Australian Politics Forum - Atheists open churches around the world

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #165 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:58am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

How does something as unintelligent as natural selection 'favour' anything?

Lol, that's exactly what it does. Positive traits are passed on, negative ones aren't. It's super simple

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

BTW I noted you didn't comment on Bazza's excellent posts which confirm the fact that no-one supports your ridiculous contention about Jesus.

I made one comment regarding the actual claim being discussed, about the supposed Aramaic literature that link, to which I've currently seen no reply. The rest has nothing to say on whether there were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

And I am still waiting for you to confirm the actual existence of anyone prior to 1700 using your high standards of proof.

I did actually, I produced my criteria (one piece of archaeological or written account that is from the supposed time he was supposed to have lived) for several BIBLICAL characters, notably Herod and Pilate. We have contemporary evidence for both of them, but none for Jesus. Read back through the posts you actually made a complete straw man of my argument by saying my standard of proof is much higher than it actually is, quite dishonestly if I may be honest.

Edit: By the way, if such Aramaic literature exists as described in Bazza's post, that's all the convincing I will need.

it's fantasy, is what it is. How is 'positive' determined without an intelligent input? The ludicrous nature of evolution makes it a joke, but you believe anything it says, no matter what. The alternative scares you so you swallow the biggest pile of rubbish ever developed.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #166 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:04am mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:58am: How is 'positive' determined without an intelligent input? The ability to survive and pass on your genetic material.
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #167 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:10am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

How does something as unintelligent as natural selection 'favour' anything?

Lol, that's exactly what it does. Positive traits are passed on, negative ones aren't. It's super simple

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

BTW I noted you didn't comment on Bazza's excellent posts which confirm the fact that no-one supports your ridiculous contention about Jesus.

I made one comment regarding the actual claim being discussed, about the supposed Aramaic literature that link, to which I've currently seen no reply. The rest has nothing to say on whether there were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

And I am still waiting for you to confirm the actual existence of anyone prior to 1700 using your high standards of proof.

I did actually, I produced my criteria (one piece of archaeological or written account that is from the supposed time he was supposed to have lived) for several BIBLICAL characters, notably Herod and Pilate. We have contemporary evidence for both of them, but none for Jesus. Read back through the posts you actually made a complete straw man of my argument by saying my standard of proof is much higher than it actually is, quite dishonestly if I may be honest.

Edit: By the way, if such Aramaic literature exists as described in Bazza's post, that's all the convincing I will need.

So whys is it that virtually ALL historians accept the historicity of Jesus and without question? What do they know that you don't? Most are atheist so you cant say it is faith.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #168 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

How is 'positive' determined without an intelligent input?

The ability to survive and pass on your genetic material.

Mutations are not passed on in general. They are mostly singe generation aberrations. And also, why would this not pass on NEGATIVE mutations? Say a primate is born without two eyes and only has one. Why would this not be passed on to a new generation of single eye primates? Seems to me there is an inherent flaw in this argument. Your theory is highly 'selective'.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #169 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:18am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Mutations are not passed on in general.

Evolution is lead far more through natural selection than mutation.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Say a primate is born without two eyes and only has one. Why would this not be passed on to a new generation of single eye primates?

Because it probably wouldn't breed and/or survive. This is why negative traits don't become the norm yet positive ones do. Unless the single eye is somehow more beneficial they would far more likely die off.

Traits that are passed on are generally either positive or neutral.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #170 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Mutations are not passed on in general.

Evolution is lead far more through natural selection than mutation.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Say a primate is born without two eyes and only has one. Why would this not be passed on to a new generation of single eye primates?

Because it probably wouldn't breed and/or survive. This is why negative traits don't become the norm yet positive ones do. Unless the single eye is somehow more beneficial they would far more likely die off.

Traits that are passed on are generally either positive or neutral.

You wont believe the Apostle John was an eyewitness, but you will believe this garbage?

Your anti-Christian approach is defining your beliefs, not your intelligence and reasoning. You are clearly not a dumb person (unlike many here) but you are certainly deluded by your own atheism.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #171 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:42am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

How is 'positive' determined without an intelligent input?

The ability to survive and pass on your genetic material.

Mutations are not passed on in general. They are mostly singe generation aberrations. And also, why would this not pass on NEGATIVE mutations? Say a primate is born without two eyes and only has one. Why would this not be passed on to a new generation of single eye primates? Seems to me there is an inherent flaw in this argument. Your theory is highly 'selective'.

Somatic mutations are not passed on, but germ line mutations are. Example of that is cancer. Also we do see negative mutations, but how long do you think they are going to last in organisms if they confer a negative selection pressure.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 24168	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #172 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:44am mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am: You are clearly not a dumb person (unlike many here) but you are certainly deluded by your own atheism. Like Longweekend? He went before you joined up, but he was as dumb as horsesh1t (not your horses Aquascoot, they would have smart sh1t)
Back to top	"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up..... IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #173 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:44am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

How does something as unintelligent as natural selection 'favour' anything?

Lol, that's exactly what it does. Positive traits are passed on, negative ones aren't. It's super simple

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

BTW I noted you didn't comment on Bazza's excellent posts which confirm the fact that no-one supports your ridiculous contention about Jesus.

I made one comment regarding the actual claim being discussed, about the supposed Aramaic literature that link, to which I've currently seen no reply. The rest has nothing to say on whether there were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

And I am still waiting for you to confirm the actual existence of anyone prior to 1700 using your high standards of proof.

I did actually, I produced my criteria (one piece of archaeological or written account that is from the supposed time he was supposed to have lived) for several BIBLICAL characters, notably Herod and Pilate. We have contemporary evidence for both of them, but none for Jesus. Read back through the posts you actually made a complete straw man of my argument by saying my standard of proof is much higher than it actually is, quite dishonestly if I may be honest.

Edit: By the way, if such Aramaic literature exists as described in Bazza's post, that's all the convincing I will need.

So whys is it that virtually ALL historians accept the historicity of Jesus and without question? What do they know that you don't? Most are atheist so you cant say it is faith.

AS an atheist, I'm more than happy to accept that in all likelihood a man called Jesus was alive around 0-30 A.D. What I debate though is some of his "works" e.g. healing the blind, turning water into wine, rising from the dead.

In all likelihood and virtually ALL historians agree with this is that Jesus was no different from the thousands of other "prophets" etc running around at that time. An example being Joseph of Arimathea.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #174 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

it's fantasy, is what it is. How is 'positive' determined without an intelligent input? The ludicrous nature of evolution makes it a joke, but you believe anything it says, no matter what. The alternative scares you so you swallow the biggest pile of rubbish ever developed.

See you get confused with this determination. All it is is who survives to pass on their genes.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30102
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #175 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:48am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Mutations are not passed on in general.

Evolution is lead far more through natural selection than mutation.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Say a primate is born without two eyes and only has one. Why would this not be passed on to a new generation of single eye primates?

Because it probably wouldn't breed and/or survive. This is why negative traits don't become the norm yet positive ones do. Unless the single eye is somehow more beneficial they would far more likely die off.

Traits that are passed on are generally either positive or neutral.

You wont believe the Apostle John was an eyewitness, but you will believe this garbage?

Your anti-Christian approach is defining your beliefs, not your intelligence and reasoning. You are clearly not a dumb person (unlike many here) but you are certainly deluded by your own atheism.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed except in the histoiric equivalent of a harry potter novel.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the story of jesus is pure fiction. There is no such thing as someone who bleeds to death coming back to life after 3 days of cardiac arrest and then magically appearing to numerous said witnesses which are also pure fiction !!

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #176 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:49am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

You wont believe the Apostle John was an eyewitness

Until demonstrated otherwise yes. It's commonly accepted that John didn't write it, and nowhere within the text does it indicate a specific author. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to who the author was supposed to be. I'm open to it if you can demonstrate it, but until otherwise I'll believe what we find in the book itself, that it was anonymous(keep in mind as always the title were added far later to the gospels, well after they were written).

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

but you will believe this garbage?

Why do you find it hard to believe that positive traits will be passed on while negative ones won't? You can see this in pretty much every species that exists in multiple climates.

Look at your one eyed example again. Why would you expect a one eyed trait to be favourable over a two eyed trait, and therefore get passed on to successive generations? There are clear benefits to having two eyes, as it allows for depth perception and a greater field of vision. One eyed animals would have a far smaller chance of thriving as it would be harder to do pretty much everything, from finding food to defending itself from predators, therefore the genetic material relating to having one eye would be unlikely to be passed on.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #177 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:56am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

You wont believe the Apostle John was an eyewitness

Until demonstrated otherwise yes. It's commonly accepted that John didn't write it, and nowhere within the text does it indicate a specific author. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to who the author was supposed to be. I'm open to it if you can demonstrate it, but until otherwise I'll believe what we find in the book itself, that it was anonymous(keep in mind as always the title were added far later to the gospels, well after they were written).

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

but you will believe this garbage?

Why do you find it hard to believe that positive traits will be passed on while negative ones won't? You can see this in pretty much every species that exists in multiple climates.

Look at your one eyed example again. Why would you expect a one eyed trait to be favourable over a two eyed trait, and therefore get passed on to successive generations? There are clear benefits to having two eyes, as it allows for depth perception and a greater field of vision. One eyed animals would have a far smaller chance of thriving as it would be harder to do pretty much everything, from finding food to defending itself from predators, therefore the genetic material relating to having one eye would be unlikely to be passed on.

As determined by who? How does a dumb animal know that two is better than one - especially when there has never been a two-eyed species before? Why have we not developed an eye in the back of our heads? That would be positive as well.

All of the natural selection depends on somehow, somewhere 'improvements' appearing randomly and the rest of the species dying off or inheriting this new improvement. It stretches the meaning of the word 'ludicrous'.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #178 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:57am mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:56am: As determined by who? By the ability to survive and pass on genetic material.
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #179 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:58am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

You wont believe the Apostle John was an eyewitness

Until demonstrated otherwise yes. It's commonly accepted that John didn't write it, and nowhere within the text does it indicate a specific author. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to who the author was supposed to be. I'm open to it if you can demonstrate it, but until otherwise I'll believe what we find in the book itself, that it was anonymous(keep in mind as always the title were added far later to the gospels, well after they were written).

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

but you will believe this garbage?

Why do you find it hard to believe that positive traits will be passed on while negative ones won't? You can see this in pretty much every species that exists in multiple climates.

Look at your one eyed example again. Why would you expect a one eyed trait to be favourable over a two eyed trait, and therefore get passed on to successive generations? There are clear benefits to having two eyes, as it allows for depth perception and a greater field of vision. One eyed animals would have a far smaller chance of thriving as it would be harder to do pretty much everything, from finding food to defending itself from predators, therefore the genetic material relating to having one eye would be unlikely to be passed on.

As determined by who? How does a dumb animal know that two is better than one - especially when there has never been a two-eyed species before? Why have we not developed an eye in the back of our heads? That would be positive as well.

All of the natural selection depends on somehow, somewhere 'improvements' appearing randomly and the rest of the species dying off or inheriting this new improvement. It stretches the meaning of the word 'ludicrous'.

An animal won't know that two eyes are better than one. And I have to admit having an eye in the back of the head would make more sense. That would make it closer to the occipital lobe, rather than the eyes being on completely the opposite side of the head, which would make sense if an intelligent creator did the job.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged