That means you, of course! (arrogant)
Because you must be right, of course (arrogant)
Because you ar ein a position to judge, of course. (arrogant)
Get over yourself!
Richard
Why is that not an arrogant accusation? It just shows you don’t understand the difference.
Similarly,
I could go on and find plenty more but it would just be an exercise in negativity. It appears none of us have an excessive amount of humility. So hold off on the accusations?
- So I asked a friend: “What would a rational God have to do in order to distinguish Himself from a rational universe?” and it replied:
- A rational God would have to do something that is beyond the capabilities of a rational universe. For example, a rational God could:
- Create something that is completely new and original, something that could not have come about through natural processes.
- Perform miracles, such as healing the sick or raising the dead.
- Reveal Himself to humans in a personal way, such as through prophecy or visions.
- Provide us with a moral code that is objective and unchanging.
- A rational universe, on the other hand, would be limited by the laws of nature. It could not create anything new or original, and it could not perform miracles. It could only reveal itself to humans through natural means, such as through scientific discoveries or through the beauty of nature. And it could only provide us with a moral code that is relative and changing, based on the needs of the time.
- In short, a rational God would have to do something that is supernatural in order to distinguish Himself from a rational universe. He would have to show that He is more than just a product of the natural world, that He is something more than just a force of nature.
- Of course, this is just one possible answer to your question. There are many other ways that a rational God could distinguish Himself from a rational universe.
- And that seemed as good an answer to me as any I’ve heard yet; but then I realized that my initial question assumed that a rational God would place as much importance on distinguishing Himself from His created rational universe as I wanted Him to. But what if he didn’t and doesn’t?
1 Like
Haha. 
Your friend, it left something out, I think.
A rational God could have sovereign control over time and place and timing and placing so that he could orchestrate events and whole series of events, such that things happened to multiple certain individuals who were in completely different circumstances, sequences of meaningful events orchestrated beyond what could be expectedly reasonable, to be even impossible to have conceived of as being possible except in retrospect, if subjected to the normal rules of probability. (Probability rules? No, God does. ; - )
This is not about you, butt out.
If our recent conversation meant anything at all, you should know better than to interfere here.
I do not tell people what they must believe
do not tell people that they must be wrong
I do not ever claim that i ** must be right (Unless people like you choose to misuse my words)
I do not claim that I know more than …
Now get out of this
I will not sit here and get lectured by anyone.
There is a certain amount of certitude inherent to forums like this. But some people take it too far. @St.Roymond has crossed that line. (with me at least)
I suggest that you think carefully before hounding me further. (I tried to make peace and you have just thrown it in my face!)
Richard
And I’m thankful that I’m really nearsighted–because it’s really useful for looking at tiny shells. Other than being legally blind when I’m not wearing glasses a centimeter thick at the edge, I gather that my vision is unusually good, at least, my nighttime resolution of vision and color perception are better than typical.
1 Like
I got spoiled in my youth – I’m pretty nearsighted too (or at least was more so before my cataract surgeries and IOL implants last year), but my vision was correctable to 20:10.
1 Like
Mine’s about 20:900. At that point, just calling it -8.5 diopters in one eye and -9.0 in the other (including astigmatism) becomes simpler.
Phew! (Mine were above 20:200 but I don’t remember exactly.) We can be thankful for science and corrective lenses, certainly!
1 Like
That was one of the criteria most of us accepted for determining which claimant to be the Creator was the real one.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
It’s incredibly arrogant because it contains a lie.
What I put in bold is what he says is the only option, yet he accuses others of doing it.
That’s all you’ve been doing in a number of threads! You demand that we all believe your notion that there is no room for God in evolution, for starters – and you’re making that demand of people who know one heck of a lot more about evolution than either of us.
When I said humans are “infinitely more intelligent” than chimps" I was obviously using a figure of speech. I wasn’t implying humans are infinitely intelligent.
… but I suspect you knew that and you’re just “playing dumb” to avoid my question.
This publication doesn’t answer my question. All is does basically is describe different types of hearts that allegedly evolved. Or … a fish crawled out the sea onto land and it needed a different heart, so Hey Presto! … it (somehow) evolved a different heart!
I couldn’t find anything at all about how natural selection actually produced said hearts (unsurprisingly, since no one knows … or will ever know).
However, I did find some examples of pseudo-science that are typical of establishment publications pertaining to evolutionary orgins:
"Whereas the tunicates and amphioxi species possess tubular hearts that contract peristaltically, evolutionary gene mutations ensured that the anatomy and physiology of the vertebral heart became more complex …
Due to oxygen deficiency and the high metabolic cost of obtaining oxygen from water, vertebrates were forced to make their way out of the ocean and on to land 350–400 Mya."
The above claims are pure speculation (pseudo-science), but are nevertheless presented as facts.
And as usual, the reader is prepped in the Introduction with the ol’ “Millions of Years Can Do Anything” sophistry that Darwinists invariably employ:
“The vertebrate heart is biologically specific to a species and is the product of millions of years of fine tuning.”
I couldn’t find anything in the reference provided that answers the question I posed you. So my question remains:
If you can find the answers to my question in the reference provided, please point them out.
Perhaps. But even in humans there is variation in the vascular system. The observed incidence of people with an additional artery, persisting from embryonic development, in their arm is rising. Some people have their heart on the right side. Populations living at altitude have genetic adaptations to thinner air. There is always physiological variation actively under selection.
I found the description as “forced” to be odd. Plenty of vertebrates stayed in the water, although anoxia played a role in some mass extinctions. It is more the case that air adapted fish moved towards an available unexploited niche, where the tradeoffs were in favor.
Pseudo-science is contrary to science or outside the domain of science. All hypothesis, including those now accepted as natural law, began as speculation.
EDIT: typo
2 Likes
You shouldn’t have bothered … it does nothing to answer my question:
And?
You do not?
How do you propose we discuss it then?
(Without any sort of assersion?)
You do not discuss you lecture.(and denigrate)
It would seem that your view must be the right one so perhaps there is no discussion involved
Richard
VFB and VFA do not exist. There is no paper or article that explains them. The only place they are used (in this form) is here. And the only people who claim them are you and @St.Roymond.
I have every right to dispute them, or claim that they are a device invented to suit your purpose.
You do not have the right to call me a liar.
Richard
In a way, that is also true, but anoxia was what I believe you intended in this case.
3 Likes
Agree with you there. Nothing would convince you. You seem to want a sequential list of individual mutations and their effects on the final report.
4 Likes