Planned Failure (Bible)

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by RED-85-Z51

Faith, is beleiving that 20 million years ago, a simple organism sam out of the ocean...and over millions of years, evolved and adapted into humans....

More like 600 million years ago. If you find it hard to swallow that all life was created "as is", then the only logical thing left is something that looks a whole lot like the Theory of Natural Selection (or, as some put it, Evolution), especially now that we know all about DNA. Keep in mind, a good theory makes predictions. Evolution predicted there was a universal way for those mutations to work towards adapting life to the environment. When DNA was discovered, it was a major victory for the theory of Evolution. Because of this fact, and many other predictions it has made that have came to be verified, it's one of the most well-vetted theories out there.

Add to that, we can actually observe evolution today, there are many papers on this and the data can be replicated again and again.

It is, in no way, equivalent to something like Creationism.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

I guess my case for this is: Is it more unlikely that an event of impossible odds happened, and then millions more events with impossible odds happened after that, to create what we see now? Or is it more unlikely that there's Someone out there that we have not physically seen, but the evidence is compelling that He exists? This, in itself is just a piece of why I'm a Believer. It makes much more sense to me that the God of the Bible exists, than He doesn't; and I'm not a pushover.

This has been a great, frank discussion that's stayed very respectful. I appreciate that.

That is a logical fallacy you are using. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. Unlikely things happen every single second of every single day all over the universe. But you are also confusing the the various hypothesis of how life actually started with Evolutionary theory, which has nothing at all to say about how life began. It simply states that, given a number of life forms, they will tend to adapt to their environment over time. That's about it. It's not hard to wrap your head around. And if the life form doesn't adapt, it will die.

Since we know that the natural environment has changed greatly over the ages, and we know that all life is not extinct, then it is a logical fact that life had to adapt (change, evolve) over that time.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

More like 600 million years ago. If you find it hard to swallow that all life was created "as is", then the only logical thing left is something that looks a whole lot like the Theory of Natural Selection (or, as some put it, Evolution), especially now that we know all about DNA. Keep in mind, a good theory makes predictions. Evolution predicted there was a universal way for those mutations to work towards adapting life to the environment. When DNA was discovered, it was a major victory for the theory of Evolution. Because of this fact, and many other predictions it has made that have came to be verified, it's one of the most well-vetted theories out there.

Add to that, we can actually observe evolution today, there are many papers on this and the data can be replicated again and again.

It is, in no way, equivalent to something like Creationism.

DNA has a very complicated "program language", did it write itself?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Like I said, there's lots of evidence laying around but it isn't particularly conclusive.

Actually, yes it is.

Couple that with the notion that the odds are so astronomically against life being created out of non life, and a whole world of millions of species being created out of that one colossally unlikely event, that this alone makes a really good case for God.

So because you don't understand or accept how the process works - regardless of the fact that there is mountains of evidence in support of the theories - that makes a "really good case for God", for whom there is zero evidence of existence?

WTF?

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

DNA has a very complicated "program language", did it write itself?

It only has four basic units. There have been billions of years with countless trillions of life forms, with an incredible variation between DNA. Pretty much all DNA does is transcribe for protein manufacture. All life is made of proteins. Therefore, saying DNA is incredibly complicated is the same as saying life is complicated, which it is, but there are also extremely simple versions of it.

In other words, using the "it's too complicated to be natural" argument is a total non-starter. We know lifeforms change over time, particularly in context to environmental pressures. The amount of time available for life to evolve on Earth, in conjunction with the shear number of micro-environments, imposes no limitation on the "complicated" lifeforms we see today.

A billion years ago, the most complex lifeform was a single cell, or perhaps a few dozen at most.

[RED-85-Z51]

Something that always intrigued me, and always got sneers from my teachers...was when I asked about Church, money, and Jesus.

People go to church, as a santuary for Worship. Churches, exist to be money making places of worship...Preachers, in general at larger churches, are fairly well-to-do...and draw a substantial income. Churches rely on the congregation for cheap professional repairs, and maintenance....not only through the Deacons, but through the general congregation.

Why is it that...if a church is supposed to be there solely for worship, and preachers are supposed to be enlightened souls...that the money flows so heavily from the members, and into the pockets of "representatives"?

I find Churches to be a well orchestrated, well designed..sham, feeding on the pckets of those who look to religion for guidance and security...

Figure it up...25 dollars a week, 52 weeks a year X1000 members, thats 1.3 million dollars. Now...I dont know about yall, but thats ALOT of money..and I know there is upkeep and repairs, and an office of people to pay salarys. But consider that...in those 1000 people, there is at least..1 HVAC guy, 1 woodworker, 1 roofer, 1 small engine guy, 1 computer guru...ready and willing to step up and do stuff for free or at/below cost...

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I don't have time to give you the scientific background on what you have said above, but know this.

There is EVIDENCE for all of it.

There is NO EVIDENCE of God.

I love the hyp[ocasry of the left.

Darwinism is a fact and is real Yet you refuse to allow it to happen in real life.

And BTW I am an Atheist. There is no God. Only struggle and sometimes PARTIES.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Do you realize how outside of the mainstream your position is?

97% of scientist believe in man made climate change.

Name another thing that 97% of a specific group believes in.

97%. Does this hold no weight for you???

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Oh, just so you can see how awful the science is that just the author of that 97% paper did, it is so bad that it's utterly useless.

They didn't even know that putting quotes around the term "global climate change" would be different than not putting quotes around them (causing matches to global, climate, and change.)

Oh, and just lump in papers that are totally skeptical of MMGW, and you can just cruise to whatever number you want! And since it sounds so good to your peers, they just review it for you by saying "Looks good to me!"

Yup, stick with these winners Phil, you'll be well informed I'm sure.

Seriously though, this an act of desperation on the part of the climate alarmists. When they feel the need to blatantly lie about such a "consensus" you know they are actually in a far weaker position. You'd think these things would send up red flags, Phil. It's stuff like this that allows me to spot pseudo science a mile away.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Do you realize how outside of the mainstream your position is?

97% of scientist believe in man made climate change.

Name another thing that 97% of a specific group believes in.

97%. Does this hold no weight for you???

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

By the way, the article you posted above was written by Peter Ferrara, a guy on the payroll of Exxon and the Koch brothers. Lets put some sunshine on this dud.

Peter Ferrara is the general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union at the Heartland Institute.

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.

And what does $67 million buy you?

"While I am not a scientist, and write primarily on economics, tax policy and budget issues, I have been fascinated over the years by Heartland’s work on climate change."

Ferrera Admitted that he took money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write Op-Ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients.

"I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

Ferrara said "he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write Op-Ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles."

Peter Ferrara | DeSmogBlog

Combine this with the fact that virtually every paper, "scientist" think tank, etc that denies man made climate change is funded by energy companies and what do you have left?

Want to chase your tail for a while? Show us a few qualified scientists, or peer reviewed papers denying man made climate change that isn't tainted by energy company money.

Good luck with that.

First its a survey of articles. Thats like saying BHO is the Best president EVER because so many NYT articles support him.

There are 3000 "Scientist" in the UN climate group. Yet 37.,000 say that MMGW is not based on facts.

The Kick Them All Out Project - Over 37,000 Scientists Sign On Against Man-Made Global Warming Fraud!

[Craig]

Originally Posted by RED-85-Z51

Why is it that...if a church is supposed to be there solely for worship, and preachers are supposed to be enlightened souls...that the money flows so heavily from the members, and into the pockets of "representatives"?
..

Our membership is probably 500, 200-300 on any given Sunday. About 70% of our church's budget goes to missionary support outside our church, it's our stated priority. Our pastor drives a 25 year old Buick, kind of sad for a guy who's first name is "Doctor", he won't take a raise.

Nobody has to attend or give to a church they don't believe is being a good steward of their resources, I wouldn't.

[RED-85-Z51]

Originally Posted by Craig

Our membership is probably 500, 200-300 on any given Sunday. About 70% of our church's budget goes to missionary support outside our church, it's our stated priority. Our pastor drives a 25 year old Buick, kind of sad for a guy who's first name is "Doctor", he won't take a raise.

Nobody has to attend or give to a church they don't believe is being a good steward of their resources, I wouldn't.

Iguess its just, locally we have had some real big churches, one of which was "Brownsville Assembly of God"..that did this whole 5 year revival thing..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival
I went to school from 1991-2000, all during the revival, less than 1 mile from that church, at a Christian School. That had millions, and millions of members and visitors...

Then we have Gateway CoC, and Olive Baptist...2 more huge mega churches.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by VITE1

First its a survey of articles. Thats like saying BHO is the Best president EVER because so many NYT articles support him.

There are 3000 "Scientist" in the UN climate group. Yet 37.,000 say that MMGW is not based on facts.

The Kick Them All Out Project - Over 37,000 Scientists Sign On Against Man-Made Global Warming Fraud!

And you are correct to put "scientists" in quotes, because of the 3000 signatories to the IPCC report, only about 70 of them are actual climate scientists. The rest have various functionary jobs, some work for NGO's, and others are complete head scratchers.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Combine this with the fact that virtually every paper, "scientist" think tank, etc that denies man made climate change is funded by energy companies and what do you have left?

Want to chase your tail for a while? Show us a few qualified scientists, or peer reviewed papers denying man made climate change that isn't tainted by energy company money.

Good luck with that.

Still waiting...

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

First its a survey of articles. Thats like saying BHO is the Best president EVER because so many NYT articles support him.

There are 3000 "Scientist" in the UN climate group. Yet 37.,000 say that MMGW is not based on facts.

The Kick Them All Out Project - Over 37,000 Scientists Sign On Against Man-Made Global Warming Fraud!

Jesus Christ.

I'm posting peer reviewed scientific studies supported by thousands of scientist and you are posting some blog written by one whack job - who isn't a scientist - with an agenda.

I can TOTALLY see how that carries the weight to refute what has been posted.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Jesus Christ.

I'm posting peer reviewed scientific studies supported by thousands of scientist and you are posting some blog written by one whack job - who isn't a scientist - with an agenda.

I can TOTALLY see how that carries the weight to refute what has been posted.

And yet you refuse to do your own research and see that this blog is spot on with THOUSANDS MORE REAL SCIENTISTS out there. Pick and choose, phil. Pick and choose.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I'm posting peer reviewed scientific studies supported by thousands of scientist...

Name them.

[RED-85-Z51]

Originally Posted by Craig

Name them.

Indeed...name them, all of them..hell..name just the first 100 of them.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Still waiting...

Oh brother. Even though this is demonstrably false, who cares where a study's funding comes from if it is factually correct? What the real travesty is that the government won't give grants to scientists to do studies that might tip their precious apple cart.

The fact is that the 97% claim is utter bullshit, easily deconstructed, and laughable in its amateurishness.

Many of the papers he dropped did not hew to the MMGW mantra, and quite a number he did include were not "of the consensus", but what did he care? He just wanted to get a number out there to give people like you a cudgel to beat people over the head with when they disagreed with your precious alarmist anti-energy totem.

One other thing. Now that we've had over 15 years of no statistically significant warming, contrary to every prediction made by the global warming cabal, you'd think a little humility would be in order. But no, you're going to double-down. It's what a trapped animal does, I guess.