The Christian topic  permalink

Jesus never existed

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 201 - 20 of 232
  • Message 201. 

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Si monumentum requiris, circumspice 

    Est Deus mortuus?

    Report message1

  • Message 202

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Dear Wonder,

    Nice story, plenty of evidence, none that you will listen to, but I will try give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Science, I love the subject, three weeks ago programme about the chaos theory, how from chaos we get order, what did I think, God just amazes me, how simply he can forge life.

    What does the atheist see, another reason why we need no God, go figure.

    Santa claus, I do not believe in santa, why do I believe in God, grown men, intelligent men, going through life minding there own business, then suddenly, they want to know God, why.

    The Sanity clause argument is no argument, should be resigned to the skip, much the same as our old God of the gaps.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message2

  • Message 203

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    gonnagle

    You talk as if believe in God is the obvious thing to do. Why? Why is belief in God more or less logical than a belief in any other god?

    Report message3

  • Message 204

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Dear Wonderer,

    Correct to me it is obvious, why I post on this forum.

    I look at science and see the hand of God, the atheist see's something completely different, why, you tell me.

    Christianity is my home, a Buddhist might say the same thing, thats there path not mine.

    Logical, we are just a series of million upon millions of tiny accidents, sorry more to it than that, I would like to know why, from the big bang to us talking on a machine, well if you want to believe you are just a product of lots of accidents, thats your path.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message4

  • Message 205

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Christianity is my home, a Buddhist might say the same thing, thats there path not mine. 
    Does that mean that it doesn't matter which god anyone believes in?

    Report message5

  • Message 206

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Dear Wonderer,

    It matters to them, it matters to me, I try to be a better Christian, are you asking is my God better than anybody else's God, there is only one God, I honestly think he is having a good laugh at all of us.

    Call him what you like, I call him the Father, King of the Universe, the details I will leave to others.

    Gonnagle.

    PS:the book says, happy are the peacemakers, it does not say happy are the Christian peacemakers.

    PS:PS: Happy are the atheist peacemakers, would get my vote.

    Report message6

  • Message 207

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Gonnagle

    PS:PS: Happy are the atheist peacemakers, would get my vote. 

    These have been the most serious posts I've seen from you, and (to me) you're talking sense. Thank you

    Report message7

  • Message 208

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Saturday, 20th March 2010

    Dear Wonderer,

    Flattery will get you everywhere.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message8

  • Message 209

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    >>As already shown, you've not a clue on how evolution works or probabilty<<



    Well then professor, perhaps, as you are all knowing, you can tell me, as one who has not, "a clue on how evolution works or probabilty", why all life's amino acids are all, and I mean all left handed?

    How did an abstraction, such as evolution with its natural selection arrange such an affair?

    I look forward to you factual un-digressionary reply!



    PS,

    The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body. What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.

    What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!

    What are the odds that evolution puts these two eyes, not anywhere on the body, but on the head and at the front of the head and what are the odds that evolution put them, not just at the front of the head, but equidistant, so that depth perception would now be available, stereoscopic, binocular vision seeing in colour?

    Now, what are the odds of evolution, with its natural selection saying to itself [lets imagine for a moment that evolution can talk] that a creature over there needs an eye, but then the question could be asked, whay does it need an eye if it has never needed one in the first place and never knew it needed one...?


    We are only talking about 1 species of life form, what about the millions of others that have ever lived, do you wish me to believe that a so called process called natural selection, caused small changes over a period of time and millions of life forms eneded up with stero scopic vision and in colour for many...?

    What are the odds professor? In order for something to function properly all part have to exist simultaneously!

    As I am in computers, I know that if I alter just one part of my programming, my pc will not function properly and it crashes!

    Take one of the small valves out of your car engine and see if it functions as it should and properly!


    There is no advantage to being half blind, functionality is limited and you become easy prey...so much for survival of the fittest, small changes are supposed to be for the betterment of the originism, but what do we see, [the equivalent of] cars with no engines or parts missing, still waiting for the radio to be put in and tunes, still waiting for the wiring to be started...!

    Still waiting for the pc mother board to have a design etched on its copper sutface, cannot find the billions of micro transistors...for the cpu...! Would you like me to go on with the analogy?


    You people live in a dream world if you think an abstraction can bring about the most simplest of cells which are complex beyond imagination!

    Evolution tries to tell us how we got here, but can an abstraction tell us why we are here and what purpose we serve or do we have to wait on evolution with its small changes...? smiley - laugh

    As you said professor,

    >>As already shown, you've not a clue on how evolution works or probabilty<<

    You're the man! smiley - winkeye

    Lunch anyone!


    letusreason

    Report message9

  • Message 210

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Heselbine (U1612177) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body. What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.

    What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1! 


    Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Thanks for giving me a huge laugh this morning, I was feeling a bit ropey.

    Your logic is that the smaller a particular part of the body is, the less chance it could have evolved. Fantastic.

    Let's get this absolutely straight: the chances of an eye evolving on humans is 1. It's already happened.

    Report message10

  • Message 211

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    >>letusreason. Whether you call yourself LUR or glorybe21, your posts contain no reason, you tell deliberate lies about science and anything else in your support of creationism aka ID.

    Water evaporation is hardly rocket science and saying that some goat herder knew about it 2000 years ago when writing in the bible so it is heavenly knowledge is like claiming that he knew how to put his robe on is heavenly knowledge.

    As creationists love lying about what people say, let's see what Robert Jastrow really said (from the wiki):



    His expressed views on Creation were that although he was an "agnostic, and not a believer", it seems to him that "the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future" due to "the circumstances of the big bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past".
    Quoted from this message





    Then again, being born in 1925, he was not exactly working in science after the year 2000.

    The usual shameful lie about atheists, scientists, evolutionists, seeing ID aka creationism as true. Have you no standards to make up such blatant lies, even claiming that evidence now supports creationism?

    No need to write such long posts in future. Just cut out all the dishonesty and you can keep your posts down to a few lines.<<


    Reply,


    Hindsight makes everything look easy and the others look foolish!

    >>The usual shameful lie about atheists, scientists, evolutionists, seeing ID aka creationism as true. Have you no standards to make up such blatant lies, even claiming that evidence now supports creationism? <<



    Natural selection,

    Analogy.

    Why won't my car start? Why you are waiting for the timing belt to evolve, the fluid in the battery is not quite the right type, you will have to wait a few miilion years...when will I be able to put my cd in? Well, that even farther off and will the songs put themselves on the cd?


    Why does my computer keep crashing and loosing functionality? Well its like this, you've only got bits and pieces in your pc and your software is poorly evolved... and the billions of micro translators, well get rid of those valves for a start and then wait...!


    Dad, all that metal and rubber and things in the back garden, if we leave it for ten millions years, will it put itself together using all the raw materials, with no outside intellegent help and we can have a formula 1 racing car, with all the wiring done, everything just tuned and engineered to perfection...?

    What are the odds professor SBQ? smiley - laugh

    Rather than debate with evolutionists over God etc, I find it rather more entertaining to debate with them using questions about evolution... play you at your own game as it were!


    letusreason




    Report message11

  • Message 212

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    letusreason
    What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1! 
    There should be some suitable books in your school library tomorrow, but for today a good starting point is en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Report message12

  • Message 213

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by newdwr54 (U12275314) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    letusreason
    ...why all life's amino acids are all, and I mean all left handed? 
    Let me guess - Watchtower? AiG perhaps? Some other fundy mine of ignorance?

    First, bacteria have already been described that use right handed amino acids, so your contention is flat wrong to start with.

    Second, left handed amino acids are not there by chance, they were adapted by the organisms that spawned life; they are part of the process of natural selection, just like everything else. An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other products (threose for e.g.) so left handedness was naturally amplified in early life organisms.

    Third, amino acids show a much greater tendency to left handedness anyway, even in abiotic formations, as can be seen from those borne on meteorites. The weak nuclear force produces electrons with left handed spin during beta decay, so these are much more likely to form left handed crystals .

    Last, since the first self-replicator may have needed as few as eight types of amino acids, and since left handed amino acids are much more common than right handed ones, it follows that the probability of the first replicator only using left handed acids is quite high. And this would explain why the vast majority of that first replicator's ancestors (i.e. all life, including us) use mostly left handed amino acids.

    Another gap is filled. We await the next gap with baited breath.

    Report message13

  • Message 214

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Maeght (U13975753) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    letusreason

    There is no advantage to being half blind, functionality is limited and you become easy prey...so much for survival of the fittest, small changes are supposed to be for the betterment of the originism 

    Half blind would be an advantage over totally blind and would improve your chances of escaping a predator, and therefore of passing on your genes.

    There are examples of creature with light sensitive cells or with more basic eyes than we have (but an improvement over the light sensitive cells). Such small steps, each giving a small improvement in the survival rate over the previous more basic 'eye' shows exactly how our eyes could have evolved.

    Report message14

  • Message 215

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    >>Message posted by Wonderer

    letusreason

    What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!
    Quoted from this message




    There should be some suitable books in your school library tomorrow, but for today a good starting point is en.wikipedia.org/wik...<<


    Reply,


    The source, like your self approaches the subject already believeing that the eye evolved and concentrates on such, hardly neutral or unbiased and I'm sure with a little research, I could also pluck out of the air a source or two to counter argue etc!

    But, my question still hasn't been answered about the odds...even the web site hasn't answered the "odds" question and even if evolution was true, it still doesn't tell us why were are here or our purpose here, it would only tell us how we got here!

    Kind regards,


    letusreason

    Report message15

  • Message 216

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    You use terms like,

    >>Let me guess - Watchtower? AiG perhaps? Some other fundy mine of ignorance? <<


    So what you are saying, is that, if a person digs a little whether it be from a WT quote or some other source and it doesn't automatically agree with your preconceptions and notions, they are automatically labeled 'ignorant'!

    Hardly an unbiased approach!

    You use terms such as,

    >>Second, left handed amino acids are *not there by chance*, they were *adapted by...*<<


    If the amino acids are not there by "chance", then they are there by design...and as such adaptation can occur, as in certain animals when the weather changes, so their coats change to adapt to their environment...!

    If evolution was true and I for one do not believe that, my educational background has let me to that conclusion, evolution still does not tell us why we are here and for what purpose and the fact is, we are here and we do have a purpose and logically, if something has a purpose, what is it and who or what gave us this purpose, evolution cannot address these issues, as the answer lies outside the realm of evolution and we both know where that leads to...!

    Kind regards,

    letusreason

    Report message16

  • Message 217

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    letusreason
    What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1 

    But you're using the term 'odds' in a completely meaningless way. What are the 'odds' that we should have two legs instead of four? What are the 'odds' that my cat should have a tail? What are the 'odds' that the sky should be blue? In case the odds are 1 - a certainty.

    it still doesn't tell us why were are here or our purpose here, it would only tell us how we got here 

    But that shows _your_ bias. Why do we need a purpose (other than the survival of our own genetic code)?

    Report message17

  • Message 218

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    Hi Gonnagle
    PS:the book says, happy are the peacemakers, it does not say happy are the Christian peacemakers.

    PS:PS: Happy are the atheist peacemakers, would get my vote. 

    Then you and I are destined to be friends.

    Happy are the daft ones
    For they will make you smile.
    Have fun
    dik smiley - winkeye

    Report message18

  • Message 219

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    Dear Diksleksik,

    Ok, lend me a fiver, who cares who makes the peace, as long as they make it.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message19

  • Message 220

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Patrick (U14329301) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    LUR,

    I was going to find some links to help you with questions you ask about evolution, the eye, probability, etc... but there is just no point. You're not interested in learning anything that doesn't fit inside your preconceived notion of the way things are. If your interested at all in the truth of the world take off the blindfold, challenge your own views. If that strengthens your stance great, if not, suck it up and adapt your view to the evidence you find. Right now you're sounding abit like a ranting loon, throwing up arguments that have been answered time and time again and hoping we haven't heard this one before. We have, and if we haven't, a quick google will find it and most likely a reasonable refutation for it. People far smarter, more studied and experienced in these actual subjects have put them to the test over and over, and if evolution stands up to that kind of scrutiny your false logic games (blown up book factory, pennies, etc.) and misrepresented science factoids on a message board aren't going to change that. We all have questions about things in this world. That's a good thing, seeking the answers is how we learn, but a blanket response of God did it, doesn

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.