Answer the REQUEST and the QUESTIONS Striver. I'm wise to your diversionary tactics because it must bug the crap out of you to have a Gr10 dropout completely destroy your atheism garbage philosophy.
REQUEST... Striver you say you can see gravity. Can you please send me a picture of gravity. * Note; I'm not asking you for a picture of an article falling down BECAUSE of GRAVITY, I'm asking you for a specific picture of GRAVITY.
QUESTIONS
1. The atheist Carl Sagan supported spontaneous combustion. Can you give me the latest facts validating spontaneous combustion as a fact.
2. Ernst Haeckl, another atheist, gave science the RECAPITULATION THEORY FOOLISHLY EMBRACED amongst scientific atheists by the phrase "Ontogeny recapitulates phyogeny" can you substantiate this BRAINY ATHEISTIC SCIENCE?
Now I have a THIRD question for you Striver.
3. You said Space has the power to create. In the SAME post referred to above you stated......Both Trans-Himalayan Philosophy and now modern science has proven space creates. I know you prefer the invisible, but astronomers watch it happen. They can see it.
Now the THIRD QUESTION is asked assuming that since SPACE has the ability to create from your claim in THIS POST...Astronomers can see space creating, maintaining, then destroying and reabsorbing its phenomenal creations over and over non-stop and never ending.
As always, I answered you. If you can't undestand these answers, that's your problem.
I asked you to show us your God...not gravity. You insist there is a Being-God who sitteth upon a throne in a place called heaven. Such a Being is not gravity. If you aren't going to answer, say so and we'll go on to something else. I was a state cop for 27 years and have had the best try to con me so you may as well give up on trying to piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
The logic of the foolish Striver claims that because he CAN'T SEE GOD, God therefore doesn't exist. However Striver said he CAN SEE GRAVITY therefore he admits it exists but strangely he can't show a picture of gravity.
The logic of the fool defeats him. God is right.
Ps 14:1
1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (NAS)
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Nucc, I'll be 75 this July 8th. Lived most of those years in Mississippi, the Old Mississippi. Since I was a little boy I have heard people like you rant about God. You tell people they either accept this God or they are doomed. You have sent missionaries to all religions across the planet telling them that unless they drop their belief system, accept yours along with your God, they are doomed.
You put Tim and Yvonne down, call me a fool. That's OK, as a police officer I anve been called worse. But if you're going to call others these things for not accepting your God, it is your responsibility to come up with this God.
The burden of proof is upon the accuser. If, in a court of law you accused me of not believing in the existence of your Being-God, you would have to produce this Being. I have known judges who, if all you had was gravity, would not only throw your case out as being frivolous, but would reprimand you for wasting the court's time.
Now you are asked to produce this God of yours and what do we get...Gravity. Are you now telling people that unless they accept gravity they are doomed? Have you been telling them that? In all my years as a Buddhist I have been told many things, but never that if I didn't accept gravity as my personal Savior I was doomed. When you people and your missionaries preach to others, you don't use analogies. You adamantly refer to this Being in heaven. So it is your responsibility to produce this Being...NOT GRAVITY. Have you now decided to speak in analogies?
... when someone addresses the poster instead of what is being said.
It displays lack of intelligence and concedes defeat.
When ardent believers -in whatever- are confronted with incontestables they either go silent; more illogical; in denial; turn dishonest; abusive; absurd even ..... or any combination thereof, and cannot seem to help themselves but advertise it, therewith granting the courtesy of instant clarification - JVH
And, in case you have forgotten...
-- THIS IS a Church.
So...
If you don't want to hear the Bible being Quoted...
Why do you keep coming to Our Church...?
-- The First Internet Church of the Wide Open BIBLE Discussion Forum...!
All Praise and Glory be...
-- To Big Butter Jesus...!
In Whose Melting...
-- We Are Saved...!
Maybe if you're going to claim to be a Deist you should learn a little about what they believe about the Bible. In case your lost right now. Deist don't believe the Bible Soooooooooooooo, you're not created in the image of God.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Just because deists don't believe your interpretation of the bible...
That doesn't mean the whole book is to be discarded.
It simply means that...
-- Your interpretation is wrong.
BTW...
There's a lot of good stuff in the Bhagavad-Gita too.
I could quote some of that to you...
But...
You're having a hard enough time...
Just trying to understand...
-- The Most Basic Concepts of Christianity...
It wouldn't be fair to expect you to be able to grasp...
-- Something as Advanced as the Eastern Philosophies.
-PRev1-
President Barrack Hussein Obama
-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
I know you want to be the most stupid here, but in case you didn't know it revy. The Bible IS the INSPIRED Word of God ...Sooooo to STUPIDLY quote the Bible and say you're created in the image of God from God's Word contradicts your claim to be a Deist.
Gen 1:27
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NAS)
See how stupid you are revy? You proved again HOW STUPID YOU ARE ALL BY YOURSELF. It's better you get your own material revy because the Bible will blow you away as it always has.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
No matter how much I've tried to explain it to you...
-- You still can't understand...
-- What a "Universal Deist" is.
So, yeah...
Either...
-- You're too stupid to learn...
Or...
-- I'm a lousy teacher.
It's gotta be one or the other.
And, since I already Know what I believe...
I tell you what...
You just go ahead and...
-- Choose which one you want to believe.
-PRev1-
President Barrack Hussein Obama
-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
It's a deist who doesn't believe in the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of God and thinks he is somehow going to heaven in spite of what he believes and no material of his own to prove any of it. IOW a retard.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
9. Do Deists believe in a divine Jesus?
No. Historical writings by famous Deists have spoken of the "moral character" of Jesus as if he were an idealistic human being around whom fantastic myths were built (most of them suspiciously similar to pagan analogs that predated Christianity).
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
At least when I make an error I make outside the box not like brain dead YOU who won't admit you live in your little box and refuse to come out to admit the number of times you blow it. I'm way ahead of you Vince. I don't fear what I may find living outside any self made parameters.
Get out of the darkness you live in Vince. There's NO DOUBT you're in it.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a discredited biological hypothesis[neutrality is disputed].
First proposed by Étienne Serres in 182426 as what became known as the "Meckel-Serres Law", it attempted to provide a link between comparative embryology and a "pattern of unification" in the organic world. It was supported by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and became a prominent part of his ideas which suggested that past transformations of life could have had environmental causes working on the embryo, rather than on the adult as in Lamarckism. These naturalistic ideas led to disagreements with Georges Cuvier. It was widely supported in the Edinburgh and London schools of higher anatomy around 1830, notably by Robert Edmond Grant, but was opposed by Karl Ernst von Baer's ideas of divergence, and attacked by Richard Owen in the 1830s.[1]
In 1866, the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel proposed that the embryonal development of an individual organism (its ontogeny) followed the same path as the evolutionary history of its species (its phylogeny). This theory arose from Haeckel's attempt to synthesise the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While Haeckel is often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian "biogenic law" of progressive evolution, this is not accurate. Rather Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenic and phylogenic history of the individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching nature of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors.[2] Since around the start of the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenic law" has been refuted on many fronts.[3]
Darwin's more sophisticated view that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species, but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology.
It's too bad the article didn't expose Haeckl's dishonesty on....
June 30 2010, 2:04 PM
.... why his theory was rejected. The fact is he FUDGED the picture to make it look like his theory was correct which can be expected from DISHONEST ATHEIST EVOLUTIONISTS, but he was caught in his dishonesty by some scientists that at least were honest. Carl Sagan ALSO affirmed Haeckl's recapitulation forgery. Unfortunately, Striver, didn't learn about the deceiving people he was embracing,
However, the frauds and forgeries were exposed by Stephen Jay Gould in his book... Ontogeny and Phylogeny
Certainly, Haeckel was incorrect. Evolution is not mimicked through the embryological process.
And no, Sagan did not "Carl Sagan ALSO affirmed Haeckl's recapitulation forgery. "
But he did allude to something similar, and this was an error in judgment.
Regardless, not sure what the point is. There aren't a lot of theories .. and evidence is scant. Nothing is provable. Ex Nihilo creation has a lot of problems too.
Sagan goes on to qualify that human embryos have pharyngeal slits not because ancient adult fish had them, but because ancient fish embryos had them and there was no reason to lose them in development. This points towards the modern understanding of recapitulation, that changes in the genome because of mutation can far more readily change recent innovations/developments than ancient ones, or (to employ an example) it would be far easier to increase or decrease the size of our cerebrum than it would be to alter our brain stem or limbic system and survive the consequences. Thinking about it another way, it's far easier to rearrange the setting of a table than to entirely remove the tablecloth while leaving all the settings in place (although this can be done, and so too is it possible in evolution).
Hence I would be loathe to say that Sagan unequivocally endorsed recapitulation theory in Dragons of Eden; he seems to think there is some merit to the idea, but (like in Billions and Billions) he does not state that we look like a fish at one point in the womb because we are replaying evolution. There are remnants from our evolutionary past in development, that is sure, but embryos do not undergo a "replaying of the tape" during their nine months in the womb, either.
Again, I think Sagan should have stayed away from equating steps of human development to worms, fish, and pigs in his later writings as such conjures up the spectre of Haeckel, but an attentive reader will realize that he is merely describing his observation of what the embryo resembles rather than stating "It looks like a pig because we evolved from pigs." Even if he did, would we be so ungracious as to categorize the rest of his work (or the rest of science) as junk? I don't see anyone claiming that science is defunct because there are still flat-earthers or creationists espousing their views; different players move on and off the stage that is scientific discourse, but in the end it is something that is truly bigger than any one scientist or idea.
After Darwin, it was discovered that Haeckel promoted fraudulent data to falsely support vertebrate common ancestry by overstating the similarities between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages of development.
Haeckels infamous embryo drawings obscured the differences between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages, leading to widespread belief in the false idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (i.e. development replays evolutionary history). The factual data reveal that vertebrate embryos develop very differently from their earliest stages in a pattern that is unexpected if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. Darwin himself was a victim of Haeckels fraud, and had Darwin known the truth, perhaps he might never have made the statement that PBS quotes above.
Also the reference to Sagan's "Dragons to Eden" didn't give the WHOLE story.
In the book He stated that determining WHEN a fetus becomes a human COULD PLAY A MAJOR ROLE, in achieving an acceptable COMPROMISE in the abortion debate. This is typical ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONIIST TALK ...a lot of could be's but NEVER ANY FACTS. However, in SAGAN'S estimation the TRANSITION TO HUMANS would fall near the END of the FIRST TRIMESTER or NEAR THE BEGINNING of the second. Again PERSONAL OPINIONS with COULD BE's BUT always with NO FACTS.
In the above book on page 213 you can see the brain dead LIBERAL Supreme Court accepted the COULD BE's as fact and based their Roe vs Wade decision on abortion based on an opinion.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
