General Debate 3 November 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment198

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (198)

Login to comment or vote

big bruv

Redbaiter

So you have been kicked off CR as well?

I ask you again, name one thing that your ten year crusade has achieved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:49pm
Kris K

reid 3:37 pm,

“…what would it take for you to accept it wasn’t correct.”

A successful invasion of Heaven led by Russia, China and the US Marine Corps who emerge bloodied but victorious after the titanic struggle.

Yeah, I’m with you Reid.
I seem to recall someone else making a similar attempt – and failing – and he had more at his disposal than the military forces you suggested.

And just imagine the carbon footprint involved in getting your suggested miltary forces all the way to heaven – the scientific calculations involved would be truly mind boggling 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:53pm
Gosman

Excellent point Pete George.

The Creationists seek to have it both ways.

They attempt to attack the commonly held Scientific view on Scientific terms yet seek to avoid subjecting their own alternatives to the same sort of critique.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:54pm
Chthoniid

@reid

What do you mean we don’t know how genes evolve? We can show how genes evolve down to the changes in base-pairs, the changes to the actual genomes itself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:54pm
big bruv

Pete George

“Speak for yourself. I don’t.”

You never watched Michael Jones play then?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:55pm
Gosman

Are you going to bother to answer the question Kris K?

How do you falsify your views on this subject?

If you can’t suggest a way to do so then your ideas are inconsistent with the scientific method and we might as well regard them as mere stories.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:55pm
reid

“Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.”

Yes but I haven’t said anything about intelligent design have I Pete?

I’m just pointing out that you can’t invalidate religion with science and vice versa. It doesn’t work.

I think some US Christian perspectives are shall we say not quite mainstream and I’m not sure intelligent design is going to catch on anymore than it already has. It will probably quietly fade away as these things eventually do.

I was reading earlier this morning this Wikileaks Top Ten Greatest Scoops and the one about Scientology says there are apparently, eight “levels” of “Operating Thetans.” Isn’t that interesting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 3:58pm
Pete George

“You never watched Michael Jones play then?”

I was playing flanker in Auckland when he was at primary school, sometimes out West. I’m not sure if he ever saw me play though. I also played on Sundays but he wouldn’t have been around for any of those games.

I might have walked in the same street Hendrix walked.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:03pm
Atheist1

@KrisK, still waiting for your answer? To what were you referring in your statement ““alternative and evidence based hypothesis”? What hypothesis and what evidence? And please don’t say “the Bible”, that is avoiding the question. You would be the first to criticise an AGW proponent who, when asked the same question, answered “The movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ ”

As Gosman has pointed out above, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t discredit science using the language and mechanisms of science, yet decline to have your own belief system subjected to the same scrutiny.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:04pm
Yvette

One of the two versions in the Bible of the Creation accounts for things in roughly the stages that evolution is supposed to have followed – things in the sea, then crawling on the land and so on.
The hitch is the six day time span as fundamentalists believe a day to be literally a 24 hour day.

But then there are the 40s in the Bible –

It rained for 40 days and 40 nights when God wanted to cleanse the world and start over. (Gen 7:12 KJV)
Embalming required 40 days (Gen 50:3 KJV)
Moses was on the mountain with God for 40 days – twice (Deu 10:10 NIV)
It took the spies 40 days to search out the promised land and bring back fruit (Num 13:25 KJV)
The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness, one year for each day they explored the Promised Land. (Exo 16:35 KJV)
Goliath challenged for forty days before being killed by David (1 Sam 17:16 NLT)
Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness (Mat 3:17 KJV)
Jesus was seen in the earth 40 days after His crucifixion (Acts 1:3 NIV)
– among others.

But are these all to be taken literally, or do they just mean “for some considerable time”?
So what exactly does six days mean?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:06pm
Pete George

Many things can’t be literal Yvette, you can learn stuff from it as long as you don’t think it’s set in stone.

Reid” Yes but I haven’t said anything about intelligent design have I Pete?”

I know you didn’t, I gave it as an example of some people confusing (deliberately) science with faith.

Reid: “I’m just pointing out that you can’t invalidate religion with science and vice versa. It doesn’t work.”

I agree with that. Try and convince KK.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:09pm
reid

“What do you mean we don’t know how genes evolve? We can show how genes evolve down to the changes in base-pairs, the changes to the actual genomes itself.”

What are the evolutionary triggers for those changes not the biochemical ones and do we know the difference between how genes have actually evolved vs a simple mechanical knowledge of what the base-pairs do and how to splice them?

That’s where I thought we were at. We haven’t even yet completely identified which base-pair does precisely what, for as far as I know, big pharma hasn’t yet launched a menu of gene-therapy treatments designed to makes us supermen which personally would be my first market offering were I big pharma.

It’d be a race between Elison and Branson.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:10pm
Yvette

Pete George –
You obviously differ then in your belief to Kris K who I understand believes a day is a 24 hour period – period!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:18pm
Gosman

Kris K stated – “Has anyone thought about the fact that Evolution promotes AMORALITY? And that Evolution promotes ATHEISM? And that socialism/Marxism/atheism promotes AMORALITY? ”

I’m sick of smarmy religious types trying to argue that anyone who doesn’t accept their superstitious nonsense is ‘Amoral’ (whatever that actually means) and that the basis of morality is their particular fairy story about where we came from.

I get especially annoyed because when you actually read the Bible you find out that it isn’t this fountain of morality as claimed but full of nasty and brutal behaviour carried out in the name of a supernatural deity.

This isn’t morality unless your definition of morality is that you can do any damn thing you want if you think your version of ‘God’ has sanctioned it.

I think I’ll take my version of Amoral Atheism versus the Moral Hypocracy of many Religious people any day.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:21pm
Chthoniid

Mutations occur at predictable rates. Some are more common than others- like duplications of whole segments. In the famous low glucose evolution of yeast, duplications of the HXT6 and HXT7 genes occurred, which led to an increased ability to digest glucose.

The breaking of the Vit c pseudogene involves one incorrect substitution of one base pair. For some model organisms- and for some organisms where the genome is well studied, I thought we had a very good idea of what they all did. I’m really struggling to understand your claim reid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:21pm
Ryan Sproull

Has anyone thought about the fact that Evolution promotes AMORALITY? And that Evolution promotes ATHEISM? And that socialism/Marxism/atheism promotes AMORALITY?

Finding out that life evolved on earth promotes atheism. Finding out that lightning is a discharge of static electricity promotes atheism. Finding out that earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates promotes atheism.

Bit of a stretch to go from “oh, it turns out that wasn’t God shaking the ground” to “well, I’m off to murder some babies”, though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:25pm
Gosman

Actually if you needed justification for murdering babies you don’t need to go much further than some Old Testament passages. When the Israelites were trying to conquer the ‘Promised Land’ they engaged in a number of Baby murdering episodes. You might have heard of the Battle of Jericho. There were no survivors after the Israelites breeched the walls. Of course that was okay Baby murdering behaviour because ‘God’ didn’t like them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:29pm
Ryan Sproull

Titanic hidden forces are at work in the world, subtle and organised, with the sole purpose of convincing everyone that I’m wrong. Your best defence is to agree with me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:29pm
reid

“I’m really struggling to understand your claim reid.”

All you’re claiming is we know the fact that genetics mutate and the biochemistry of the mutation. As far as I can see, this doesn’t give us sufficiently detailed insight into how general animal, then mammalian then simian then human organisms evolved into what and who they are today, and to me this is what we have to know in great detail before we’re in a position to make the call on how evolution works and until you do that you don’t know: i.e. can’t say conclusively there was no Architect. By all means let’s continue the research.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:34pm
Ryan Sproull

There aren’t enough questions to answer to say conclusively there was no Architect. What possible discovery can you conceive of that would prove there was no designer? Every piece of knowledge about the universe is framed within base-line assumptions that can’t themselves be approached within the same framework.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:45pm
Zhumao

then mammalian then simian then human organisms evolved, and to me this is what we have to know in great detail before we’re in a position to make the call on evolution.

Make a “call on evolution”?

Of course we can make a call –all the evidence points to darwinian evolution as a fact, not a theory. Human evolution and how it happened is well documented.

Evolution is why there are continually new bugs coming out, and simply why the species in existence today, are different from the species of 500,000 years ago, of 1000000 years ago of 200 million years ago.

If species do not change, do not evolve into different species, you therefore have to propose that life started up independently at a multitude of different stages over the three billion years there has been life on earth – which would even be more fantastically unlikely.

Evolution into different species does not happen by a sequence of independently improbable events. It is a conditional probability exercise, where if A happens, event B becomes so much more likely to happen.

If evolution is not true, then life would have had to spontaneously erupt at frequent intervals throughout earth’s history, to account for the vast number of different species, that came and went.

That is an independent probabiliyt thing ie one in say ten trillion to the power of say 100000 —-the odds in this case become vanishingly small and trillion trillion trillion times less likely than the results from the evolutionary process as posited by mainstream science, and overwhelmingly confirmed by both the fossil record and modern genetic science.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:45pm
reid

“Every piece of knowledge about the universe is framed within base-line assumptions that can’t themselves be approached within the same framework.”

Exactly Ryan. Quite the conundrum isn’t it.

Try not to be disingenuous Zhumao. One is not saying that at all, and you know it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:46pm
Ryan Sproull

Exactly Ryan. Quite the conundrum isn’t it.

Only if you’re particularly committed to certainty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:47pm
Chthoniid

Well the chimp genome was decoded in 2005, human genome has been decoded for a bit longer.
That’s yielded a lot of detail on human evolution at one would say, the genetic level.

If both chimps and humans have exactly the same broken vit c gene caused by having exactly the same incorrect transposition of one, specific and particular base pair, and that the mutation rate can clock this back to about 6m years, what exactly is missing? We can show you right down to the incorrect T-transposition where this happened and when.

Are you suggesting that the best evidence for design is our inability to synthesise Vitamin C (as almost every other animal can do so)? Because I find the ‘eat fruit or die’ imperative to be a rather unconvincing illustration of design.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:48pm
reid

“what exactly is missing”

What made it start to happen?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:56pm
reid

Speaking of science I’m quite looking forward to the LHC finding the Higgs, if anyone wants to talk about that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 4:59pm
Atheist1

@Gosman at 4.21 pm. I am with you every word, there. It’s such a frail argument. And, of course, doesn’t stack up with (as you note) the behaviours described in the Bible or of course the historical record!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:02pm
Chthoniid

What made what start to happen?

A pair of early primate ancestors mated, there was an error in one of the 3bn base pairs that make up the early primate genome,- a bad copy of the Vit C gene was made. The wrong base pair was inserted in the wrong place. This mistake got “fixed” in the small founder population. This was a serious error because it now would kill the organism if it didn’t eat fruit. Fortunately our early primate ancestors were vegetarians.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:04pm
Zhumao

“before we’re in a position to make the call on how evolution works and until you do that you don’t know: i.e. can’t say conclusively there was no Architect.”

No architect? You might as well be a full blown creationist to say ‘can’t say conculsively there was no architect.’

The fact is modern science has to assume a mechanistic universe which can be explained by physical laws, and this of course can lead to direct predictions of behaviour at the level of physics, then chemistry, then biology – less so. With an architect directing the thing behind evolution, this mechanistic, random, yet predictable universe is subverted.

The scientist simply cannot allow the possibility of any divine guidance – to be ‘open’ to this possibility would undermine science and the way science is done. Research will never ever find a designer —hewill continually find new puzzles and quirks – but not a designer.

However there is a way in which God could have become involved – and could still be a designer. He could set up the universe so it ‘simulates’ randomness. In that way, he determines in advance that a dice thrown six times will result in 1-2-3-4-5-6. To ‘him’ that is design. But to the earthly observer it is still random result.

So it goes with the evolution of life. Human beings may be his end goal. But finding divine intervention in the physical sciences is impossible, and should be impossible, and only by assuming the absence of divine intervention, will good science be able to be done.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:07pm
jinpy

Yep,

The only way out is to say that there is a creator that set this entire process in motion knowing what would happen and walking away from the biblical fundamentalism.

But then, why not give up christianity and just retain a spiritual sense of the universe along with a basic moral code that any human with empathy would arrive at. Although granted it does leave one to make their own moral choices about homosexuality etc.

No, science doesn’t explain everything but it does a pretty good job with the observable universe and evolution is not a theory but a series of observations about the world. If your happy to ignore such observations thats fine, but indoctrinating people/children is another matter, but luckily we don’t have the same battles here in education as in the US
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:08pm
reid

I agree in every way Zhumao and point out I’ve been saying exactly that.

The only way out is to say that there is a creator that set this entire process in motion knowing what would happen and walking away from the biblical fundamentalism.

jinpy some people mistake what the Bible says for what faith is and one assumes you’re not one of those.

why not give up christianity and just retain a spiritual sense of the universe along with a basic moral code that any human with empathy would arrive at.

Because your life was bought for a price, it’s not yours, it’s His. Some people think living a good live and being kind to others is sufficient. It’s not.

Although granted it does leave one to make their own moral choices about homosexuality etc.

How the fuck would you know since you’re clearly not a Christian and therefore have no idea of what the morality of a Christian actually in fact is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:18pm
Zhumao

why not give up christianity and just retain a spiritual sense of the universe along with a basic moral code that any human with empathy would arrive at.

That will never happen. People tend to get into human sacrifice, worshipping of cats, worshipping of volcanoes, and the modern equivalent of course is whale worship. Human beings are deemed unimportant and nature is worshipped for its own sake, rather than looked after for the benefit and enjoyment of human beings. Slavery is accepted, and the rule of the strong becomes morality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:30pm
jinpy

temper, temper..

Yes, I am making the mistake of using a broad label — I was really referring to christians more along the lines of Kris K, I’ve heard his views (and many others) on such things, and like many I have access to the media and internet about the views of some who claim to represent christianity.

But, if you’re saying there’s a broad base of different morals there that different christians have arrived at, doesn’t this somewhat beg the question– why do you consider your way the right way amongst all the alternatives? It also reduces the importance of the bible as such the important document that presumably all christians make out. If people can come to different conclusions about the same book, then who or what really is god?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:32pm
reid

A pair of early primate ancestors mated, there was an error in one of the 3bn base pairs that make up the early primate genome,- a bad copy of the Vit C gene was made. The wrong base pair was inserted in the wrong place. This mistake got “fixed” in the small founder population. This was a serious error because it now would kill the organism if it didn’t eat fruit. Fortunately our early primate ancestors were vegetarians.

So what? How do you know that wasn’t part of the design. What is the probability do you think which you could easily calculate, of that mating producing us today, were it based on nothing but randomness. What sort of a lotto punt would that be? Or does this sort of thing happen all the time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:41pm
Ryan Sproull

Pretty big leap from “you can’t ever totally conclusively prove that the universe wasn’t designed” to “your life was bought at a price” there, Reid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:42pm
reid

It also reduces the importance of the bible as such the important document that presumably all christians make out. If people can come to different conclusions about the same book, then who or what really is god?

jinpy the Bible is a user manual. Different people use the software and hardware in anyway they like. Some people become experts and others dabble and others become hard-core gamers, as we fundies call ourselves.

Seriously who is G-d to a Christian is as individual as who you are to yourself, as a person. It’s that personal. You can’t understand it unless you are one, for it takes a commitment, a crossing of the Rubicon to understand it properly. Different people are called to it at different times. Sometimes they listen and sometimes they don’t. All of us are human, that’s why none of us are perfect but that’s what we all aspire to in our own very personal individual ways.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:50pm
Yvette

“… like the Others of the Carmel Caves and, as the dragon bones [prehistoric remains] of some lands embedded in the rock of ages, did God deposit those there in the six days of His toil or on the day of rest for His entertainment at our anticipated mystification …?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:50pm
Chthoniid

@reid

because it is potentially fatal. Once you claim that something deleterious to our genome is an instance of design, the onus is on you to demonstrate its design characteristics.

There are other similar ancient gene mutations that will give people diabetes and heart disease.

What kind of sick fuck designs people so that we can die of horrible diseases 6m years later?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:50pm
Zhumao

What is the probability do you think which you could easily calculate, of that mating producing us today, were it based on nothing but randomness.

Any particular outcome is improbable. It is improbable that I am sitting behind this computer now typing this stuff, and when I was born no one could have actually predicted that I am sitting in this room on this chair, and writing to a guy called ‘Reid’

All very improbable. How the fuck did we get from me been born to this situation now. Calculate that.

Using your argument, I must just be imagining things but as far as I am aware, I actually am here, and my laptop is an Aspire 5741 G laptom with serial number xseasdfasdf. Fuck thats also improbable that i got matched up with this laptop —very fucken improbable.

Heard of the argument of ‘incredulity’ Reid. It does not fly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:52pm
reid

Once you claim that something deleterious to our genome is an instance of design, the onus is on you to demonstrate its design characteristics.

But I’m not saying that, I’m saying that science can’t claim that there is no designer because it doesn’t yet know enough. I’m not claiming there is one.

What kind of sick fuck designs people so that we can die of horrible diseases 6m years later?

Free will.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 5:57pm
Ryan Sproull

Free will.

Silly six-month-old dying of a hole in the heart. YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:05pm
reid

How the fuck did we get from me been born to this situation now. Calculate that.

Zhumao you’re talking micro-design, think macro.

Think of the large directional changes that occurred throughout the universe and our planet and its inhabitants and what bought us here in totality and that’s the question. G-d is not just about us He is about the universe, all its laws, all its history. How it all works, at a sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, inorganic, organic and biological level.

By comparison I thought the “we evolved by mere chance” probability calculation was pretty basic. I read lately China’s got the world fastest and around 7 of the world’s ten fastest supercomputers. Could you book me some time?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:09pm
joana

bka Those views are nationalistic not green. Nationalism is on the rise in every western country , so why the surprise?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:13pm
Zhumao

Zhumao you’re talking micro-design, think macro.

This ‘macro’ ‘micro’ thing is something that I have only heard from fundamentalist christians.

They separate micro from macro evolution because the evidence for evolution of butterflies, small organisms is so overwhelming it is in your fucken face. But to get away from acknowledging evolution of humans etc they say OK there is microevolution, but that is different from macroevolution – they claim macroevolution simply does not happen.

Its just a fundamentalist device to evade the overwhelming truth of blind, merciless Darwininan evolution – not only of microbes, but of human beings.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:16pm
reid

Silly six-month-old dying of a hole in the heart. YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER.

Hard to understand isn’t it that and millions upon millions of other tragedies stretching throughout time. How can a loving G-d permit this?

I suppose one answer is: direct people toward their ideal mating partners. Never let people go hungry. House people. Educate people. Control them so they don’t have their own thoughts.

How else could you solve that? By manipulating physics so that the tumour didn’t grow were the victim innocent?

The point is the free will argument works like a binary. It’s either one way or the other. Either you have it or you don’t. If you do, you have a perfect world but because no-one ever does anything wrong, unexpected or less than perfect in every way all the time, it’s not much fun. Alternately you have our world.

This ‘macro’ ‘micro’ thing is something that I have only heard from fundamentalist christians.

Really? I thought you were quite brainy Zhumao. Personally I first learned about it at Form One. What school did you go to?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:17pm
Zhumao

“There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory. ”

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:20pm
reid

Yes but I’m not critiquing evolutionary theory Zhumao so not sure what the issue is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:29pm
Steve

Chthoniid has upset the Devil Dodgers today
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:32pm
Steve

The only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:35pm
Chthoniid

@reid

Once you claim that something deleterious to our genome is an instance of design, the onus is on you to demonstrate its design characteristics.

But I’m not saying that, I’m saying that science can’t claim that there is no designer because it doesn’t yet know enough. I’m not claiming there is one.

Seriously- all science says is that there is no evidence of a designer and that theist claims that there is a designer are bullshit. There are many ways design could be proved in the human body- the absence of homologies with other primates, the absence of the appendix etc. The evidence points to an evolutionary path.

If you think there is a designer with the properties of morality, omniscience and omnipotence- and one that also designs the human body to ensure that people suffer horrible deaths 6m in the future, then expect your beliefs to be dismissed as nonsense.

What kind of sick fuck designs people so that we can die of horrible diseases 6m years later?

Free will.

There are few theists I give grudging respect to @reid, & you’re no longer in that company.

Genetic diseases are not a choice, they are not an issue of free will. We can’t choose to synthesise Vit C, it’s not a lifestyle choice. People with the genes for diabetes don’t choose to be diabetics. They have it because of a gene change that’s millions of years old. Type 2 diabetes is caused by ancient mutations to the PPARG and SLC2A2 genes, oral and prostate cancer by the GSTP1 and PON1 gene (also gives coronary heart disease).

There is no suspension of the laws of physics required.

There is no conflict with free will as people without defective copies of these genes don’t forgo free will.

People with these genes suffer and can die. I can’t see how you can conjure a loving, omnipotent designer out of this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 6:57pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 6:05 pm,

Free will.

Silly six-month-old dying of a hole in the heart. YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER.

The term “free will” is relevant to both every individual, but ALSO to the original Adam & Eve as the progenitors of the human race. It was Adan & Eve’s free will choice to rebel against God and thereby bring about the Fall of both humanity and the whole creation. So your “six-month-old dying of a hole in the heart” is more a result of Adam & Eve’s free will choice, than anything attributed to the six month old. The same for every other descendant of A & E. I mean physical death is a direct result of the Fall – we all die at some stage; whether at six months with a hole in our heart, or at 101 in our sleep with our heart simply stopping.

So, even if we were to apply your “YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER” principle, it won’t extend our lives one nanosecond – sorry to burst your bubble, Ryan, but we all gotta go sometime.

Of course as ALL human beings inherit the curse from A & E; and hence physical [and spiritual] death, then this reveals WHY Christ had to be born of a virgin – so that He might be free from the curse of the fall. Remember, according to the Bible the curse is passed from father to children; therefore Christ having no human father meant He was a perfect sinless human [of course He was God at the same time; God incarnate]. And thus those who place their faith and trust in His death on the cross are redeemed through His shed blood – the sin of the Fall is washed from us, as well as our own individual sins, and we become NEW creatures in Christ. The Bible says we become the sons [children] of God upon receiving Christ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:02pm
reid

Seriously- all science says is that there is no evidence of a designer.

No it doesn’t. All science is silent on the question because it doesn’t seek to understand that question, it seeks to understand the design.

There are few theists I give grudging respect to @reid, & you’re no longer in that company.

Good to know I was for awhile Chthoniid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:08pm
Kris K

reid 7:08 pm,

Seriously- all science says is that there is no evidence of a designer.

No it doesn’t. All science is silent on the question because it doesn’t seek to understand that question, it seeks to understand the design.

You got it, Reid – “science … seeks to understand the design.”
And by understanding the design we can get some insight into the Designer. In much the same way as studying the blueprints we can gain an insight into the engineer.

And lets be clear, God’s design is much MUCH more complex than anything an engineer could come up with; and yet when confronted with the blueprints we don’t question whether or not the engineer exists. Why is that?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:33pm
Viking2

Just in case you missed it there’s a new blog. At last Redbaiter has gone forth on his own.

http://truebluenz.wordpress.com/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:43pm
Viking2

ACT’s Hillary Calvert Sounds OK
Posted on December 3, 2010 by Redbaiter

This is the lady who came on board to replace David Garret. An excellent press release on the MCA bill-

“ACT New Zealand Maori Affairs Spokesman Hilary Calvert today questioned whether, when labelling opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill as ‘clowns’ and paranoids’, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson was also referring to National list candidate and constitutional law expert Stephen Franks.

“In his submission, Stephen Franks called the Bill ‘unprincipled, dishonest and damaging’ and described it as ‘the translation to law of misleading political slogans’. Does this make him a ‘clown’ or ‘paranoid’?” Ms Calvert said.

“Does Mr Finlayson regard Mr Franks as a ‘clown’ or ‘paranoid’ when he writes that the Bill ‘sets out on a new constitutional course for New Zealand, departing from the promise of equality before the law’?

“Or when Mr Franks says the Bill ‘establishes a poorly defined inherited privilege to give trumping power over resource management decisions of democratically elected local government’? Or when he writes that it ‘deliberately introduces vague and undefined terms, and leaves irresistible incentives for hapu, iwi and citizens to spend years litigating to determine the boundaries of new and undefined privileges, and who may claim entitlement to them’?

“What about when he writes that ‘the mainstream of the Maori Party has made it clear that this Bill is seen as simply a down payment’ and that ‘in those circumstances, there is no point in generous concessions and sacrifices of principle and constitutional barbarisms’?

“Is Mr Franks a ‘clown’ or ‘paranoid’ for writing that the Bill ‘covertly creates a form of exploitation right for iwi and hapu’ and that ‘exploitation of the rights it would grant will foster the naked exercise of political advantage for profit’? Or that the powers given in this Bill ‘will generate continual perceptions (or the reality) of political corruption, especially if the Maori Party hold the balance of power’?

“The Attorney-General is obstinately ignoring the fact that his new foreshore and seabed Bill is deeply flawed, and that it is opposed by Maori and non-Maori alike. Rather than resorting to childishly abusing opponents of this Bill he should simply withdraw it and allow iwi and hapu to have their claims heard in open court,” Ms Calvert said.”
http://truebluenz.wordpress.com/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:45pm
big bruv

“And lets be clear, God’s design is much MUCH more complex than anything an engineer could come up with”

Is there not even a little bit of your tiny brain that stops and thinks about this whole ‘god’ thing every once in a while?

Once again you have been hammered here Kris, poster after poster has torn you to shreds yet you still come back with all this middle eastern superstition rubbish.

Ever think that you may be wrong?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:46pm
Viking2

Copied from Facebook
———————————————————————————-

John Key is my shepherd, I shall not want,

He leadeth me beside still factories and abandoned farms,

He restoreth my doubt in the Te Ngational Party,
…
He annoiteth my wages with tax and inflation and emissions fees,

so expenses runeth over my meagre income.

Surely poverty and hard living shall follow the Te Ngational Party,

And I pray for the dole and live in a rented house forever.

5000 years ago Moses said, pack up your camel, pick up your shovel

and move your arse and I shall lead you to the promised land.

5000 years later, Te Hone Key says, lay down your shovel, sell your

camel and sit on your arse. This is the promised land.

This year, Key will take your shovel, sell your camel, kick your arse

and tell you he has sold the promised land to China.

I am glad I am a Kiwi, and I am free, I wish I was a dog and that Key

was a tree!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:56pm
Viking2

BB some people think McCaw is the best and the Cantab’s are great. Do you?
KK can rest easily.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 7:57pm
big bruv

V2

Very well put, 🙂 it would not surprise me to see KK as a fan of the sheep shaggers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 8:08pm
Hurf Durf

SHOCKING NEWS: FIFA is corrupt. My entire world view has been smashed beyond repair. I am adrift.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 8:08pm
big bruv

Hurf

Ever read “Foul” by Andrew Jennings?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 8:10pm
nickb

Great to see the aussies bowled out on the first day. Hopefully now the poms will rack up 500+ and beat them by an innings…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 8:43pm
Hurf Durf

Nah, BB. I imagine it’s the story of a fat, honest Finnish man who becomes the head of a major sporting body and uses his influence to prevent acts of corruption taking place between members, right?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 8:59pm
big bruv

Ha ha..something like that….

Let’s just say that Mr Jennings is not on Fifa’s Xmas card list.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 9:05pm
Viking2

Have a look at this sucker.

XM25 supergun that shoots round corners goes to US troops in Afghanistan

* Michael Evans
* From: The Australian
* December 03, 2010 9:37AM

XM25 gun

The XM25 gun, which has now been deployed to US units in Afghanistan. Source: AFP

IT IS already being called the most lethal infantry gun ever, capable of hitting an enemy with the help of a laser range-finder even if the target is hiding behind a thick wall.

Now the XM25 weapon, which can launch grenades over a distance of 700m, bursting with pinpoint accuracy over the heads of an enemy, has been deployed to Afghanistan to test its capability against the Taliban.

The “smart” grenade-launcher is no bigger than an ordinary rifle and is simple to fire. The technology is so advanced that a soldier will only have to know roughly where he is supposed to be aiming the sights, and then leave the rest to the gun.

The weapon assesses the range to the target and makes a calculation about the precise grid reference for the fusing to detonate the grenades in the air.

“You get behind something when someone is shooting at you, and that sort of cover has protected people for thousands of years. Now we’re taking that away from the enemy forever,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Lehner, the Pentagon project manager for the XM25 weapon system.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The XM25 has been under development for a decade and is claimed to be 300 times more effective than current infantry weapons.

Colonel Lehner said that the weapon, which has been described as a “game-changer” in Afghanistan and the Taliban’s worst nightmare, has been deployed with special units in the south and east of the country for more than a week. “It’s been actively on patrols and in various combat outposts in areas that are hot,” he said.

The programmable supergun fires 25mm air-bursting shells which have embedded microchips to guide the rounds to the target. “This is the first time we’re putting smart technology into the hands of the individual soldier,” Colonel Lehner said.

Provided the tests prove that the XM25 can do what it says on the manufacturer’s label, the Pentagon plans to buy about 12,500, at a cost of up to $US30,000 each. The semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon, called a “counter-defilade target-engagement system”, has been developed by Heckler & Koch and the American company Alliant Techsystems.

Despite the cost, Richard Jones, the editor of Jane’s Infantry Weapons, said that the alternatives used currently in Afghanistan were far more expensive.

“If you can hit a target with two air-burst grenade rounds from an XM25 you won’t have to expend huge amounts of ammunition from small arms or call in an A10 [tank-busting ground-attack aircraft],” he said.

Current grenade-launchers, including the British version attached under the barrel of an SA80 rifle, require the soldier to make a number of estimates before firing, in the hope that the munitions will land near the target.

With the XM25, if an enemy fighter pops his head up from behind a wall, shoots and then ducks back, an XM25 infantryman will be able to still target him. “This is turning soldiers with average shooting skills into those with phenomenal shooting skills,” Colonel Lehner said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/xm25-supergun-that-shoots-round-corners-goes-to-us-troops-in-afghanistan/story-e6frg8yo-1225964999015
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 9:17pm
Viking2

We have the same issue here. People importing and not paying GST because its under the limit or paid by credit card. Same people frequent the markets and collect cash, not declared.

GST pushes Myer online to China
Eli Greenblat
December 3, 2010 – 4:45PM

Myer is working on an international retailing website that will sell goods to Australian customers, shipping them from a warehouse in Shenzhen in southern China to avoid the GST and make Myer more competitive.

At a business lunch in Melbourne today, Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes said the company was working on the website, which would be up and running in February.

Mr Brookes said the company was creating the new site out of frustration over a lack of action from the federal government over GST-free shopping online.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Retailers, including Harvey Norman’s Gerry Harvey, have called for the current $1000 GST-free threshold to be lowered to curb shoppers buying online from overseas suppliers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 9:41pm
Bryla

V2, absolutely amazing technology from the masters of war. Also amazing is that, given the money, technology, and global dominance of US arms – the US is losing. Mired in a problem they do not comprehend. Leave now, idiots.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 9:58pm
reid

“Leave now, idiots.”

Where would that leave them vis-a-vis terrorism breeding grounds Bryla?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 10:43pm
adze

Have a look at this sucker.

XM25 supergun that shoots round corners goes to US troops in Afghanistan.

Reminds me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 3, 2010 11:29pm
Zhumao

“SHOCKING NEWS: FIFA is corrupt. My entire world view has been smashed beyond repair. I am adrift.”

Absolutely awesome. Russia deserved the World Cup. England only gained two votes. Ha ha. The world is changing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 4, 2010 2:15am
Viking2

Bryla; next time you want to puncture a balloon on a “spy” station they will be waiting woth one. Should be fun for you.

Looks like Helen (communist ) Kelly is still at it.

Law tweaks ‘could hurt trade deal’
By Fran O’Sullivan
5:30 AM Saturday Dec 4, 2010

Top United States union leader Richard Trumka has climbed on The Hobbit bandwagon, claiming that the Government’s decision to amend labour laws to suit Warner Bros could affect American union support for a high-profile trade deal involving the US and New Zealand.

Trumka has also called on the Government to repeal the amendment to allow those workers who “should be properly classified as employees” to enjoy the rights to which they are otherwise entitled under national law.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10691902
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 4, 2010 7:58am
Ryan Sproull

So your “six-month-old dying of a hole in the heart” is more a result of Adam & Eve’s free will choice, than anything attributed to the six month old. The same for every other descendant of A & E.

Justifying the suffering of a baby, when you have the power to prevent it, by pointing to the actions of two people 6000 years earlier is morally abhorrent.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2010 8:40am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 8:40am,

Justifying the suffering of a baby, when you have the power to prevent it, by pointing to the actions of two people 6000 years earlier is morally abhorrent.

No doubt you could also argue that because of “the actions of two people 6000 years” the ENTIRE human race has a death penalty (both physical and spiritual) upon it is EQUALLY “morally abhorrent” – especially “when you have the power to prevent it”. Oh wait, He did provide a solution to this curse/death penalty – He sent His only begontten Son to pay the penalty on our behalf by dieing on the cross. So I guess the ball’s back in our court again, Ryan – back to that hoary old chestnut freewill; accept or reject, obey or disobey.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2010 1:49pm
Ryan Sproull

No doubt you could also argue that because of “the actions of two people 6000 years” the ENTIRE human race has a death penalty (both physical and spiritual) upon it is EQUALLY “morally abhorrent” – especially “when you have the power to prevent it”. Oh wait, He did provide a solution to this curse/death penalty – He sent His only begontten Son to pay the penalty on our behalf by dieing on the cross. So I guess the ball’s back in our court again, Ryan – back to that hoary old chestnut freewill; accept or reject, obey or disobey.

Sorry, what was the solution provided to the six-month-old baby suffering terribly? I missed it in there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2010 1:54pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [December 6th, 2010 at] 1:54 pm,

Sorry, what was the solution provided to the six-month-old baby suffering terribly? I missed it in there.

The solution, Ryan, is that people who have a relationship with the sovereign God, through Christ the Son of God, petition Him through prayer in faith that He might heal the “six-month-old baby”. But whether He chooses to do so, and thereby extend his life, or not, and take him to be with Him, is God’s prerogative.

And I presume you realise, Ryan, that part of the curse wrought on humanity, through A & E, was NOT ONLY death (physical and spiritual), but also sickness, pain, and suffering. Hence my earlier parallel between the situation your “six-month-old baby” finds himself in, and the general situation the whole of humanity finds itself in.

For instance, my mother died ‘earlier’ than she should have at 59 years of cancer, but according to God’s timing this was simply her time to go. At the time I asked Him why she was taken, but this didn’t alter the fact that she would eventually die – just as all of us will. Whether (possibly) at six months old due to a damaged heart, at 59 due to cancer, or at our alotted “three score and ten” (or older) due to simply ‘wearing out’.

I’ve accepted that I will die one day, Ryan, and that at that time I’ll go to be with my heavenly Father. How about you? I have also accepted that death and suffering in the world is a result of the sin of man; and that all of us must go through this thing we call life. I have also accepted that God has provided the permanent “solution” to humanity’s ‘problem’ – and I have received His ‘solution’ and now no longer (need to) fear death.

PS Regarding your “six-month-old baby” – The Bible is clear that all those under the age of accountability (understanding) go directly to be with God in heaven; they are not held to account for their sins. There is no hard and fast rule on this, but I believe that age to be in the region of 4-7 years. And even though I abhor abortion, at least I know that ALL those who are murdered in the womb will not suffer the judgement as will the rest of humanity. So perhaps your concern should be moreso for all those babies who are murdered through abortion, or those children who starve to death due to corrupt dictatorships/regimes – all of which die at the hand of man – rather than picking your one example which YOU attribute to God’s inaction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 10:44am
Ryan Sproull

The solution, Ryan, is that people who have a relationship with the sovereign God, through Christ the Son of God, petition Him through prayer in faith that He might heal the “six-month-old baby”. But whether He chooses to do so, and thereby extend his life, or not, and take him to be with Him, is God’s prerogative.

So you say. But that’s not answering the question. How does that make it okay that God designed humans to have congenital diseases that result in infants suffering terribly (which was Cthoniid’s original question)? Whether or not God may feel like healing the child that day or continuing to allow it to scream into the night, what kind of a being intelligently designs that kind of defect in the first place?

Reid’s answer was, “Free will.” Adam and Eve sinned, and congenital diseases that cause terrible suffering to babies 6000 years later sprang into existence. Even with that, God must have set up the system in the first place so that – if Adam and Eve surprised God by sinning – this would be the result.

“It was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin” doesn’t justify the preventable suffering of the infant by any human notion of justice. Certainly not mine, anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 10:58am
RRM

it does puzzle me sometimes how, for their championing of A Man Is An Island type thinking, the right blogosphere like to presume their own pre-eminence over the whole country and, one assumes, that they consider their opinions are widely representative.

DPF (somewhere to the right of National) calls his writing “Kiwi”blog.

Baiter (somewhere to the right of fascists) calls his writing “True blue New Zealand”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 11:08am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [December 7th, 2010 at] 10:58 am,

How does that make it okay that God designed humans to have congenital diseases …

He didn’t, Adam and Eve were created perfect.

… God must have set up the system in the first place so that – if Adam and Eve surprised God by sinning – this would be the result.

Ah, no. In the same way that if I tell you not to leap off a tall building, but you do so nonetheless, I am not accountable for your demise – you are. Or are you going to blame God for creating gravity?!

“It was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin” doesn’t justify the preventable suffering of the infant by any human notion of justice. Certainly not mine, anyway.

Who are you to say what is and isn’t ‘justifiable’? And why hold God accountable when it was/is man who rejects God’s rules, and yet when it all turns to custard some people have the audacity to turn the finger of blame on God. We need to man-up and take some personal responsibility, and realise that our actions have consequences.

As I said before in my 10:44 am comment:
“And I presume you realise, Ryan, that part of the curse wrought on humanity, through A & E, was NOT ONLY death (physical and spiritual), but also sickness, pain, and suffering. Hence my earlier parallel between the situation your “six-month-old baby” finds himself in, and the general situation the whole of humanity finds itself in.”

Life is full of suffering, Ryan; we all suffer, and we all die. “Whether (possibly) at six months old due to a damaged heart, at 59 due to cancer, or at our alotted “three score and ten” (or older) due to simply ‘wearing out’.”

God HAS provided the solution to the END OF all death and suffering – it’s call Eternal Life and is found in Christ alone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 12:06pm
Chthoniid

See, the basic problem Kris is that you’re not making a substantive argument or addressing the points about preloading an infant with a congenital disease.

You’re simply reciting a list of religious assertions while we’ve been ‘playing by your rules’ and pretending there is a God for argument’s sake. In what way is a 6 month old infant with a congenital defect supposed to man-up and take personal responsibility?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 12:21pm
Lance

FIFA is such a fucking joke.
It’s one thing to favour another nation, it’s another to bald face lie to a country when it comes to lobbying time.
It would be such a laugh if UK told FIFA to fuck off and actually pulled out.

Would render the whole organisation a waste of time, illegitimate so to speak 🙂
Sure Britain don’t win anymore, but they are a major player.

UN and FIFA equal each other for corruption… bah ha ha ha
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 12:32pm
Kris K

Chthoniid 12:21 pm,

See, the basic problem Kris is that you’re not making a substantive argument or addressing the points about preloading an infant with a congenital disease.

And you, like Ryan, are missing the point, Spidy. None of us are ‘preloaded’ (by God), but rather genetic corruption (& death) entered man as a result of him breaking the rules (sin). In the same way as jumping off a tall building and going splat is a result of “breaking the rules”, rather than the fault of the one (God) who established (gravity) the rules.

Why do you accept that there are physical rules which, when we disobey them, have consequences, and yet the minute someone mentions there are similarly spiritual rules, suddenly the consequences for our breaking them are no longer our responsibility? Seems a rather inconsistent stance to me.

Oh yes, God created BOTH physical and spiritual rules, whether you accept it or not. Both involve “choice”, and both have “consequences”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 12:55pm
Chthoniid

Again Kris, you’re not addressing the point.

The argument is about needless suffering, which you base on a vile notion of collective guilt. God takes the non-culpable & inflicts suffering- permits the torture of infants when he could prevent it effortlessly. To extend your spiritual analogy, Adam jumps off a building but a 6 month old infant is dashed to death instead. Hurray God.

When probed as to the justice of this, you retreat, never substantiate. God’s design is alleged to be both obvious and mysterious.

There is nothing attractive or appealing or moralistic about this bronze-age myth you cling to. Your assertions don’t hold up to the physical evidence of the world around us. You offer no evidence, just bronze-age mythology from a world where grim superstition holds sway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 1:21pm
Pete George

Doesn’t make any sense right from the start. God is supposed to have created a perfect man out of nothing, created a perfect woman out of a part of the man, they would have lived perfectly forever, God then told them not to do something which they did (so they weren’t so well designed after all). They suddenly had imperfect genes and would die so now the need to reproduce arose?

Best to stick to the parable approach.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 1:27pm
Ryan Sproull

Ah, no. In the same way that if I tell you not to leap off a tall building, but you do so nonetheless, I am not accountable for your demise – you are. Or are you going to blame God for creating gravity?!

We’re not talking about gravity, though. We’re talking about the extremely painful congenital diseases afflicting infants. Which God created, you say.

Who are you to say what is and isn’t ‘justifiable’? And why hold God accountable when it was/is man who rejects God’s rules, and yet when it all turns to custard some people have the audacity to turn the finger of blame on God. We need to man-up and take some personal responsibility, and realise that our actions have consequences.

I don’t think anyone is personally responsible for the extremely painful congenital diseases afflicting infants. You do. You seem to want to blame Adam and Eve for the suffering of the infant, because they did something that – in the system created by God, which God had full knowledge of – caused the suffering of that infant.

Life is full of suffering, Ryan; we all suffer, and we all die. “Whether (possibly) at six months old due to a damaged heart, at 59 due to cancer, or at our alotted “three score and ten” (or older) due to simply ‘wearing out’.”

God HAS provided the solution to the END OF all death and suffering – it’s call Eternal Life and is found in Christ alone.

And yet that doesn’t seem to stop the many infants around the world suffering from these congenital diseases. Solutions, traditionally, solve things.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 1:33pm
Kris K

Chthoniid 1:21 pm,

Again Kris, you’re not addressing the point.

I am, you just don’t like the answers.

The argument is about needless suffering, which you base on a vile notion of collective guilt. God takes the non-culpable & inflicts suffering- permits the torture of infants when he could prevent it effortlessly. To extend your spiritual analogy, Adam jumps off a building but a 6 month old infant is dashed to death instead. Hurray God.

The whole of life is “needless suffering”. And yes, we are all guilty – ALL have sinned, and ALL have the stain of original sin (disobedience). For God to stop ALL suffering He would have to intervene into human history and do away with ALL sin; if He did that all those still in an unrepentant state (ie without Christ and therefore forgiveness of sin) would be fixed in their sin-state and therefore would be condemned to hell. By God NOT intervening He is actually showing mercy; He is extending the time for those who may come to Him in repentance. The suffering in this life is nothing compared to the suffering Christ rejecters will go through in hell for all eternity. Basically, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

When probed as to the justice of this, you retreat, never substantiate. God’s design is alleged to be both obvious and mysterious.

I have, you’re just not listening. And yes, God’s design is “both obvious and mysterious”. Obvious in that we can ALL perceive it, mysterious (supernatural) in that we can’t fully understand it let alone replicate it.

There is nothing attractive or appealing or moralistic about this bronze-age myth you cling to. Your assertions don’t hold up to the physical evidence of the world around us. You offer no evidence, just bronze-age mythology from a world where grim superstition holds sway.

The evidence is ALL around: Whether it be those who witnessed and recorded the miracles of Christ, the Apostles, and Old Testament saints. Or the obvious Goldielocks conditions throughout the ENTIRE creation – where life and the earth are clearly DESIGNED to be perfectly compatible, and while not as perfect as they once were prior to the biblical fall and flood, they are still “good enough” to keep ticking over. Etc, etc.

If anyone is superstitious it is all those who adhere in blind faith to evolution, and who hide behind their ‘peered reviewed’ lies and falsehoods dressed up as science. And those scientists who dare question evolution, or suggest Intelligent Design based on the evidence alone are regarded as anathema, and find themselves without funding and usually out of a career. No wonder so many scientists with questions in this area keep their mouths shut – luckily some DO ‘come out’.

So you carry on worshipping at the altar of your “False Science” god, Spidy, and continue to quote from your ‘peer reviewed’ scriptures. Sadly for you they will be of no value when you stand before the One true God and are required to give an account of your life. The clock runs out when you shuffle off this mortal coil – best get to it while you still have breath …
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 4:06pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 1:33 pm,

We’re not talking about gravity, though. We’re talking about the extremely painful congenital diseases afflicting infants. Which God created, you say.

Life is painful, Ryan.
And while God created both gravity and humanity, He didn’t create diseases; they are a result of the fall and Adam & Eve’s disobedience.

I don’t think anyone is personally responsible for the extremely painful congenital diseases afflicting infants. You do. You seem to want to blame Adam and Eve for the suffering of the infant, because they did something that – in the system created by God, which God had full knowledge of – caused the suffering of that infant.

It’s called “Free-will”, Ryan – we all have it and we all suffer the consequences for our free-will choices. And inasmuch as we inherit our genetics and sin nature from Adam and Eve then, “Yes”, they are responsible. And while God created A & E, they alone are responsible for their free-will choices. God’s foreknowledge makes Him no more culpable for their choices than if He had not known.

And yet that doesn’t seem to stop the many infants around the world suffering from these congenital diseases. Solutions, traditionally, solve things.

Like I have already said, God has provided the solution – I make no apology for it not fitting into your view of what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.
I have actually addressed this in my 4:06 pm comment to Chthoniid, first paragraph – but I suggest you read the whole comment as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 4:25pm
Ryan Sproull

And while God created both gravity and humanity, He didn’t create diseases; they are a result of the fall and Adam & Eve’s disobedience.

A result of Adam and Eve acting within the universe created by God, with the rules created by God, where consequences are the way God created them. Isn’t that true?

Let’s say I create a machine. It’s a room, and I put two people in it. Every time they tell a lie, the machine tortures a baby on the other side of the world. Do I have no responsibility at all for the way the machine works? Does the fault lie entirely with the liars in the room?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 4:37pm
Chthoniid

@Kris

Asserting that the world is obviously designed isn’t an argument, it’s an article of faith & not valid. If it’s designed there should be something that conforms to design principles. Stating that the world is too complicated is just a confession you don’t understand.

Likewise, any argument that rests on my dying for you to yield actual proof, is a tiresome evasion and abdication of the obligation to provide evidence.

There are no hordes of creationists being banned banished from academia. A good minority of biologists are Xtian (or have other deistic beliefs) and accept the evidence for evolution & their contributions are welcomed- e.g. Francisco Ayala, winner of Templeton prize. Controversial ideas get tested and added into this body of knowledge- e.g. the work of Marguilis on genetic drift, the work by Gould on punctuated equilibrium, the paper by Hoyle questioning the authenticity of the Archeopteryx fossils.

The world is more than 6000 years old. Species do evolve. We have millions of fossils. Evolution has been observed. This is reality.

I don’t worship science. There is no symmetry with your beliefs. I just use reason and evidence to make decisions about what constitutes reality, not the ‘voices in someone’s head’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:00pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 4:37 pm,

Isn’t it interesting, Ryan, that the solution God provided involved both the physical and [PRIMARILY] spiritual suffering of His only begotten Son – He who was without sin. That He died for Adam and Eve (sinners), and for children with congenital heart disease (sinners), and indeed for the entire human race (sinners).

Whether you like it or not, Ryan, we’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, and as such we inherit their sin nature and the consequence of their sin. I’m sorry if you’re uncomfortable with that, but that’s just how it is. Actually, if you were genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of people you would share with them the gospel of Jesus Christ that they might not suffer in the next life for all eternity without Christ. As I said before, the suffering in this life is nothing compared to that which will confront those without Christ in the next. Of course to share the gospel with others you need to be saved yourself – I recommend this as your first step.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:02pm
Kris K

Chthoniid 5:00 pm,

As you obviously think you have all the answers I’ll leave you to meditate upon your own counsel …
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:05pm
RRM

I believe the Pixies at the bottom of my garden will save us all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:07pm
Pete George

the solution God provided involved both the physical and [PRIMARILY] spiritual suffering of His only begotten Son

So he stuffed up the design of his first couple, then took how long to come up with a “solution” that doesn’t seem to have solved anything? Infants are still inflicted by extremely painful congenital diseases two thousand years later.

Blind faith believers like KK are a dying breed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:26pm
wat dabney

“the solution God provided involved both the physical and [PRIMARILY] spiritual suffering of His only begotten Son”

Equally the “solution” provided by this invisible pixie could have been to stand on one leg for two minutes, or whistle the Marseillaises. It could have been a million and one things which didn’t involve any suffering whatsoever.

And yet your mischievous pixie, who seems to have the mentality of a spiteful four year old, chose instead to invent something which involved nails being banged into someone.

Yay pixie!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 5:57pm
Kris K

Laugh it up now, boys, for you likely will never laugh again once your wretched bodies give up the ghost and you start paying for your unforgiven sins for all eternity …

Each one will ONLY have themselves to blame for rejecting God’s ONLY provision for sin. Your destiny is in your hands alone. I wash my hands of your blood.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 6:42pm
wat dabney

Pixie say love me or burn forever.

Bad pixie.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 6:51pm
Chthoniid

I don’t have all the answers Kris. I’m puzzled as to why you would assert there was a literal Adam & Eve when every relevant archaeological and scientific piece of evidence we’ve accumulated contradicts this account.

I cannot see why you would think a loving God- who by most Xtian beliefs could effortlessly prevent some suffering- would choose a world where infants would suffer & die from congenital defects. By this account, there could be a world where there was still man-made catastrophes (wars, famines, Labour governments)- maybe even natural catastrophes (tsunamis). But to opt for a world where infants can suffer and die from a minor switch in base pairs seems unnecessarily cruel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2010 8:48pm
Pete George

Kris accuses others of having all the answers, while he talks as if he is certain that he has all the answers. Certainty based on absolutely no evidence, and seriously lacking in reason and common sense. Ancient hopes, fears and ignorance look strange in the scientific modern world.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 7:23am
Ryan Sproull

Isn’t it interesting, Ryan, that the solution God provided involved both the physical and [PRIMARILY] spiritual suffering of His only begotten Son – He who was without sin. That He died for Adam and Eve (sinners), and for children with congenital heart disease (sinners), and indeed for the entire human race (sinners).

Whether you like it or not, Ryan, we’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, and as such we inherit their sin nature and the consequence of their sin. I’m sorry if you’re uncomfortable with that, but that’s just how it is. Actually, if you were genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of people you would share with them the gospel of Jesus Christ that they might not suffer in the next life for all eternity without Christ. As I said before, the suffering in this life is nothing compared to that which will confront those without Christ in the next. Of course to share the gospel with others you need to be saved yourself – I recommend this as your first step.

I’ll repeat the question, Kris:

Let’s say I create a machine. It’s a room, and I put two people in it. Every time they tell a lie, the machine tortures a baby on the other side of the world. Do I have no responsibility at all for the way the machine works? Does the fault lie entirely with the liars in the room?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:03am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Help

Finlayson answers Coastal Coalition Q+A »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Climate Change: Criminal ecocide
No Right Turn
UN 'integrity'
Not PC
Clarifying the absurdity
Offsetting Behaviour
Howling at the Moon
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Forget this Trump trial
The Standard
Something for the Disinformation Project?
No Minister
7.30pm Live tonight: The Working Group with Arena Williams, Max Harris and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Green energy
Utopia
The trans agenda suffers mortal blow
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Arguing about a moot point.
Kiwipolitico
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz