debate it in the appropriate thread on ID, I would be happy to.  Humans who are intelligent designers were designed by what?
 

 

Your nazi comparison is irrelevant and childish. It is not similar at all to that propoganda.

 

"Just saying by declaration something evolved does not make it so."

 

It was not simply a declaration, and this is a strawman fallacy that does not address my argument. I have given numerous evidence that supports my claim.Check the bibliography on the link I provded which supports many of the evolutionary theories that can explain the development of sexes. Again the point wasn't to prove a specific one it was to show that sex can certainly arise due to evolution, and that evolution provides a completely adequate framework to justify the existence of sexes. Since evolution is a theory with substantial evidence it stands as the most likely theory to explain where sexes come from. Moving on since you were not able to infer this simple logical progression. You have simply presented a strawman that does not even come close to addressing my argument.

 

"You have provided no evidence as usual."

As usual you are lying even when there is plentiful evidence in your face.

 

"it is certainly not the Lottery Principle; The Tanged Bank Hypothesis, or the DNA Repair Hypothesis."

Do you have any evidence to show these theories as invalid? I will say that it probably is one of these explanations, or a combination. Not to mention you forgot to include the last argument. Simply declaring it is certainly not does not make it so.

 

You also entirely ignored the following, which was one of the strongest pieces of evidence.

 

""‘We think that meiosis became tied to two-parent sex and that meiosis as a cell process, rather than two-parent sex, was a prerequisite for evolution of many aspects of animals.... [M]eiosis seems intimately connected with complex cell and tissue differentiation. After all, animals and plants return every generation to a single nucleated cell’^[44] [emp. added]."

 

Since you require a simpler explanation, sex initially evolved as a way to exchange genes between cells in order to increase cell diversification that would lead to better adaptation. The development of sex lead to more complex animals since it introduced more variation, and therefore more pathways of evolution. This is supported by the fact that all animals start from a single cell, like how early pre sex cells began to evolve.

 

"Let’s see you scientifically repeat what ever one you guess is right."

I'm not going to repeat points for the sake of your red herring. If you don't understand something ask for clarification on something in particular and I will explain it. Calling it a guess is inadequate--it is an evidence supported hypothesis.

 

No counter evidence as usual, just the standard tactic of denying evidence ignoring strong points in favor of strawmen.

 

"As for the Video which was presented, the science has gone beyond it.  Despite that it does not address the issue of design."

That's because design has no evidence, again which you haven't presented. It presents a case where the evolution of humans does not depend on design. Please show all the things in the video which have been falsified. Simply saying science has gone beyond it does not make it so.

Edited by serp777, 12 November 2014 - 11:25 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

 

Platypus: 

What if God told The Pope and evolution is real? That should make some people reconsider their worldview..

BTW this is what happens when creationist pastors meet more evolved people overseas:

You can believe in Evolution and have a Theist worldview.  Read section "One>"  Who are the more evolved people overseas? 

 

Yes, but can you be a creationist catholic these days? The more evolved people are the Scandinavians in the video.

 

Sounds like racism to me, the kind many Evolutionists have held.  The pope is a creationist.  Many Catholics hold all kind of views.   Your statement shows you lack knowledge of what you are talking about and this is not the place or time to correct you.

 

 

He's not literally saying that they're evolved, he's saying that they've evolved intellectually. Your statement shows a lack of understanding of subtlety and quips. It also shows you take thing extremely literally. It's a bit of comedy; you should take things a little less seriously if you want to keep your blood pressure down.
 

Edited by serp777, 12 November 2014 - 11:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk:  SEX   http://www.longecity...-57#entry696827
http://www.longecity...-57#entry697338

The Christian view is that God created man, male and female.  The human body was made by God.  The body in a Christian view is complex.  It consists of a union of two elements, the physical or flesh and the spirit or soul.  For an Atheist you are only a body.

The body in the Christian view is physical and suffers the ultimate fate of all physical things, decay, disorganization and death.  The physical is not all there is and man also has a Spirit.  The body grows old and dies like all physical things but the Spirit is not of the sane nature.  It does not decay and die.  
 

Death in a Christian view is separation.  As long as the Spirit and Body are in union, you are a living soul.  However when the Spirit and Body separate your body, being physical, dies but the Spirit goes on.  Humans are a union of two elements, body and spirit and the result is they are a living soul.  When the body suffers the plight of all physical things the spirit and body separate and the physical dies being separated from the spirit.

We are male and female, irreducibly complex in that for humans to go on they need to procreate and new bodies start the process all over again.  Which came first the man or woman?  Unless both are present at the same time, humankind cannot exist.  Sex is a great mystery and without both man and woman, there is no human sex.

We started off this thread by arguing that the physical aspect of the world was changing.  It was changing from one state to another in time.  Everything in the physical world we know is connected to something else and has its beginning in something else.  This chain of being can be followed back to the big bang.  Anyone who wants to read the arguments can go back to section One.  Here also we have a beginning and cause for humans.  In the Christian faith, the cosmos was created.  How?  We study the world around us to find out.  Why?  We study religion and philosophy to find out.  So our first observation is that the human body has a purpose.


 

[The Brain]

So with all this evidence that's been presented you'd think god would just give up the invisible act. I mean Shadowhawk has totally exposed the guy, there's no point trying to stay hidden from us is there .

Lol

[serp777]

 

Shadowhawk:  SEX   http://www.longecity...-57#entry696827
http://www.longecity...-57#entry697338

The Christian view is that God created man, male and female.  The human body was made by God.  The body in a Christian view is complex.  It consists of a union of two elements, the physical or flesh and the spirit or soul.  For an Atheist you are only a body.

The body in the Christian view is physical and suffers the ultimate fate of all physical things, decay, disorganization and death.  The physical is not all there is and man also has a Spirit.  The body grows old and dies like all physical things but the Spirit is not of the sane nature.  It does not decay and die.  
 

Death in a Christian view is separation.  As long as the Spirit and Body are in union, you are a living soul.  However when the Spirit and Body separate your body, being physical, dies but the Spirit goes on.  Humans are a union of two elements, body and spirit and the result is they are a living soul.  When the body suffers the plight of all physical things the spirit and body separate and the physical dies being separated from the spirit.

We are male and female, irreducibly complex in that for humans to go on they need to procreate and new bodies start the process all over again.  Which came first the man or woman?  Unless both are present at the same time, humankind cannot exist.  Sex is a great mystery and without both man and woman, there is no human sex.

We started off this thread by arguing that the physical aspect of the world was changing.  It was changing from one state to another in time.  Everything in the physical world we know is connected to something else and has its beginning in something else.  This chain of being can be followed back to the big bang.  Anyone who wants to read the arguments can go back to section One.  Here also we have a beginning and cause for humans.  In the Christian faith, the cosmos was created.  How?  We study the world around us to find out.  Why?  We study religion and philosophy to find out.  So our first observation is that the human body has a purpose.


 

 

 

Nonsense. False dillemas such as "Which came first the man or woman?  Unless both are present at the same time, humankind cannot exist."

 

There was always a population of about 1000 humans. Two humans didn't pop into existence, one after the other. neither came first, they emerged simultaneously. Multiple humans emerged simultaneously for that matter. This is because wherever we determine what makes the first humans, and thus draw the line, there will be members that have a genome which would place it within the same species.

 

"In the Christian faith, the cosmos was created.  How?  We study the world around us to find out.  Why?  We study religion and philosophy to find out.  So our first observation is that the human body has a purpose."

This isn't saying anything useful or persuasive. We understand the Christian position but stating the position doesn't assist your argument at all. And you know how we actually study the world around us? Science. yes that's right; the field that actually does something useful unlike religion and philosophy. It actually contributes to the betterment of human kind. Philosophy hasn't revealed anything particularly useful or beneficial in the last 100 years. Our first scientific observation, which is the important one, is that the human body appears to be similar to animals in many ways and share a common purpose--to assist the proliferation of the species through adaptation and survival.

 

"It consists of a union of two elements, the physical or flesh and the spirit or soul.  For an Atheist you are only a body."

A misrepresentation of atheism. First of all a union of two elements is a misnomer and an oversimplification. You're forgetting the very important part of the bridge between the soul and the body, which consists of the subconscious, autonomic functions, etc. Second, saying only a body is again, another simplification as well as a strawman. It's a body with a synergistic group of neurons that give rise to consciousness. This is of course is entirely physical though. We've yet to see any evidence from you that the human existence is anything but physical. It may be that God exists, but we exist in an entirely physical configuration with no metaphysics or breakage of the laws of physics.

 

So everything you've written is essentially irrelevant and or fallacious.
 

Edited by serp777, 13 November 2014 - 03:00 AM.

[serp777]

So with all this evidence that's been presented you'd think god would just give up the invisible act. I mean Shadowhawk has totally exposed the guy, there's no point trying to stay hidden from us is there .

Lol

 

No bro, it's a trick to test our faith and see if we can find the one true God out of thousands, or Gods. He makes it difficult to keep things interesting; he does this even though he already knows the past, present, and future when he was creating us, which implies he knew what we would do before we did it. 

 

Shadowhawk and william lane craig are the only people on the planet who know truth.

[platypus]

 

Yes, but can you be a creationist catholic these days? The more evolved people are the Scandinavians in the video.

ou can believe in Evolution and have a Theist worldview.  Read section "One>"  Who are the more evolved people overseas? 

 

Sounds like racism to me, the kind many Evolutionists have held.  The pope is a creationist.  Many Catholics hold all kind of views.   Your statement shows you lack knowledge of what you are talking about and this is not the place or time to correct you.

What are you talking about?? The Pope believes in evolution, he has recently said it very clearly and publicly, which makes him an "evolutionist" in creationist parlance. Please pay attention.  

Edited by platypus, 13 November 2014 - 09:58 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I am sorry you don't know that evolution can be Gods means of creation.  It is called Theistic Evolution and is a well established view.  What has been said is that evolution may be harmonized with creation but that is not my subject so Google it if you are really interested, Also, the Pope did not sat "He" believed in evolution.  Many Catholics do not.  Just like Protestants and Orthodox.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk: “SEX   http://www.longecity...-57#entry696827
http://www.longecity...-57#entry697338

The Christian view is that God created man, male and female.  The human body was made by God.  The body in a Christian view is complex.  It consists of a union of two elements, the physical or flesh and the spirit or soul.  For an Atheist you are only a body.

The body in the Christian view is physical and suffers the ultimate fate of all physical things, decay, disorganization and death.  The physical is not all there is and man also has a Spirit.  The body grows old and dies like all physical things but the Spirit is not of the sane nature.  It does not decay and die.  
 

Death in a Christian view is separation.  As long as the Spirit and Body are in union, you are a living soul.  However when the Spirit and Body separate your body, being physical, dies but the Spirit goes on.  Humans are a union of two elements, body and spirit and the result is they are a living soul.  When the body suffers the plight of all physical things the spirit and body separate and the physical dies being separated from the spirit.”

http://www.longecity...-58#entry697699
“We are male and female, irreducibly complex in that for humans to go on they need to procreate and new bodies start the process all over again.  Which came first the man or woman?  Unless both are present at the same time, humankind cannot exist.  Sex is a great mystery and without both man and woman, there is no human sex.”

We started off this thread by arguing that the physical aspect of the world was changing.  It was changing from one state to another in time.  Everything in the physical world we know is connected to something else and has its beginning in something else.  This chain of being can be followed back to the big bang.  Anyone who wants to read the arguments can go back to section One.  Here also we have a beginning and cause for humans.  In the Christian faith, the cosmos was created.  How?  We study the world around us to find out.  Why?  We study religion and philosophy to find out.  So our first observation is that the human body has a purpose.”

Adam was alone in the Christian Story and though He had God to fellowship with his purpose was not complete without a further creation.  Which came first the man or woman, the man but the human purpose was not complete without both and God planned it that way.  One purpose of human kinks having a body was to procreate and that took both male and female.  You cannot procreate without the YX and XX chromosomes.  Each pare was incomplete by itself.  Our bodies are not made for ourselves but we were made for another.  A woman’s breasts were not made for herself but for a child.  Our sexual system was not made for ourselves but for another.  Adam discovered he needed an Eve to be complete and she needed hin.  Without the other we are alone and as Adam found out this is very uncomfortable, empty and sad.  We cannot exist without the other in our lives.  We were not made to be alone.  This is the Christian View.  
 

[Lewis Carroll]

I am sorry you don't know that evolution can be Gods means of creation.  It is called Theistic Evolution and is a well established view.  What has been said is that evolution may be harmonized with creation but that is not my subject so Google it if you are really interested, Also, the Pope did not sat "He" believed in evolution.  Many Catholics do not.  Just like Protestants and Orthodox.

 

 

So, interpretation of the Bible is negotiable? 

 

The Bible is the perfect, infallible word of God. The story of creation is laid out pretty straight-forward. I feel like the Pope and other believers adopting/accepting evolution is a pathetic attempt to account for current scientific understanding. It's impossible to "harmonize" the creation story with evolution. One account says everything was created at the same time; the other says 'creation' took millions of years.

 

I don't see how it's okay for Christians to modernize the Bible as a way to fit the times. 

[shadowhawk]

I am sorry your comment on the Bible is irrational given the conversation we were having.  It shows your ignorance of what the Bible says.  That is ok because lots of people have childish notions.  Even young earth creationists don't hold to your view. 

 

Perhaps if you are really interested this would be a good place to start but it is beyond our current discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 13 November 2014 - 08:17 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

I am sorry your comment on the Bible is irrational given the conversation we were having.  It shows your ignorance of what the Bible says.  That is ok because lots of people have childish notions.  Even young earth creationists don't hold to your view. 

 

Perhaps if you are really interested this would be a good place to start but it is beyond our current discussion. 

 

 

Oh, you find my post regarding the Bible irrational? 

I am sure the vast majority of the LC community finds this entire thread irrational.

 

My "ignorance"? My "childish notions"? 

You're such a hypocrite... you can throw out the insults but you're quick to condemn others for doing the same.

 

Plus, you're the one who believes that there is a babysitter up in the sky watching (and judging) our every move... talk about "childish notions".

Edited by MajinBrian, 13 November 2014 - 08:32 PM.

[The Brain]

And he's sleazy

[shadowhawk]

So now you are entirely off the point and in fact have no point.  Typical bankrupt name calling.   Have a good day.

[The Brain]

My point was well made

[platypus]

I am sorry you don't know that evolution can be Gods means of creation.  It is called Theistic Evolution and is a well established view.  What has been said is that evolution may be harmonized with creation but that is not my subject so Google it if you are really interested, Also, the Pope did not sat "He" believed in evolution.  Many Catholics do not.  Just like Protestants and Orthodox.

I think The Pope implied that God laid down the laws and then evolution happened as "evolutionists" say it happened. An omipotent being could easily pull that off without having to "guide" evolution in any way. And, by the way, evolution does not look guided, but works like a "bling watchmaker". I'm sure you've heard of that analogy.