Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

crispybits wrote:If you label yourself yes, then it shows you have cognition of the idea. However a baby is not labelling itself anything. By the definition of atheism as "lacking belief in God(s)" then babies are atheists, because it is impossible to have belief in something if you do not have a mental concept for that thing. Whether they consider themselves to be athiests or not is irrelevant. TN is a subset of atheism.

what if i told you that you didn't believe in "skub".

what is skub? it could be god, it could be your mom, it could be flying unicorns. how would you know whether you believed in it or not? you don't even know what it is.

crispybits wrote:There is an anti-theist set of arguments that often get repeated, but there is a difference between that and indoctrination. Indoctrination into an idea by definition does not encourage/allow criticism of that idea. Anti-theism wants debate, it wants people to come up against it, present their evidence or their argument or whatever and have the discussion. Religion (as a philosophy) wants to shut down the discussion, it allows no debate. "This is the word of God" is not allowing for any debate, it is a debate ender, because whoever says it has no way to change their position without abandoning it entirely. Have you ever heard any religious person saying "This is the word of God, but you know what he may have been wrong on this issue"?

i have a hard time believing this, since no atheist i have ever talked to has ever admitted being wrong about any of their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

waauw wrote:Well then you made a horrible mistake in formulating your statement.

The fact that many atheists claim the same things, does not make it an indoctrination. According to the oxford dictionary indoctrination is making people believe things without them questioning it. This is not the case with atheism. Atheists base themselves on science and science does provide them evidence, often even conclusive evidence(for example heliocentrism).

Atheism is also individualistic in it's nature. It does not offer a holy script with all the need to know in it. No, atheism allows people to make up their own mind about the many scientific theories out there. There is a reason why atheism started growing with the birth of liberalism as liberalism is about freedom to believe and think whatever you choose.

In fact it are the religious people who are often indoctrinated, not the atheists. Many religions are based on holy scripts, which themselves have no scientific foundation and are filled with logical conflicts. It are these scripts which are then taught to children. They only learn what they should believe in but do not receive any logical nor scientific foundation on why to believe it. This in it's definition is indoctrination.

how often do you hear about "non-stamp collectors"?

how about the invisible pink unicorn? russell's teapot? how about "you're an atheist for one less god than i am"? or "i'm an agnostic atheist, not one of THOSE atheists"?

how about the rest of the litany of quotes by modern atheist writers that get repeated over and over again?

all invalid arguments, all repeated mindlessly and unquestioned by most modern atheists. (and yes, most religious people are the same way)

so don't give me this shit about how you are all individualistic free-thinkers. i know what a free-thinker sounds like, and this isn't it. in fact, i bet i can guess 90% of your political beliefs, because i'm well-versed in the way people like you think. you are all pretty much the same.[/quote

Ok I'll bite.describe 90% of my political beliefs,you might start by giving my voting record 1974-2003 in the UK.Should be easy seeing as we are all pretty much the same and you are so prescient..

on what issues specifically?

feel free to pick positions that you think would surprise me. i like to be pleasantly surprised.

john9blue wrote: the act of labeling yourself an atheist is an active rejection of the concept of god, which requires a conception of god in the first place.

Seems to me this argument works both ways. How is it possible to believe in "god" if you can't define it? Isn't that meaningless -oh yes, I believe in this thing. Whatever it is...

Until I find out what "skub" is, if I ever do, then I have no belief about skub. I neither believe that it exists or that it doesn't exist. I don't assign any probability factor to it's existence either. Now look again at the sentence "lacking belief in X" and tell me that it is not appropriate for that to apply in this case. I lack belief, AND I lack understanding of the concept. If it is possible to be "askubist" than my askubism is stronger than my atheism, because I at least know what we're talking about when someone says "God". You are confusing atheism with anti-theism (which is when an atheist starts challenging religious dogma rather than not giving a crap about it at all). Anti-theists are a subset of atheists, but atheism is not limited only to anti-theists.

As for no atheist ever changing their mind on the question of the existence of God, have you ever thought that this is because no theist (the ones making the claim, who hold the burden of proof) has ever supplied evidence that he/she/it exists? That is of course ignoring the many and varied documented former athiests who have become religious again later on, for a whole load of different reasons.

On the point that you have heard a lot of arguments many times, well this is because they are effective at making a point. Yes it's not original thought, there is a kind of cultural playbook atheists can turn to in the combined works of many philosophers and writers in the past couple of hundred years that gives ready made responses to religious fallacies. Some are not as effective as others, but I have yet to see someone disprove the existence of my invisible immaterial pink unicorn who can save their eternal soul if they are just willing to come and help clean my flat. Oh and by the way the immaterial invisible pink unicorn also says that eating potato is evil and a mortal sin and you will go to hell if you do so. Therefore I'm going to petition government to have potatoes and potato based products made illegal, and if they refuse I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court because by not enforcing my invisible immaterial pink unicorn's rules on everybody they are violating my religious freedom.

crispybits wrote:Until I find out what "skub" is, if I ever do, then I have no belief about skub. I neither believe that it exists or that it doesn't exist. I don't assign any probability factor to it's existence either. Now look again at the sentence "lacking belief in X" and tell me that it is not appropriate for that to apply in this case. I lack belief, AND I lack understanding of the concept. If it is possible to be "askubist" than my askubism is stronger than my atheism, because I at least know what we're talking about when someone says "God". You are confusing atheism with anti-theism (which is when an atheist starts challenging religious dogma rather than not giving a crap about it at all). Anti-theists are a subset of atheists, but atheism is not limited only to anti-theists.

suppose "skub" is another word for mud. you believe that mud exists, right? therefore you believe in skub, you just don't realize it.

same with T.N.... they realize that you can use a vague notion for god that you believe is true (i.e. pantheism) or a specific one that you believe is false (i.e. zeus)... and the fact that we haven't defined god means you can't give an answer to whether you even have belief or not.

jonesthecurl wrote:

john9blue wrote: the act of labeling yourself an atheist is an active rejection of the concept of god, which requires a conception of god in the first place.

Seems to me this argument works both ways. How is it possible to believe in "god" if you can't define it? Isn't that meaningless -oh yes, I believe in this thing. Whatever it is...

see above ^

if you don't know what a word means, then you aren't even able to say whether you believe in it or not.

john9blue wrote:

waauw wrote:Well then you made a horrible mistake in formulating your statement.

The fact that many atheists claim the same things, does not make it an indoctrination. According to the oxford dictionary indoctrination is making people believe things without them questioning it. This is not the case with atheism. Atheists base themselves on science and science does provide them evidence, often even conclusive evidence(for example heliocentrism).

Atheism is also individualistic in it's nature. It does not offer a holy script with all the need to know in it. No, atheism allows people to make up their own mind about the many scientific theories out there. There is a reason why atheism started growing with the birth of liberalism as liberalism is about freedom to believe and think whatever you choose.

In fact it are the religious people who are often indoctrinated, not the atheists. Many religions are based on holy scripts, which themselves have no scientific foundation and are filled with logical conflicts. It are these scripts which are then taught to children. They only learn what they should believe in but do not receive any logical nor scientific foundation on why to believe it. This in it's definition is indoctrination.

how often do you hear about "non-stamp collectors"?

how about the invisible pink unicorn? russell's teapot? how about "you're an atheist for one less god than i am"? or "i'm an agnostic atheist, not one of THOSE atheists"?

how about the rest of the litany of quotes by modern atheist writers that get repeated over and over again?

all invalid arguments, all repeated mindlessly and unquestioned by most modern atheists. (and yes, most religious people are the same way)

so don't give me this shit about how you are all individualistic free-thinkers. i know what a free-thinker sounds like, and this isn't it. in fact, i bet i can guess 90% of your political beliefs, because i'm well-versed in the way people like you think. you are all pretty much the same.

Seriously you're reasoning makes no sense. But anyway here is a list of your claims and my answers:

• The same analogies can recur multiple times
  ==>This has nothing to do with how opinions are formed or what the opinions are. What you are referencing here is the way of expressing oneself.
• "i'm an agnostic atheist, not one of THOSE atheists"
  ==> A lot of people would react that way if they were called something they are not. This statement is about definition, generalization and cathegorization. If I would call you a genocidal maniac because religious pursecutions have happened in the past, would you accept it? No, you would say "I'm not one of those religious extremists"(or some variant of the same statement) and I'm willing to bet that a whole lot of other religious folk would answer the same thing. But this statement alone does not make a person collectivist(as in opposite to individualist) or indoctrinated.
• atheist writers repeat the same thing over and over again and this is why they are no free-thinkers
  ==> If I would quote something out of Star Wars does that mean I am unable to form my own opinion about those movies?
• so don't give me this shit about how you are all individualistic free-thinkers
  ==> I never said that ALL atheists are free-thinking. Some of them probably aren't. What I meant was that atheism in general does not dictate people what to believe. Atheism just means that people do not believe in a god. For the rest atheists are free to believe what they want(individualistic). There is no standardization of what Atheists are supposed to believe. There are for example tons of atheists who don't agree with the big bang theory.
• You think you know what I and all atheists think(including 90% of our political views)
  ==> I'm pretty sure you can not derive whether one believes in liberalism, neo-liberalism, socialism, anarchism, social-liberalism, etc. based on whether or not they believe in a God. The same goes for many other topics like for example gunrights, death penalty, interventionism, abortion, etc.
  The only things that atheists do resemble each other on are things like seperation of church and state. The reason for this however is that people have the propensity to protect themselves. For atheism, a seperation of church and state is required to attempt to be as safe as possible.

john9blue wrote:on what issues specifically?

feel free to pick positions that you think would surprise me. i like to be pleasantly surprised.

try me. Which is my preferred political persuasion?(narrowed it down to only liberalism as I already mentioned that I'm liberal in another topic.
Classical liberal, neoliberal or social-liberal?

or what about this one? Tell me what my economical persuasion is? What is my preferred economical system?
mercantilism, classical, neoclassical, Keynesian capitalism, austrian capitalism, chicago capitalism, ... ?

==> let's see if you get both of 'm right, because none of these have anything to do with my atheist point of view. But as you claim to know my political views, give it a go

Lets try and simplify things for you here J9B.



So, to believe X, you must therefore accept it as true that X.



So a theist believes (accepts as true) that God exists.

We put the letter "a" in front of some words instead of putting "not". So for example "amoral" doesn't mean bad, it means without any moral properties at all. "Apolitical" doesn't mean anti-political, it means without having anything to do with politics. We could just as correctly write "not moral" or "not political", but these are ambiguous phrases that could be confused with other meanings depending on the context.

So, when we put the "a" in front of theist, what it means is that an atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Given that being a theist involves assigning a truth value to a statement, anyone who cannot assign a truth value to this statement is not a theist, and therefore TNs are, by definition, atheist.

Now do you want to stop quibbling about semantics and go back to when the conversation was interesting, like the point where I was waiting for you to demonstrate why atheism will lead to a total collapse of the moral fabric of society maybe? I've set out my case in response to BBS, still waiting for yours.

crispybits wrote:So, when we put the "a" in front of theist, what it means is that an atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Given that being a theist involves assigning a truth value to a statement, anyone who cannot assign a truth value to this statement is not a theist, and therefore TNs are, by definition, atheist.

Just a minor nit pick; in the original definition of the Latin word, Christians were considered atheist since they didn't worship the Roman gods (the Romans were practical people; they didn't care who you worshiped as long as you also worshiped their gods as well). It is only later that the word was applied to any gods as opposed to the Roman pantheon.

Minor nit pick - it was a greek word, not latin.

What that has to do with the actual point is lost on me though.

Thank you, john. Today I learned you are the only beautifully unique snowflake amongst the sea of mindless drones. What travails you must suffer.

john9blue wrote:on what issues specifically?

feel free to pick positions that you think would surprise me. i like to be pleasantly surprised.

Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

waauw wrote:try me. Which is my preferred political persuasion?(narrowed it down to only liberalism as I already mentioned that I'm liberal in another topic.
Classical liberal, neoliberal or social-liberal?

or what about this one? Tell me what my economical persuasion is? What is my preferred economical system?
mercantilism, classical, neoclassical, Keynesian capitalism, austrian capitalism, chicago capitalism, ... ?

==> let's see if you get both of 'm right, because none of these have anything to do with my atheist point of view. But as you claim to know my political views, give it a go

the reason i asked for specific issues is because labels can get confusing when talking with someone from another country. there was a discussion in another thread about how "liberal" means something different in europe than it does here. because you are from belgium and i know pretty much nothing about belgian politics, that's why i'm hesitant to answer this question.

chang50 wrote: Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

do you agree that (in america) most atheists adhere most closely to american liberalism? why do you think that is?

crispybits wrote:So a theist believes (accepts as true) that God exists.

We put the letter "a" in front of some words instead of putting "not". So for example "amoral" doesn't mean bad, it means without any moral properties at all. "Apolitical" doesn't mean anti-political, it means without having anything to do with politics. We could just as correctly write "not moral" or "not political", but these are ambiguous phrases that could be confused with other meanings depending on the context.

So, when we put the "a" in front of theist, what it means is that an atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Given that being a theist involves assigning a truth value to a statement, anyone who cannot assign a truth value to this statement is not a theist, and therefore TNs are, by definition, atheist.

Now do you want to stop quibbling about semantics and go back to when the conversation was interesting, like the point where I was waiting for you to demonstrate why atheism will lead to a total collapse of the moral fabric of society maybe? I've set out my case in response to BBS, still waiting for yours.

like i said earlier, you CAN stretch the definition of "atheist" this far is you really want to, but it wouldn't mean anything since the people i am talking about would be forced to label themselves with a word based on a concept they feel has no meaning.

if a german person calls you a dummkopf, and you didn't know what that meant, would you agree or disagree with them? my guess is that you would do neither.

chang50 wrote: Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

do you agree that (in america) most atheists adhere most closely to american liberalism? why do you think that is?


It's possible they do,I wouldn't make a claim of that type myself.Now the goalposts are shrinking,we are talking about a very small percentage of atheists worldwide now.Nobody is even sure how many atheists there are in the US because amazingly in the 21st century there is an unbelievable level of discrimination against them for a developed country.For the sake of argument lets say they broadly vote Democrat.All we have established is most US atheists vote for a right of centre party in a heavily right wing country,in other words,very little.

john9blue wrote:like i said earlier, you CAN stretch the definition of "atheist" this far is you really want to, but it wouldn't mean anything since the people i am talking about would be forced to label themselves with a word based on a concept they feel has no meaning.

if a german person calls you a dummkopf, and you didn't know what that meant, would you agree or disagree with them? my guess is that you would do neither.

I'm not stretching anything - I'm using THE definition of the words. A theist is someone who has belief in God(s) An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God(s), for ANY reason, be that because they know what God(s) supposedly are and reject the concept or because they lack the concept. By the way if not having a concept for God disqualified you identifying as an atheist then it would also disqualify you from identfying as a theological nocognitivist, after all how can you say the concept is meaningless if you don't accept that the concept exists?

If I didn't know what dummkopf means (and I do by the way, nice sly way to try and throw an insult there without it being obvious), then no I would not agree or disagree. But the point is that a theist holds a belief as true. I would be a "dummkopf-ist" if I held the belief is true that I am a dummkopf. If I do not hold that belief then I am a "not-dummkopf-ist" or an "a-dummkopf-ist". It doesn't matter if I understand it or not, the only positions that require understanding are the positions that hold it to be true or false or likely or unlikely. None of those positions is a universal philosophy that encompasses all atheists.

I'll give you a single issue - 100 atheists are asked the following question - how many (roughly) vote for each answer:

Homosexual sex is
(a) always wrong.
(b) almost always wrong.
(c) sometimes wrong.
(d) not wrong at all.

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

universalchiro wrote:Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

I'd like to hear more about these points, Dr. Lawrence. Could you elaborate?


--Andy

universalchiro wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Before I answer you, I want you to know I'm not an expert in biology. It is not my field of expertise. So if I overlook something or if I make some mistake, please let me know. I'm glad to learn more if I can.

Anyway you state that Darwin's theory doesn't add up because of the fact that animals can't crossbreed because of some enzyme. However if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed?

As far as I understand animal reproduction functions a bit similar to gravity. The further you are from the gravitational field the less influence that field will have on you. So the more animals have mutated away from each other, the higher the probability that they won't be able to mate. The reason for this being that the the probability of their enzymes or membranes having mutated might have mutated too.

The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know".

Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it.

But don't you guys know that evolution REQUIRES cross-breeding!!!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184550&p=4076191#p4076191

(the argument has already been thoroughly dealt with, followed by some ramblings about radioactive decay (backed up by "evidence" that has nothing to do with radioactive decay) and then a general rant about how you can't believe the bible is true unless you make a decision before you read it that it's all true, and only then does it appear to be true to you (paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 2:10-16))

Also, I hope you never advertise for patients on here "Dr Lawrence", because unless you have a PHD or MD (in which case chances are you wouldn't be a chiropractor), you could end up in hot water for using that particular name for yourself.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6
(question 8 )

Sincerley,
High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet Crispybits

crispybits wrote:Sincerley,
High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet Crispybits

High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet (HCA of 7th IF), could you elaborate more on this position? Also, can I be your yeoman?


--Andy

Due to cutbacks it mostly involves making tea.

I don't have the budget for extra staff, you can have an unpaid intern position though. I'll throw in a banana at the end of each week from my own wage if your work is satisfactory.

universalchiro wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

There are a large amount of examples of evolution that has been observed in living history. Evolution that has created completely new species which cannot mate with the founder species. The easiest example of course are Darwin's finches, but there are many, many others.

For a simplistic diagrammatic representation of how this occurs, see below.



Is it so difficult to for you to imagine that one of these species which has evolved no longer really needs the use of their wings and when a slight mutation causes the wings to become more limb like this makes them better at surviving?

Or lets go from the other direction. While they are in the vast minority, there are plenty of humans that have webbed feet and hands. Before the advent of relatively modern medicine (and lets neglect the fact that they were put to death by various religious institutions for a moment) they would have issues gripping basic tools. Today of course, it is a relatively simple procedure to correct this for the most part. However, what if humans were more reliant on food from the sea? Would not this mutation make them a lot better at surviving?

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

The whole idea that humans were "made" by a supreme being doesn't even slightly take into account observable facts and today, the majority of people that believe in creationism only believe in creationism insofar as that god made the spark that created life and hence ultimately created us. It is a kind of semi-creationism sell out version to be honest.

crispybits wrote:Due to cutbacks it mostly involves making tea.

I don't have the budget for extra staff, you can have an unpaid intern position though. I'll throw in a banana at the end of each week from my own wage if your work is satisfactory.

I think this sounds reasonable. My usual dress attire as a yeoman is as follows:

show

--Andy

That would be acceptable, tho I would ask you to keep your skirts below knee length as we are a bit prudish in the 7th fleet - that kind of thing is what gives the 5th fleet a bad name imo

waauw wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Before I answer you, I want you to know I'm not an expert in biology. It is not my field of expertise. So if I overlook something or if I make some mistake, please let me know. I'm glad to learn more if I can.

Anyway you state that Darwin's theory doesn't add up because of the fact that animals can't crossbreed because of some enzyme. However if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed?

As far as I understand animal reproduction functions a bit similar to gravity. The further you are from the gravitational field the less influence that field will have on you. So the more animals have mutated away from each other, the higher the probability that they won't be able to mate. The reason for this being that the the probability of their enzymes or membranes having mutated might have mutated too.

The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know".

Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it.

All [when ever someone says "all", you must throw a red flag and study what they say to except or refute], All creatures that mutate too far away from their kind, are sterile. Hence, ending any further movement away from their kind.

But even if they weren't sterile, their pituitary gland releases hormones that cause that particular kind of creature to seek and pursue only their same kind. Also, pheromones released by all creatures are receptor specific to attract their same kind.

Putting this all in perspective:
1. Only the male sperm of the same specific kind has the enzyme to dissolve the egg shell of the same specific kind.
2. The pituitary gland of each kind of creature, produce desire for the same kind.
3. Pheromones released to attract a mate by the females, is receptor specific for their same kind.
4. When a creature mutates too far from their kind, they are sterile.
5. When a female sheep or goat is in heat, and a male dog is overwhelmed with desire to copulate outside their kind, the dog sperm still lacks the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of other kinds, except their own kind.

For 5,000 years that mankind has been keeping records, there is never and never will be a record of sheep giving birth to a half dog, or a female dog giving birth to a half goat. Why? All creatures have been sealed to reproduce after their own kind. Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; cattle and creeping things and bests of the earth after their kind; and it was so. God made the beasts of earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind; and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;.. vs 26 Then God said, ' Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To think otherwise, is a religion. Why? Their is no evidence, their is only faith that dogs evolved from cats, or sheep evolved from wolf, or cats evolved from squirrels, or humans evolved from apes, or etc... purely faith based.
Put this another way:
1. We could soak a cat ovum in a pool of dog sperm and nothing will happen.
2. We could take a female dog in heat, with a herd of male sheep/goat/cats and no fertilization occurs.