Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!

Plants don't think, they react. Well, actually, thinking is really a complicated form of reacting, but I digress. They could very well have an internal time keeping system in a non-seasonal enviroment.
 
You are amazing. The fact that Darwin's Theory never addressed the origins of life means that he did not address it. It is not a failure in any way. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Your claim is the equivilent of claiming that McCain has lost the Democratic Party nomination.
Click to expand...

I think one of two things here... you either have a severe problem with logical reasoning, or you have simply misinterpreted my statement. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the later...

You apparently think I said... "Darwin tried to explain the origin of life but failed." This was not what I said, read it carefully. I agree, Darwin doesn't try to explain the origin of life, therefore Darwin's theory doesn't explain it, ergo, it can be said it has "failed to explain." I phrased my statement the way I did, because Darwin's theory is the Atheists basis for their theory of how life originated. The Atheist will try to argue Darwin's theory explains origin of life, and as you correctly point out, it doesn't even address it. As I point out, it "fails" to explain it. We are essentially saying the exact same thing. Does that scare you much?

I am not talking about whether humans can discern the differences at the equator. I am talking about scientific measurements that show the same temperature range year round, and the same amount of average sunlight. The wobble that causes seasons at the north and south hemispheres causes no change at the equator. The equator is the same distance from the sun, while the northern and southern hemispheres "wobble" closer & farther from the sun. Your own theory does not hold water.
Click to expand...

Impossible. The equator varies in distance from the sun in relation to which hemisphere is closer or further from the sun at any given time. Do an experiment, take an orange and draw a circle around it... hold it in front of your face and tilt it slightly left and right, does the circle remain in the same location or does it move relative to the degree of angle you move the orange? It's good to know you understand there are temperature ranges at the equator and not what you originally stated, that the temperature was always constant. It's also good to know you understand average sunlight is different from constant sunlight that never changes.


Yes, the human eye and the planaria eye function in different ways, and yet they do have certain similarities. But you miss my point, its not the similarity between the human eye and the planaria eyespots. There are degrees of similarity between the planaria and other lower life form's eyes. And there are similarities between these animal's eyes and the next level up. It is this chain that I was talking about. You want to take a single example, and yet the evidence is in the whole picture.
Click to expand...

There are no similarities in the way a planaria eye functions and the way a human eye functions. It is like comparing the way a flashlight works and the way an automobile works, they are completely different with completely different ways of functioning. There may be degrees of similarity between photocell-type planaria eyes and other creatures with photocell-type eyes, but there is no connection with the eye of a human, as they function completely differently from each other. There is no logical way to connect what a planaria eye does, with how a human eye functions. You may as well argue that a planaria "mouth" is the basis for the human eye, as the differences in function of the two are equally as different.

Your "intelligent designer" idea is as far from scientific as one can get. You have absolutely no evidence of any designer, and yet your entire theory rests upon this designer.
Click to expand...

Well, I must admit, it's not my idea, it was thought of a long time ago. It is scientific because I have presented valid scientific evidence that you can not refute. Evidence? Well, it's all around you, I have presented the evidence, you are seeking "proof" and I can't provide that, but neither can you, we established this in the opening post. As a theory, there is just as much evidence to suggest intelligent design as any other theory presented. Incidentally, what exactly is your theory for how life originated? We've already established it isn't Evolution theory, since Darwin didn't address this.

You see, whatever "theory" you can come up with, it will have to defy the laws of random physical odds to be valid. If you go to Vegas and roll the dice, how many times in a row would the dice land on 7? Would you say, if a person landed a 7 for 50 straight rolls, that would be pretty defiant of the odds? It would indeed be unlikely that a person could do that, but still there would be a slight possibility of it happening randomly. Now, consider a person who rolled the dice thousands and thousands of times, and it always lands on 7... would you say it is impossible without cheating? This is what I am saying about the laws of random odds. There are millions of things which had to happen in a certain way at a certain time, with a certain level, to a certain degree, and with the correct portions of elements... the equivalent to rolling 7's millions of times in a row. It's not possible.

The mere fact that man, in this modern era with all our technology, can not replicate the creation of life, using the basic elements life is made of, is enough to make one question the validity of any other argument. Not only were we intelligently designed, it was of an intelligence much greater than our own.
 
"The mere fact that man, in this modern era with all our technology, can not replicate the creation of life, using the basic elements life is made of, is enough to make one question the validity of any other argument."

No, it isn't. Not to someone who has read any science whatsoever on the origins of life, and certainly not to scientists in the actual field.

So many ignorant statements on this thread; not sure why I chose that one, but that one alone invalidates any other argument you're trying to make.
 
I was kind of getting nostalgic for the days, when message board cons would argue against evolution, global warming, and stem cell research.
 
I can assure you, that this "designer" you're all arguing about is anything but intelligent. In fact, he didn't even know that satan and I were waging side bets on his smiting methods and their effectiveness. He was too busy beating his chest trying to one up the devil. "Intelligent" Designer? LOL
 
Solitary said:
We have grown plants in artificial conditions which did not vary. This disproves your entire "without the moon we would have not plant life" idea.

It was as ridiculous as your idea that all sea life requires the tides in order to live.
Click to expand...

Plants we have to grow are provided by nature. We can not combine amino acids with carbon, protein and hydrogen and make a plant, or plant seed. When you can grow something in an artificial environment with nothing more than the basic elements which combine to make plants, let me know.

We grow things in artificial environments for various purposes, and we understand how to fool the plants by manipulating the artificial environment to make the plant react the way it would in nature, under those circumstances. Try planting an orange tree in your closet and see if it will grow... try planting mushrooms in the desert and see if they thrive... you will find that various plants require certain environments to flourish. And they also need certain environments to reproduce, if that is what you are trying to do, the artificial conditions may be different. None of this even relates to what we are discussing, which is the life cycle of plants, and how the existence of them was dependent on a unique attribute of our planet, which enabled them to have cycles and reproduce, long before we had artificial environments and do it ourselves.
 
Onceler said:
"The mere fact that man, in this modern era with all our technology, can not replicate the creation of life, using the basic elements life is made of, is enough to make one question the validity of any other argument."

No, it isn't. Not to someone who has read any science whatsoever on the origins of life, and certainly not to scientists in the actual field.

So many ignorant statements on this thread; not sure why I chose that one, but that one alone invalidates any other argument you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

Hmmm Science on the origins of life? Such as???

Please give your science sources for your claim, I am interested in reading them. To my knowledge, science has never offered any evidence of any instance of cross-species evolution. So it is ignorant for you to be claiming science has somehow "explained" the origin of life to you.
 
Dixie said:
I think one of two things here... you either have a severe problem with logical reasoning, or you have simply misinterpreted my statement. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the later...

You apparently think I said... "Darwin tried to explain the origin of life but failed." This was not what I said, read it carefully. I agree, Darwin doesn't try to explain the origin of life, therefore Darwin's theory doesn't explain it, ergo, it can be said it has "failed to explain." I phrased my statement the way I did, because Darwin's theory is the Atheists basis for their theory of how life originated. The Atheist will try to argue Darwin's theory explains origin of life, and as you correctly point out, it doesn't even address it. As I point out, it "fails" to explain it. We are essentially saying the exact same thing. Does that scare you much?



Impossible. The equator varies in distance from the sun in relation to which hemisphere is closer or further from the sun at any given time. Do an experiment, take an orange and draw a circle around it... hold it in front of your face and tilt it slightly left and right, does the circle remain in the same location or does it move relative to the degree of angle you move the orange? It's good to know you understand there are temperature ranges at the equator and not what you originally stated, that the temperature was always constant. It's also good to know you understand average sunlight is different from constant sunlight that never changes.




There are no similarities in the way a planaria eye functions and the way a human eye functions. It is like comparing the way a flashlight works and the way an automobile works, they are completely different with completely different ways of functioning. There may be degrees of similarity between photocell-type planaria eyes and other creatures with photocell-type eyes, but there is no connection with the eye of a human, as they function completely differently from each other. There is no logical way to connect what a planaria eye does, with how a human eye functions. You may as well argue that a planaria "mouth" is the basis for the human eye, as the differences in function of the two are equally as different.



Well, I must admit, it's not my idea, it was thought of a long time ago. It is scientific because I have presented valid scientific evidence that you can not refute. Evidence? Well, it's all around you, I have presented the evidence, you are seeking "proof" and I can't provide that, but neither can you, we established this in the opening post. As a theory, there is just as much evidence to suggest intelligent design as any other theory presented. Incidentally, what exactly is your theory for how life originated? We've already established it isn't Evolution theory, since Darwin didn't address this.

You see, whatever "theory" you can come up with, it will have to defy the laws of random physical odds to be valid. If you go to Vegas and roll the dice, how many times in a row would the dice land on 7? Would you say, if a person landed a 7 for 50 straight rolls, that would be pretty defiant of the odds? It would indeed be unlikely that a person could do that, but still there would be a slight possibility of it happening randomly. Now, consider a person who rolled the dice thousands and thousands of times, and it always lands on 7... would you say it is impossible without cheating? This is what I am saying about the laws of random odds. There are millions of things which had to happen in a certain way at a certain time, with a certain level, to a certain degree, and with the correct portions of elements... the equivalent to rolling 7's millions of times in a row. It's not possible.

The "ODDS" for or against rolling a seven at ANY time remain the same with every roll...doesn't matter it its the first roll or the thousandth roll or the millionth roll....
The "probability" of rolling a seven any given number of times consecutively changes with the number of rolls....
The feat is POSSIBLE...but it is highly IMPROBABLE


The mere fact that man, in this modern era with all our technology, can not replicate the creation of life, using the basic elements life is made of, is enough to make one question the validity of any other argument. Not only were we intelligently designed, it was of an intelligence much greater than our own.
Click to expand...
b
 
Job said:
I can assure you, that this "designer" you're all arguing about is anything but intelligent. In fact, he didn't even know that satan and I were waging side bets on his smiting methods and their effectiveness. He was too busy beating his chest trying to one up the devil. "Intelligent" Designer? LOL
Click to expand...


LOL... you don't believe in a designer or God, but you hangin' wif the devil? that's really bizarre! :eek:
 
You are God, all things that live are God. Because you exist there is God. Prove to me you don't exist...

:D

:medit:
 
Dixie said:
Plants we have to grow are provided by nature. We can not combine amino acids with carbon, protein and hydrogen and make a plant, or plant seed. When you can grow something in an artificial environment with nothing more than the basic elements which combine to make plants, let me know.

We grow things in artificial environments for various purposes, and we understand how to fool the plants by manipulating the artificial environment to make the plant react the way it would in nature, under those circumstances. Try planting an orange tree in your closet and see if it will grow... try planting mushrooms in the desert and see if they thrive... you will find that various plants require certain environments to flourish. And they also need certain environments to reproduce, if that is what you are trying to do, the artificial conditions may be different. None of this even relates to what we are discussing, which is the life cycle of plants, and how the existence of them was dependent on a unique attribute of our planet, which enabled them to have cycles and reproduce, long before we had artificial environments and do it ourselves.
Click to expand...

Plant existence never was 'dependent' on a unique attribute of the planet...the plant 'adapted' to whatever unique condition if was faced with to survive....circular reasoning at work?
 
The "ODDS" for or against rolling a seven at ANY time remain the same with every roll...doesn't matter it its the first roll or the thousandth roll or the millionth roll....
The "probability" of rolling a seven any given number of times consecutively changes with the number of rolls....
The feat is POSSIBLE...but it is highly IMPROBABLE
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification, but as I was saying... the odds of doing it repeatedy, not the odd of doing it. I understand the odds of rolling a 7 are the same each time, but the odds of repeatedly rolling a 7 decrease exponentially with each roll. As with any other theory of origin, the odds of things happening that had to happen, repeatedly, are highly improbable.
 
Plant existence never was 'dependent' on a unique attribute of the planet...the plant 'adapted' to whatever unique condition if was faced with to survive....circular reasoning at work?
Click to expand...

We are not discussing adaptation, we are discussing origin, please stay on topic.
 
Dixie said:
We are not discussing adaptation, we are discussing origin, please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Moron - adaptation results from natural selection. Natural selection explains the origins of species, but not the origin of life itself. He was on topic, and you're a pinhead.
 
Dixie said:
Plants we have to grow are provided by nature. We can not combine amino acids with carbon, protein and hydrogen and make a plant, or plant seed. When you can grow something in an artificial environment with nothing more than the basic elements which combine to make plants, let me know.

We grow things in artificial environments for various purposes, and we understand how to fool the plants by manipulating the artificial environment to make the plant react the way it would in nature, under those circumstances. Try planting an orange tree in your closet and see if it will grow... try planting mushrooms in the desert and see if they thrive... you will find that various plants require certain environments to flourish. And they also need certain environments to reproduce, if that is what you are trying to do, the artificial conditions may be different. None of this even relates to what we are discussing, which is the life cycle of plants, and how the existence of them was dependent on a unique attribute of our planet, which enabled them to have cycles and reproduce, long before we had artificial environments and do it ourselves.
Click to expand...


None of that relates to what I said about your original post.

In your original post you said "Without the Moon, it is most likely, no life could exist on this planet. The Moon is responsible (through its collision with Earth) for the rotational wobble of the planet, giving us 4 distinct seasons. Without the seasons, we would have no plant life, and with no plant life, we would have nothing to produce oxygen and enable other life to exist. It is also responsible for ocean tides, which enable all sea life to exist, and acts as a gyroscope to keep the Earth from spinning out of control, off its axis."

And I corrected you that the seasons were not required for all plant life. Your claim that without seasons we would have no plant life is wrong. We grow lots of plants indoors, where there are no seasons at all. There are plenty of plants that do not require seasonal changes, as you claimed.

Also, your claim that ocean tides enable all sea life to exist is nonsense.

And moon does not act as a gyroscope, thereby keeping the earth from spinning out of control. It is the rotation of the earth that acts as a gyroscope.
 
Dixie said:
We are not discussing adaptation, we are discussing origin, please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

YOUR the one that came up with this gem....

"you will find that various plants require certain environments to flourish."

And its incorrect..

the plant adapted to flourish in this certain environment....
It isn't the other way around....
 
Onceler said:
"The mere fact that man, in this modern era with all our technology, can not replicate the creation of life, using the basic elements life is made of, is enough to make one question the validity of any other argument."

No, it isn't. Not to someone who has read any science whatsoever on the origins of life, and certainly not to scientists in the actual field.

So many ignorant statements on this thread; not sure why I chose that one, but that one alone invalidates any other argument you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

You're probably to twentieth or more persons who's pointed out to Dixie that he doesn't have a particularly strong understanding of science.

Give up, he's a lost cause on this topic.
 
Cypress said:
I was kind of getting nostalgic for the days, when message board cons would argue against evolution, global warming, and stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Anti-Intellectualism has never really been traditional in the Republican Party until the very recent influence on southern evengelicals on the party. I was, until 2003 a Republican for 24 years and those are topics I strongly support. However, in my time as a Republican, at the community level, there's always been a power struggle between main street business interest and the church crowd with the main street crowd ussually wining. That's what's changed mostly about the Republican party and it's in trouble of becomind a marginalized religous party if it doen't watch out.
 
Mottleydude said:
Anti-Intellectualism has never really been traditional in the Republican Party until the very recent influence on southern evengelicals on the party. I was, until 2003 a Republican for 24 years and those are topics I strongly support. However, in my time as a Republican, at the community level, there's always been a power struggle between main street business interest and the church crowd with the main street crowd ussually wining. That's what's changed mostly about the Republican party and it's in trouble of becomind a marginalized religous party if it doen't watch out.
Click to expand...


I think you're right. I don't think republicans were hostile to science, and intellectualism until the last few decades.
 
The cornerstones of conservatism used to be individual liberty, lower taxes, smaller government and less interference by the government in our lives.

Unfortunately, in the last decade or so the democrats have seemed more conservative (by the definition above) than the republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top