Climbers for Christ

Frax said:
I'm back. I'm an atheist, but I swear that somehow, despite that, I do have a moral compass.
Click to expand...
Glad you are back Frax, I hope your eye is healing well. The eye is such a small organ of the body I take for granted all the time, until it gets scratched or injured. Then I realize why God gave us two.

So I'm curious, what reason do you think you have a "moral compass" for?
 
Frax said:
I'm back. I'm an atheist, but I swear that somehow, despite that, I do have a moral compass.
Click to expand...

As there is no way to prove if there is a God or not being an atheist is as much an act of faith as being a Christian.

All religions I'm familiar with look to be man made and show zero evidence of having a God involved.

Doesn't mean there is not one though. Or even many.
 
Believing our existence is an end result of "luck" does require faith! Adding a couple of billion years of random chance occurrences to that recipe just doesn't do it for me.
 
Lets play a little numbers game.

Lets suggest for now that we've had some understanding of genetics or at least the ability to reliably access genes for 100 years. We have (say) 7 billion people on the plannet right now. So in 100 hundread years thats erm... a lot of people born in all sorts of environemnts and with very disparate "stock".

And still we have but one genome accross the whole human race. So in 100 years, many billions of births we have not seen or identified one positive genetic mutation.
Meanwhile weeve seen many many many very negative genetic mutations - ie ones that lead to inability, incapacitance impotence or death.

So if as a genus or even a species we are "evolving" in the macro (Greek/Darwins hypothesis) sense, then if there is not even one positive genetic mutation in many billions of generations - and there must be billions of genetic changes between say a chimp and a human - then we cant even calculate a statistic for home many generations would be need to mutate from chimp to man because we dont have a rate of positive genetic mutation to work from - but we know that billions of generations is not nearly enough for even one...
 
Paul Hedderly said:
So in 100 years, many billions of births we have not seen or identified one positive genetic mutation.
Click to expand...

So this is difficult for me to believe, Paul ....

I once read a rather colorful book that went into great detail about a group of humans that experienced positive effects of mutated genes. These genetic changes were express phenotypically in many cases.

This small group of abnormal humans displayed characteristics such as telepathy, the control of magnetic fields, adhesive hands and feet, teleportation, growth of tails, control of weather, laser eye beams, and the transformation into metallic bodies.

Now, the government was frightened. They would do anything to keep the status quo (as usual). Socially, peoples inability to cope with these changes within their fellow man led to fear and vulnerability. Now these potential positive genetic changes that could be used for good were soon perceived as a threat that must be destroyed. :loco:
 
Last edited:
(apology for derail)
I gave a similar rather colourful book to my daughter for Christmas many years ago. She rather enjoyed it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_World_of_Og

I remember a TV interview featuring the late author (Pierre Berton), who was asked something along the lines of what was the best book he ever wrote. He replied "The Secret World of Og", and mentioned a 5 or 6 year old kid telling him it was the best book she had ever read in her entire life!
 
Paul Hedderly said:
Lets play a little numbers game.

Lets suggest for now that we've had some understanding of genetics or at least the ability to reliably access genes for 100 years. We have (say) 7 billion people on the plannet right now. So in 100 hundread years thats erm... a lot of people born in all sorts of environemnts and with very disparate "stock".

And still we have but one genome accross the whole human race. So in 100 years, many billions of births we have not seen or identified one positive genetic mutation.
Meanwhile weeve seen many many many very negative genetic mutations - ie ones that lead to inability, incapacitance impotence or death.

So if as a genus or even a species we are "evolving" in the macro (Greek/Darwins hypothesis) sense, then if there is not even one positive genetic mutation in many billions of generations - and there must be billions of genetic changes between say a chimp and a human - then we cant even calculate a statistic for home many generations would be need to mutate from chimp to man because we dont have a rate of positive genetic mutation to work from - but we know that billions of generations is not nearly enough for even one...
Click to expand...

Evolution is an undeniable fact.

Creationism is foolishness.
 
Stihlmadd said:
for the sake of the discussion could you please elaborate on your version of creationism as opposed to evolution,
is it the level or to the extent of which the "god" effected change during the 'evolutionary' phase of history?
Click to expand...

I don't have my own version of Creationism, it's already pretty well defined.

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionary' phase of history. We are living in a sea of evolution.

It's been more than 15 years ago that I read the creationist book by Duane Gish, from Fish to Gish. I remember laughing out loud waking my wife up when I read Gish's theory that God created the fossils and placed them where they are found to test man's faith.

Are you down with the Creationism museum showing men walking and living along side of dinosaurs?

Faith makes some people swallow some pretty weird stuff.
 
Last edited:
but your previous statement is evolution is an undeniable fact - thats a cold hard statement - no room for any kind of change occurring there
I am not so interested in that anyways debating the semantic differences is a pointless waste of time only really serving a gain of namby pamby behaviour .
what I trying to get at is the why..
if we believe in pure chance then simple experiments into chance shows reoccurring patterns over time - so not as chancey as one would like to be comforted by really.
the odds of the planet earth being in the right 'zone' from the sun and having a over sized moon singular with a molten iron core to the planet to provide electromagnetic shielding while still letting in an 'acceptable' amount of energy and having a carbon nitrogen oxygen hydrogen mixture are so outstandingly unbelievable as to seem like a fairy tale or something out of myth.

so how can a electron know it is being observed and change its behavior based on the 'fact' it is being observed?
thats the real rub, an electron with out any kind of biological intelligence acts as if it is aware when it is under observation and further can do these action ignoring the underlying principles of space time as is generally accepted to be the 'truth' and 'fact'.
 
Stihlmadd said:
but your previous statement is evolution is an undeniable fact - thats a cold hard statement - no room for any kind of change occurring there
I am not so interested in that anyways debating the semantic differences is a pointless waste of time only really serving a gain of namby pamby behaviour .
what I trying to get at is the why..
if we believe in pure chance then simple experiments into chance shows reoccurring patterns over time - so not as chancey as one would like to be comforted by really.
the odds of the planet earth being in the right 'zone' from the sun and having a over sized moon singular with a molten iron core to the planet to provide electromagnetic shielding while still letting in an 'acceptable' amount of energy and having a carbon nitrogen oxygen hydrogen mixture are so outstandingly unbelievable as to seem like a fairy tale or something out of myth.

so how can a electron know it is being observed and change its behavior based on the 'fact' it is being observed?
thats the real rub, an electron with out any kind of biological intelligence acts as if it is aware when it is under observation and further can do these action ignoring the underlying principles of space time as is generally accepted to be the 'truth' and 'fact'.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna have to re read that but I like it. How bout what this guy says
 
Stihlmadd said:
but your previous statement is evolution is an undeniable fact - thats a cold hard statement - no room for any kind of change occurring there
I am not so interested in that anyways debating the semantic differences is a pointless waste of time only really serving a gain of namby pamby behaviour .
what I trying to get at is the why..
if we believe in pure chance then simple experiments into chance shows reoccurring patterns over time - so not as chancey as one would like to be comforted by really.
the odds of the planet earth being in the right 'zone' from the sun and having a over sized moon singular with a molten iron core to the planet to provide electromagnetic shielding while still letting in an 'acceptable' amount of energy and having a carbon nitrogen oxygen hydrogen mixture are so outstandingly unbelievable as to seem like a fairy tale or something out of myth.

so how can a electron know it is being observed and change its behavior based on the 'fact' it is being observed?
thats the real rub, an electron with out any kind of biological intelligence acts as if it is aware when it is under observation and further can do these action ignoring the underlying principles of space time as is generally accepted to be the 'truth' and 'fact'.
Click to expand...

Even the fairy tale believers don't believe in your 'outstanddingly unbelievable' odds of other Earth like planets.

From Christian Today. com

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...anets.in.our.milky.way.galaxy.alone/60085.htm
 
so we can both play games with odds, sweet that furthers the discussion along nicely.
still doesn't explain why an electron knows it is being observed and by the act of observation alone changes its behaviour
 
Stihlmadd said:
so we can both play games with odds, sweet that furthers the discussion along nicely.
still doesn't explain why an electron knows it is being observed and by the act of observation alone changes its behaviour
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good subject for a new thread!
 
MikePowers321 said:
So this is difficult for me to believe, Paul ....

I once read a rather colorful book that went into great detail about a group of humans that experienced positive effects of mutated genes. These genetic changes were express phenotypically in many cases.

This small group of abnormal humans displayed characteristics such as telepathy, the control of magnetic fields, adhesive hands and feet, teleportation, growth of tails, control of weather, laser eye beams, and the transformation into metallic bodies.

Now, the government was frightened. They would do anything to keep the status quo (as usual). Socially, peoples inability to cope with these changes within their fellow man led to fear and vulnerability. Now these potential positive genetic changes that could be used for good were soon perceived as a threat that must be destroyed. :loco:
Click to expand...
Xmen rules
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom