Mr_Objective: I was once an atheist, so drawing on my past investigation/transition, it might be that the reason you don't believe in a Creator.. is because what you've heard about Him... ISN'T HIM. Secondly, if you're willing to have an open enough mind, then at least give any 'Claimant' a listen to.
Remember.. everything you know is not everything, so if there is unchartered territory in your past information intake, then 'instant' rejection is more 'religious', than scientific.
(this is the claim that atheism is a religion and science is no more a valid belief than ancient revelations)
Mr_Objective: IF THE FIRST LIVING THING NEEDED NO MALE INTERVENTION.. THEN WHY INSIST THAT MARY DID ??? If the materialisation of human sperm without male intervention is LIES... then more absurd is the 'belief' in the primordial soup that (without the basic ingredients) materialised the first cell.. who's complexity is so infinitesimal, that when magnified a thousand million times, is more complex than a city, with its own power stations, refineries, databank, transportation, networking, etc, etc... So by your own standards, you've actually 'given' credibility to the Virgin birth. At least hypothetically.. IF there is a Creator, then he's not in need of his Creation to carry out His Will (..e.g. He's not in need of any sexual act whatsoever to materialise a feotus within a woman).
h_rap_pringle: the first living things were simpler than bacteria, simple replication was all they could manage. and that was almost 4 billion years ago. Mammals are far more complex than bacteria and have an genetic makeup that precludes virgin birth as all mammals are diploid and not haploid as bacteria are. Your desciption of a bacteria's structure is exagerated and you don't relize that because of molecular motions a better description would be a boiling soup in a baggy with motza balls and carrots floating in it.. The first cells did not just materialize, they evolved from even simple constructs taking at least 200 million years or so, so this is not a materialization.
h_rap_pringle: IF there is a Creator??? There is no evidence that there is one.
Mr_Objective: Have you made sure of that ?
h_rap_pringle: yes, because the bible's version of creation is based on mythology
Mr_Objective: If the Bible was in conformity to modern science, then would you have reconsidered ?
h_rap_pringle: it isn't and don't try to redefine words and phrases to make it try, I've seen every stupid creationist argument that was ever made. they repeat them you know
Mr_Objective: No..come on.. don't run from the hypothetical. In order acheive your rejection, something did not add up from the Bible (.. & I support you on that)
Mr_Objective: My Q is ... what standards should the Bible have met to make you reconsider ?
h_rap_pringle: the biblical creation myth is based on the previous babylonian one, even some of the words used are cognates
h_rap_pringle: in the babylonian creation myth Marduk slays the sea dragon tiamat, and makes the dome of the sky with her body, in the bible the wind from elohim passed over the deep (tihom) and he makes the dome of the sky in the midst of the waters.
Mr_Objective: You're not answering the Question. How can we progress until you clearly define what standards any source of CreationISM is supposed to meet ?
h_rap_pringle: there isn't any, i've read the bible are you trying to get out of the rakia?
Mr_Objective: Again, you're not answering the Question. What attributes would any book have to meet to prove creation ? rakia ??
h_rap_pringle: the FIRMAMENT, the nonexistant dome of the sky
h_rap_pringle: called SHAMAYIM in Genesis 1
h_rap_pringle: which is HEAVEN in English
h_rap_pringle: the earth is pictured as floating on the ocean with a dome overhead through which falls rain if god makes hole in it. read it over again if you don't believe me
Mr_Objective: So what you're saying is that if the Bible instead contained information accurate to modern scientific discovery (..that the Earth is Spherical, the Sun is moving at a great speed in one direction, the Earth spins in it's own orbit, The Earth moves around the sun etc
Mr_Objective: ... then it would stand a better chance to convince more people (.. who opted for atheism)
h_rap_pringle: I see you're getting confused, you don't use the right words
Mr_Objective: No..not confused
h_rap_pringle: you see that is what happens, appologists like you don't really understand the science that they are trying to find in the bible and they make mistakes
Mr_Objective: You have stated where the bible is in error... & I agree. What I'm saying... is that if the bible WASN'T in error.. then would you have reconsidered ?
Mr_Objective: I don't believe in the Bible I told you that last time
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective tell me where it says that the sun is in the center of the solar system in the bible and that the earth is a planet just like mars
Mr_Objective: Don't you see your problem.. the reason you're an atheist (.. which I used to be also), is because what you've heard about God... does not add up... It doesn't !
h_rap_pringle: former atheists are a pail of hogwash, you are either lying about that or ignorant and easily swayed by false arguments.
h_rap_pringle: The model of the cosmos in the bible is the flat earth covered with the hard dome that lets in the rain and while that was accepted in 1000bc it isn't reality, never was
Mr_Objective: I'm trying to (for the fifth time) open your mind to the fact that your atheistic beliefs are due to the sources of Creation not adding up
h_rap_pringle: why can't you accept the bible for what it is, a man made document about what people thought about god and not from god
Mr_Objective: I DO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (BELIEVE THAT IT'S MANIPULATED BY MAN)
Mr_Objective: Honestly.. you can't even see that I'm agreeing with you, and your telling me that which I already believe !
h_rap_pringle: manipulated? no conceived and written by the Jews for their own national purpose, look up modern biblical criticsim
Mr_Objective: I agree I want to get to a point to where we both agree... & we both agree about the culmination of the Bible Agree ?
Mr_Objective: I'm not a Bible basher ! Nor do I believe it to be the 100% Word of God
h_rap_pringle: culmination is a bad word, you must have an ulterior motive, the bible was not culminated, it was written edited and redacted
h_rap_pringle: look up the discoveries at UGARIT to find out some of the origins of the OT
h_rap_pringle: The Bible is 0% the word of god
h_rap_pringle: god doesn't communicate with us as he has no brain, and Jesus is a hoax, and mMohammad didn't know it
h_rap_pringle: Click to The Jesus Myth
Mr_Objective: How can you set standards for something you don't believe in ?
Mr_Objective: How can you set human standards for something that may not be human ?
Mr_Objective: Your investigation is triggered off by your likes, dislikes, convenience, inconvenience & preference
h_rap_pringle: the laws of the universe forbid it
Mr_Objective: Let's start with the Big Bang
h_rap_pringle: Why the Big Bang, lets get simple, why does god never send emails?
h_rap_pringle: why is it that he never sends emails, it would be far easier to send an email than to influence a human brain that you don't even have the buttons for
Mr_Objective: If God communicates with Mankind, he won't limit himself to something invented by us in the 21st Century
h_rap_pringle: you just don't get it, no email proves no god, halucenations and dreams don't prove God
Mr_Objective: Get what ??
Mr_Objective: .. & in any case.. any email claiming to be from God would be 'instantly' cast out as a fake anyway
h_rap_pringle: the brain is not wired up as a logical machine, each brain is unique but is wired to believe certain things that aren't real
Mr_Objective: How can I aim for your moving goalposts ?
h_rap_pringle: Why did you switch from life to the Big Bang?
h_rap_pringle: For instance, invariably primitive cultures believe that the wind was a spirit
h_rap_pringle: ask a 3 year old what makes the wind, and she will answer trees, try it,
h_rap_pringle: piaget said it would, and I tried it on my daughter when she was 3
h_rap_pringle: seriously do you think that the wind is a spirit or that trees make wind?
Mr_Objective: Exactly.. because everything the 3 year old knows.. is not everything
Mr_Objective: What 'proof' do you have of God's non-existence ?
Mr_Objective: Everything you know is not everything
h_rap_pringle: but certain beliefs are wired in the brain
Mr_Objective: So how can someone that does not know everything... decide everything ?
Mr_Objective Changes the subject again
Back to Big Bang
Mr_Objective: The universe follows law, order, system, pattern, etc, etc
Back to evolution
Mr_Objective: Till this day, there is no clear explanation of the evolutionary mechanisms
and In fact, the theory collapses before it starts
Back to abiogenesis
Mr_Objective: (i.e. how did the first cell emerge ?)
Back to evolution
Mr_Objective: The fossil record is bankrupt of these 'intermediate' (or 'transitional' forms)
Mr_Objective establishes his bonafides
Mr_Objective: I work in IT Systems, and a team of 50 people have taken a year to roll out software to a firm, which required team meetings, project management, planning, preparation... etc
(.. objective analysts.. not theorists)?????? is this an excuse for supporting the talking snake theory
HARUN YAYA RAISES UGLY HEAD!!
Switch to embryology?
An yet people kill for it, tis a puzzlement.
h_rap_pringle: the universe does not show any trace of inteligence
Mr_Objective: I was once an atheist, & managed to 'unwire' my atheistic beliefs with 'objectivity', 'selflessness', & humbleness
h_rap_pringle: I can tell it wasn't facts, you seem to be difficient in that area
h_rap_pringle: I don't believe that you ever thought it through, again your brain is playing trick on you, perhaps an early religious training has tripped you up
h_rap_pringle: lying about evolution is one of these tricks that religious appologists do
h_rap_pringle: evolution has not collapsed at all as it is the underpinning of all biology
Mr_Objective: How can an unplanned explosion cause such order ?
Mr_Objective: Tell me.. what constitutes proof ?
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective: have you ever looked at the crab nebula? It look very chaotic and yet millions of years from now it might trigger multiple star formation with each star having planets.
h_rap_pringle: A similar explosion caused the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, from isotope ratios we can tell that the forming supernova explosion happened about 150 million years before the solar nebula collapsed
h_rap_pringle: that is silly of course their are' its called mutation and natural selection, what could simpler and more clear than that.
h_rap_pringle: you don't have to know all the answers, nobody knows that , and you're changing the subject. you can't seem to stay on subject.
Mr_Objective: YOU SAID IT!!!!
h_rap_pringle: but we do know it happened billions of years ago
Mr_Objective: Not everyone knows the answers...
Mr_Objective: So then what feeds you confidence that evolution is a FACT ??
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective: but you forget the DNA is still there and we can reconstruct the tree of life from it
h_rap_pringle: evolution must happen in any life form made of atoms because accidents will happen and selection will make choices, the principles are very simple
Mr_Objective: ... .and still... it wasn't fully functional when it went live
h_rap_pringle: so what i'm an engineer too and its not the same thing as a living thing
h_rap_pringle: life is very redundant and haphazzard, and takes a VERY ong time to accomplish anything
Mr_Objective: ... if all our brains put together could not come up with a perfect program' (code)
Mr_Objective: ... the how in the hell did the DNA molecule self-code ?
h_rap_pringle: could you explain why every primate has a non functioning gene for making vitamin C
Mr_Objective: DNA is a data bank that would fill 1000 encyclopaedia pages
Mr_Objective: .. but more amazing is that it's a SEQUENCE
h_rap_pringle: who said it was perfect, it operates by genetic algorithms
Mr_Objective: ... meaning that if one letter was out of place... then you would probably have a finger growing out of your leg (..or something similar)
h_rap_pringle: you do have fingers on your leg, you call them toes
h_rap_pringle: The genetic code and the genome is REDUNTANT, you should know that word from IT, one letter change rarely has that kind of effect because the genetic code is wired up to produce similar proteans even if one letter is changed, and that was the result of evolution
h_rap_pringle: besides read up on fruit fly experiments, they have done similar things with appendages such as legs and antenna on the wrong segments. The Genetic code is so conservative that some human genes will work in fruit flies.
h_rap_pringle: And as for the SEQUENCE your DNA is filled with garbage, genes are also broken up with introns and exons, and much of the code is meaningless repeats of viral and other junk DNA,
h_rap_pringle: but of course you don't know that, its too technical for you and doesn't lead to some religious solution.
h_rap_pringle: some genetiststs say that 90% of the human genome is garabage
Mr_Objective: So how did it self code ?
h_rap_pringle: natural selection AND you are forgetting the millions of years it took
h_rap_pringle: that's a LONG time and all we got from that was a cell
Mr_Objective: Let's look at 'established facts'
h_rap_pringle: Yes a FACT that life has been detected back to at least 3.8 BILLION YEARS AGO
Mr_Objective: It's an 'established fact' that a 300 Million year old fossil DID NOT (..yes NOT) evolve
h_rap_pringle: what fossil - fossils are rocks and can't evolve, they aren't alive
Mr_Objective: i.e. the Ceolocanth (spelling?)
h_rap_pringle: Coelacanth
h_rap_pringle: how would you know that it didn't evolve, that is an error on your part, the Phenotype is not the same as a genotype. there are dozens of similar looking mosquitos that have different genetics and biting habbits.
Mr_Objective: So it's 'PROVEN' that it is possible for an animal NOT to evolve (.. as it was seen swimming in the Indian ocean in the 1920's, exactly the same size, shape, bone structure)
h_rap_pringle: yes it is similar but we don't have the DNA from 300 million years ago
and we have sharks too that are even older but have not changed (shape) in even a longer time period
h_rap_pringle: but nobody would tell you that a shark from today is exactly the same as a shark from 400 millon years ago or has the same DNA
Mr_Objective: DOESN'T MATTER... the fossil (..which itself was a foundation to prove the thoery)... backfired miserably
Mr_Objective: Let's stick to established facts.
h_rap_pringle: but one thing is certain, from the DNA we can tell approximately when the sharks and the ray finned fishes diverged, that would not be possible if the DNA in sharks hadn't evolved
h_rap_pringle: but then again you wouldn't know about such things because you only seem to know appologetic litter
h_rap_pringle: HAVE you read any books about the tree of life? One book? how about a website
Mr_Objective: I've given you one established fact that a animal (...including insects stuck in the resin (like mosquitos)) are still the same size, shape, structure
Mr_Objective: Whereas you're stuck in the world of 'theories'.
Mr_Objective: If you ground your investigation in 'established facts', you will progress further
Mr_Objective: Just as 'Newton's LAW of Gravity'...
h_rap_pringle: establish facts are well known and support evolution
Mr_Objective: .. why isn't it known as Darwin's LAW of Evolution ?
Mr_Objective: BRING ME ONE, PLEASE !
Mr_Objective: (i.e. one that exhausts all other alternatives)
h_rap_pringle: you are still confused between apperance and genetics. the insects we have today are not the same and the insects we had 60 milion years ago even if they LOOK similar.
h_rap_pringle: if you say that evolution does not work then there is no other theory that would explain the diversity of life, and as I said before any life forms made of atoms must evolve because of accidents and selection
Mr_Objective: Now THAT's a closed mind !
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective: . a LAW is really deep like the conservation of energy
Mr_Objective: Till now, I thought I was speaking to someone open minded
h_rap_pringle: a theory is an established proposal that is supported by facts and has made sucessful predictions
h_rap_pringle: as such, darwin's theory has passed all test so far
Mr_Objective: I was an atheist, and once upon a time believed in Evolution, but I deserved better than 'blind theory'
Mr_Objective: Darwin's theory hasn't even passed his own test
h_rap_pringle: of course it has
Mr_Objective: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, MY THEORY WOULD ABSOLUTELY BREAK DOWN"
Mr_Objective: The fossil record should have millions (..if not billions) of half animals
h_rap_pringle: Try this book
h_rap_pringle: hahaha you mean the noninteligent design theory recently diverged from the talking snake theory, it's nothing but a ploy to put religion into the schools and this stupid theory requires not one creation but thousands of serperate interventions by a God or aliens. and new agers love it
Mr_Objective: Don't run !
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective: half animals?
Mr_Objective: Stick to the subject we were dealing with
h_rap_pringle: what is a half animal
Mr_Objective: Like a fish with half wings developing
h_rap_pringle: like a slime mold? hav eyou even heard of a slime mold?
Mr_Objective: Yes.. half-animals (Transitional forms)
h_rap_pringle: you know what a slime mold is
h_rap_pringle: here is a half animal half fungus
Mr_Objective: ..somehow the scales are turning into feathers
h_rap_pringle: Objective_Investigator flying fish, have you seen them
Mr_Objective: If a fish flies, I believe it's been like that from the beginning
h_rap_pringle: beginning of what, the talking snake theory again? 6000 year old flat earth?
h_rap_pringle: Objective_Investigator you you are showing a complete ignorance of what darwin said about DESCENT through variation and natural selection, I bet you never read any book on evolution at all, I suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins.
Mr_Objective: I'm talking about the evolutionary fossil record, which has NOTHING !!! FILLED WITH MISSING LINKS
h_rap_pringle: half animals and missing links, the old buggaboo of creationists. there are no half animals, there are only whole animals with varied characteristics
h_rap_pringle: For instance we have a set of fossils that show one line of reptiles changing into mammals in small steps
h_rap_pringle: Evolutionary theory would require that there be no Bird mammals, because there is no DESCENT from birds to mammals
h_rap_pringle: There is no Descent because they are on diverging lines of development, too far removed by millions of years from the stem reptiles which would be their last common ancestor.
Mr_Objective: Again... it's 'THEORY'... not established fact. If it carried any weight, the YOU tell me why it's not called Darwins LAW of evolution ??
h_rap_pringle: A theory with no real counter examples is pretty well established. Do you have any counter examples?
Mr_Objective: Absolutely nobody has been able to explain the evolutionary mechanism of how scales turned into feathers
h_rap_pringle: and plenty of examples that support it, you just haven't looked into the existing litterature, scales into feathers is a very easy transition
h_rap_pringle: besides feathers don't preserve well, but we still have examples of many dinosaurs with feathers that were not birds. the latest discoveries in china show that, but then again you haven't read about them. you only read creationist litter
Mr_Objective: Believe me... I used to be an Atheist, so I know the congitive dissonance you're going through
h_rap_pringle: are you kidding, "I used to be an atheist" carries no weight with me, I don't have to believe the talking snake theory as it is a children's just so story, are you a child, or are you regressing?
h_rap_pringle: the only congitive dissonance i have is , is it a complete wasit of time to talk to you?
Mr_Objective: Snap out of it for your own good.. it's 'junk food' for the brain
h_rap_pringle: science is now junk food, and religion is bathtub pablum
Mr_Objective: It's easy to say catchphrases.. but until proven, they have no validity
h_rap_pringle: you just don't read the literature do you, only creationist digests
Mr_Objective: Tell me, how did the first cell emerge
h_rap_pringle: oh so fossils didn't work so we are back the first cell again.
h_rap_pringle: i told you we don't know yet, it is far removed in time
h_rap_pringle: but that doesn't mean that aliens did it
h_rap_pringle: we need more examples perhaps we'll find them on europa or mars
Mr_Objective: So you're in ignorance of the absolute foundation of your belief !! You are more religious than me !
h_rap_pringle: Scinece is not an absolute belief system and does not work on abolute knowledge, it is based on facts and models which we call theories. if new facts don't support the theories we make better theories
h_rap_pringle: And don't be a silly child, godidit is no answer at all seein as the god theory is not supported by any evidence at all
h_rap_pringle: Perhaps you want to go back to the talking snake? 6 day creation? Flat earth?
Mr_Objective: The first life forms (.. from 'established facts') had an eye structure that hi tech optical engineers would find difficult to replicate (.. from the Cambrian period)
h_rap_pringle:
Mr_Objective: the first life forms were bacteria billions of years before the cambrian. I am now certain that you have read no evolutionary texts but only anti-evolutionary tracts, your knowledge of lack of it is showing.
h_rap_pringle: your quote is also meaningless and is a lie. There were no advanced eyes in the early cambrian period, perhaps you meant late cambrian as the number of facets in the trilobyte eyes increased. Camera eyes did not appear untill the Silurian
h_rap_pringle: we have examples of eyes that vary from a set of molecules to the advanced eyes of molusks and mammals
Mr_Objective: You've contradicted yourself.. earlier you said you don't know where the first cell came from... so how then can you be so sure of subsequent lifeforms ?
h_rap_pringle: That is not a contradiction, susequent life left traces, fossils of all kinds and idotope clues
h_rap_pringle: I have a question for you, what was the atmosphere of the early earth like
h_rap_pringle: do you know or have read anything on the history of life?
Mr_Objective: Of course the odd dead corpse (under the sea bed) may disintegrate, etc,... but that's just conjecture
h_rap_pringle:
Mr_Objective: your ignorance amazes me, you act like you're trying to argue with me and yet your knowledge of paleonotlogy is like a 2nd grader
Mr_Objective: That would make yours like a 1 day old
Mr_Objective: If you've done your fair share of reading, then explain it to me here !
h_rap_pringle: What was the early atmosphere like?
h_rap_pringle: WAS THERE ANY FREE OXYGEN?
h_rap_pringle: answer the question do you even have the slightest idea?
Mr_Objective: So what's your point (free oxygen ?)
h_rap_pringle: we are still with the early bacteria
h_rap_pringle: what was the earth like for them
h_rap_pringle: do you know the difference between an autotroph and heterotroph?
Mr_Objective: I'm talking to someone who hasn't a clue about the first cell (.. just pure conjecture)... & he's speaking with utter confidence ! LOL
h_rap_pringle: I told you NOBODY KNOWS how the first cells evolved yet you certainly don't either
Mr_Objective: Assuming these bacteria lived in that environment.. now what ?
h_rap_pringle: what was it like?
Mr_Objective: Maybe they DIDN'T EVOLVE.. Maybe ANIMALS WERE IN THEIR FULL STATE OF BEING FROM THE BEGINNING !
Mr_Objective: Open up mister !
h_rap_pringle: oh my god ( so to speak) you don't have a clue, its the talkng snake theory again
Mr_Objective: Don't dogmatically hold on to your evolution superstitious beliefs
h_rap_pringle: you have no idea what you are talking about
h_rap_pringle: i'm talking about evidence, not bullshit, you can't take it past the creationist litter that you read. you have not a clue about evolution and yet you argue against and you say my mind is closed?
Mr_Objective: Darwin's own falsification test has been met... & if you consider him great, then by all means, accept his falsification test has been met
Mr_Objective: Evidence is one thing. Interpreting it is another
h_rap_pringle: Objective_Investigator Lets stick with the earliest cells and fossils, stop with animals there were none in the beginning
Mr_Objective: Evolutionists suffer from selective inference
Mr_Objective: Let's start from the big bang
Mr_Objective: What detonated it ?
h_rap_pringle: i guess you don't wanna talk about facts, to hard for you.
h_rap_pringle: you wanna do that big bang stuff? Life to messy?
h_rap_pringle: do you believe in the big bang
Mr_Objective: After all.. you believe in cause & effect
Mr_Objective: don't you
Mr_Objective: Yes I do
Mr_Objective: ..based on 'observation' of the planetary bodies moving apart
h_rap_pringle: planetary bodies moving apart, that ain't it, that's appologetics again, they don't know the difference between planets or stars or galaxies, too technical for religious appologists
h_rap_pringle: nobody knows exactly what caused the big bang or even if it is still going on in some other part of the universe that is unobservable
h_rap_pringle: you can't accept the universe as it is, you always want some answer that devolves into Godidit
h_rap_pringle: there is no evidence in this univserse that there is such a god
h_rap_pringle: we can SEE back the universe as it was when it was 300,000 years old, what does that tell you
Mr_Objective: Well, in that case, while it's unknown, certainty cannot be pointed at it not having a concious being behind it
h_rap_pringle: and we can INFER what was happeneing back to a fraction of a second
Mr_Objective: Believe me.. my convenience begs me not to believe in a God. & if I was convenience driven, I would be talking like you
h_rap_pringle: convenience has nothing to do with it, its about bullshit and facts
h_rap_pringle: saying that god didit means nothing, it ain't science
Mr_Objective: .. I on the other hand am 'vigilant'... in that until i KNOW (..not theorise) God is absent, I won't reject his Existence
h_rap_pringle: it just pushes it back to the point that you realize that there is only a god when you don't know something and has you know more god receeds untill he just ain't there
Mr_Objective: You said "There is no evidence in the universe that there is such a God"...
h_rap_pringle: that is correct
Mr_Objective: ... who said anything about him being IN the universe ?
Mr_Objective: Think !!! Something would have had to be OUTSIDE to detonate the big bang
h_rap_pringle: not really and it is not a detonation
h_rap_pringle: it is an expansion caused by the geometry of space time and dark energy
Mr_Objective: In any case, us human haven't hardly got out of our solar system, so why the confidence in deciding the WHOLE of reality ? I'm talking about the causation of the explosion
h_rap_pringle: we may say that the universe is infintiely old, we just can't SEE before the big bang
Mr_Objective: Again, speculation
h_rap_pringle: at least you could write equations for it
And I don't need to know why it happened exactly to know that to understand that it happened
Mr_Objective: Let's stick to established facts
Mr_Objective: ...otherwise we'll be chatting forever
h_rap_pringle: there is no sence and nothing gained by going back to godidit
Mr_Objective: 'there is no sense'... why ?
h_rap_pringle: would you accept the FACT that there was a big bang and that we can still see it
Mr_Objective: I learn from those with knowledge (.. objective analysts.. not theorists)
h_rap_pringle: what and who is an objective analyst and do they ever use equations?
h_rap_pringle: Did you read steven hawkings book? A Breif History of time
h_rap_pringle: do you know tensors?
h_rap_pringle: can you follow friedman's solution
Mr_Objective: Steven Hawkins was battered when interviewed by Turkish scientists.
h_rap_pringle: hahahah says who
Mr_Objective: Obviously, you wouldn't have seen that footage
Mr_Objective: And the leading astronomers have confirmed that there's evidence of an explosion (.. similar to the ripples made by a stone thrown in water)
h_rap_pringle: Objective_Investigator who are the "leading astronomers", name one of these persons you rely on
Mr_Objective: Go to 'www.harunyahya.com', and download the video "The Collapse of Evolution".
h_rap_pringle: harunyaya is a known liar, I know he's a liar because I know more than he does about nearly everything he claims.
Mr_Objective: Let's be fair, all Harun Yahya's books have footnotes of evolutionist quotes
h_rap_pringle: you mean misquotes and misunderstandings
h_rap_pringle: here is a guy that strains at gnats trying to put the big bang in the Koran where it isn't found, and then since he can't stand evolution which is just as well supported makes counter arguments that try to disprove the big bang
h_rap_pringle: Harunyaya is a professional liar, who is too stupid to understand that he is making stupid errors, confusing planets with stars and stars with galaxies just as you do, which is because that's what you get your information from
Mr_Objective: you've demonstrated that you haven't read his piece about gnats
h_rap_pringle: I've read his website it is so full of bullshit that it stinks to high heaven
Mr_Objective: nowhere does he put them & the big bang in the same sentence. You're making this up
Mr_Objective: Demonstrate which part is full of shit
h_rap_pringle: his web site strains to have a big bang in the Koran and yet he denies evolution
Mr_Objective: (not opinionate) Demonstrate
h_rap_pringle: in neither case does he have the slightest indication that what he is doing is anything other than lying to save his particualr religion
h_rap_pringle: I assume you are muslim then.
Mr_Objective: Well.. if the Quran make the claim 'clefting asunder' the heavens etc... then where's the strain ?
h_rap_pringle:
Mr_Objective: that isn't the big bang
Mr_Objective: What is it then ?
h_rap_pringle: you are not being objective at all, you are inventing a meaning that passage dosen't have
Mr_Objective: What is it then ?
h_rap_pringle: it is a paraphrase of genesis 1
Mr_Objective: What else can it mean ?
Mr_Objective: The Quran is totally different from Genesis Chapter 1
h_rap_pringle: no it isn't totaly different, especcially when it paraphrases it. Clefting asunder means god seperated the water from the water with the rakia, we are back to the rakia again.
h_rap_pringle: Mohamamd was a liar about his revelations but he was would never have told you he was talking about the big bang. He could never have imagined a big bang just as he could never have imagined the telephone. To get to that big bang lie we need people like you and harun yaya
h_rap_pringle: if the expanding universe as we know in the big bang had been in the koran, please explain why arabic scholars supported the geocentric model of ptolomey, calling it the Almagest (the greatest) for over 1000 years and never once came up with modern cosmology or even the solar system.
h_rap_pringle: mohammad was even too ignorant to even understand the greek geocentric model, he inverted it over the flat earth
Mr_Objective: The Quran clearly states that the Earth is Spherical (.. shaped like an Ostrich's Egg) (spelling)
h_rap_pringle: the Quran tries to praphrase parts of the bible and usually added mistakes that are glaring and obvious, but not to you, because you don't know enough about the bible, or history either
h_rap_pringle: besides an ostritch egg is not what the Earth looks like
Mr_Objective: Look at an ostrich's egg first, it's not totally oval, & not totally spherical (..just like the earth)
Mr_Objective: Why do you insult a man you don't know ?
h_rap_pringle: insulting mohamamd comes naturally, he was a liar a theif a murderer and a sex pervert, the cartoons didn't lie, that's why muslims hated them so much.
h_rap_pringle: and he could have copied the spherical earth from the greeks as it was an old theory since before 500BC. The Alexandrian Greek Eratosthenes had measured the earth's size to an accuracy of about 5% in 250BC
h_rap_pringle: that's 600 years before mohamamd
h_rap_pringle: The Earth is not prolate like an egg
h_rap_pringle: the eath is almost a perfect sphere as it differs less than .1% from perfect
h_rap_pringle: you could not tell it was OBLATE with your eye
h_rap_pringle: and remember allah doesn't KNOW anything more than mohammad or his amanuenseses know
h_rap_pringle: Allah is like a jerry mahoney doll, while mohammad was pretending to be allah's jerry mahony doll
Mr_Objective: OK.. but that theory has been battered.. simply because the Greeks also made mistakes (.. in the areas of embryology).. so how can someone plaigarise AND correct at the same time ?
h_rap_pringle: Mr_Objective: the Koran copied galen, it is doubtfull that mohamamd even said these verses
h_rap_pringle: and it copied galen's mistakes too that is a dead ringer for plagiarism
Mr_Objective: No it didn't. You're desperate ! Speaking without knowledge !
Mr_Objective: Say what you want, but the Quran has a 100% reliability track record for 14 centuries, and none of its haters have been able to falsify any of it's claims. So they desperately turn to 'theory' & 'fansasy'
h_rap_pringle: the Koran has a 0% accuracy rating, it is totaly false, I dare you to find anything true in it. saying it is totaly accurate and not examining every ayat is ludicrous. it is false from the very first verse
Mr_Objective: Ha Ha
h_rap_pringle: all you have to do is read it
Mr_Objective: I take it you've studied it !
h_rap_pringle: FOR EXAMPLE the Koran says that man is made from mud, that man is made from water, and that man is made from dust ALL WRONG!! So it has been just falsified.
Mr_Objective: Bring me one verse that has been 'objectively' falsified (.. not with insults & anger - attributes that testify desperation)
h_rap_pringle: are you deaf and blind, i just falsified it it contradicts itself and never once speaks truth
h_rap_pringle: what are you saying that man is made of mud or water?
Mr_Objective: Now you're firing blanks... so on that note, I think I'd better leave you to squirm & get some sleep
h_rap_pringle: take your pick , mud, water a clot or dust
Mr_Objective: Remember.. you can't save yourself from something you don't believe in.
h_rap_pringle: threatening hell? HEL is a norse godess. There is no place called hell, ,but remember that religions that threaten hell usually wind up commiting attrocities. Islam is still commiting attrocites
h_rap_pringle: first you show me that you know nothing about biology or paleonotlogy, nothing about the big bang and now you are lying about harunyaya and the koran
Mr_Objective: Good night
h_rap_pringle: there is a song about you, it goes like this "don't know nothing about...."
h_rap_pringle: what is it mud or water?
h_rap_pringle: muddy water? oh that where the sun goes down
h_rap_pringle: it must be hard to be such an brainwashed person
Mr_Objective: You're still here !!! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha !
Mr_Objective: Sad man !
h_rap_pringle: ahahaha what is it. man was made of mud or was it water
h_rap_pringle: you have you choice both are in the Koran
h_rap_pringle: or was it a clot of blood?
Mr_Objective: Mr "I know nothing about the origin of the cell.. but speak with certainty"
h_rap_pringle: listen if you want to be taken seriously don't bring up the Koran , it is pile of crap, the Koran can't even quote the bible correctly as mohamamd failed the open book test
Mr_Objective: Look in the dictionary & compare "Contradiction" to "Contradistinction"... (actually.. don't ... you don't have the capacity !)
h_rap_pringle: there isn't one thing he copies that he doesn't garble
Mr_Objective: Bring your proof !
h_rap_pringle: he even has miriam the sister of moses as the mother of jesus
Mr_Objective: Bring your proof !
h_rap_pringle: haman as the minister of pharoh building the tower of babel, talk about mixups
h_rap_pringle: now that takes a certain degree of stupidity that i find hard to grasp
h_rap_pringle: you mean Mohammad had nobody to tell him he was making a stupid mistake or confusing miriams?
Mr_Objective: Say what you want, it's not yet been FALSIFIED....
h_rap_pringle: keep repeating that lie, you might just believe it, but i know too much
h_rap_pringle: his companions were that stupid or too afraid that he might have then killed for pointing out a mistake? There many are examples in the hadith were people that criticised mohamamd were murdered with his blessing
Mr_Objective: .. by now
h_rap_pringle: no wonder he had all the smart people killed, he killed three tribes of jews that knew he was an ignormus and no prophet. No prophet could make the kind of mistakes he did and be recognized by jews
Mr_Objective: if it was falsifiable.....then the media would have a field day
h_rap_pringle: the Koran is not only falsified, it never approches truth in any form, it is all garbage
Mr_Objective: ... but the truth is that because they can't falsify the primary sources... they resort to demonising it
h_rap_pringle: Are you kidding, you must have never read it, please explain whey moses and the snake Comes up 5 Times each slightly different
h_rap_pringle: you Mean he couldn't say it once?
h_rap_pringle: he could not remember he said it already or what exactly he said
h_rap_pringle: the Koran is so garbled that schoolars look at it and say it is such a work of inferiority that you can't even make a parody of it, it is already a parody