Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: whereislogic

And with all those people telling you that you dont understand the science involved and it still doesnt occur to you to look into facts? Maybe just maybe a slight effort to dispute facts. All you have done in convinced everyone in the thread you hve a basicunderstanding of science. Heres an idea produce some evidence to support your hypothesis that god created all the animals and plants. Im willingto look at any evidence youmay have.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: whereislogic

hahaha. great compilation. You can't scrutinize evolution without being deemed scientifically illiterate by the dogmatists. Evolution lies in overcomplicating vague evidence. Lucy was about 3.5 feet tall with 40% of her skeleton, and following the logic of the infallibility of evolution, this must be a missing link!

I dare anyone to carbon-date a supposed Australopithecus, but then that might, you know, totally ruin the story.

Over scrutinizing???????????? When have you ever scrutinized the science of biological evolution? Never. You make it up as you go along.

I challenge you once again, for the 100th time, to select one or several papers amongst the thousands that have been published in recognized journals and tell us why the methods and results were wrong.

You won't do it.

I'm very tempted to create a thread just for unanswered questions posed by members of this board. I'll request to make it a sticky so that anyone who doesn't get their question answered can post to it. The usual suspects who never answer questions will be on a list with the number of questions they have never answered.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

And with all those people telling you that you dont understand the science involved and it still doesnt occur to you to look into facts? Maybe just maybe a slight effort to dispute facts. All you have done in convinced everyone in the thread you hve a basicunderstanding of science.Heres an idea produce some evidence to support your hypothesis that god created all the animals and plants. Im willingto look at any evidence youmay have.

Whoislogic may be the first one my new list. See my answer to Cooperton above.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Akragon

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

... And talking about "nothing", how about the silent agreement with this behaviour:
Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something
Especially when Stephen Hawking is doing it as explained below starting at 16:10.

Regarding the video with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, you can spot appeals to pride including reverse appeals to pride that play "on our fear of seeming stupid" (naive) in the phrases and contrast put between "a sophisticated phyicist" and "a naive person" (by Richard Dawkins) and the phrase "in physics" by Lawrence Krauss towards the end of the video (debate) linked above.

The article in my signature doesn't bite, it's actually rather useful to check it out every now and then to see where and how you can apply the questions and other advice given on the 2nd page in relation to the information shared on the first page. Repetition being just as effective when it comes to education as when it comes to propaganda. You could even refer to it as braintraining (with what is healthy for your mind) as opposed to brainwashing (with mental poison, see signature and text under my name, or the entire context in the article). Just keep in mind that propagandists and opposers of education (especially about propaganda) like to paint braintraining as brainwashing and vice versa (see Isaiah 5:20,21).

Education: Insight, Volume 1

The imparting or acquisition of knowledge and skill. Education is accomplished through (1) explanation and repetition; (2) discipline, training administered in love (Pr 1:7; Heb 12:5, 6); (3) personal observation (Ps 19:1-3; Ec 1:12-14); (4) reproof and rebuke (Ps 141:5; Pr 9:8; 17:10).
...

originally posted by: Phantom423

I challenge you once again, for the 100th time, to select one or several papers amongst the thousands that have been published in recognized journals and tell us why the methods and results were wrong.

You won't do it.

As if you've read a fraction of any of those papers. But whatever, pick the article that you think is most compelling, and I will tell you why it does not prove evolution.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic
Heres an idea produce some evidence to support your hypothesis that god created all the animals and plants. Im willingto look at any evidence youmay have.

I'm not interested in hypotheses. Regarding the evidence for a designer or designers of the biomolecular machinery and systems of technology that make up life (or living organisms) as well as the argument of induction or the conclusions by inductive reasoning that some people have drawn from experiments and observations in biology I refer back to the video I shared on page 48 that some people don't want to watch or respond to in detail (regarding some crucial points and not cherrypicking something to pound on that is not even that relevant to the essentials of the argument of induction) called "Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto". And in particular the timeframes I pointed to in that comment regarding inductive reasoning. First comment, top of the page. You may also want to read the comment that makes mention of the following method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths. A methodology that later became referred to as "modern science" (back then they used different terminologies such as natural philosophy and experimental philosophy):

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.” - Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Incidentally, the video with Michael Behe's presentation also discusses the topic of this thread. One may want to have a look at what he's saying rather than thinking about the straw man version that is responded to by Kenneth Miller with the tie clip argument and the type 3 secretion system when he and others claim they've refuted Behe's arguments (with more "wishful speculations", or most likely-so stories, maybe-so stories and "just-so stories", quoting Franklin M. Harold and Michael Behe respectively, full quotation in that presentation at the timeframes earlier indicated on page 48; which can't even be classified as hypotheses anymore according to the definition of at least 1 dictionary of scientific terminologies that I've seen).

Oh and here's the context of the evidence (as well as more pieces of evidence), jumping right in with the results from experiments and observations in biology, the facts (things that are absolute/factual/certain/correct, without error/true/conclusive/definitive) as they have been observed and analyzed, then depicted in a form that is more easily visible without the assistance of microscopes and such (allthough images from those are used as well in the videos):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to philosophies and stories

Regarding Newton's rule I, remember that "true" is a synonym for "absolute/certain/correct, without error/conclusive/factual". You might get an idea how I feel about phrases such as "most likely", "suggest(s) that....", etc. As cited earlier in this thread. As well as how I feel about convenient selective agnosticism (or ignorance, feigned or deliberate).

In light of the selection of videos in the playlist linked above, in particular the first 30 videos or so, you may also want to have another look at point 3 regarding education in my last comment.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I challenge you once again, for the 100th time, to select one or several papers amongst the thousands that have been published in recognized journals and tell us why the methods and results were wrong.

You won't do it.

As if you've read a fraction of any of those papers. But whatever, pick the article that you think is most compelling, and I will tell you why it does not prove evolution.

So you don't think I've read those papers. You're full of you-know-what. Whatever I discuss on this board I do the preparation and follow up work which means reading the papers. Would you like me to upload my library? I would be more than happy to do it - if you agree to select ONE of those papers and tell me why the methods and results are wrong.

Yes, I will pick an article - one from my library and upload it. And don't disappear into the aether like you usually do. I'm holding you to the offer you have made.

BTW, it's the entirety of biological evolution research that proves evolution as the best solution to the question of change. One or several papers on the topic support biological evolution. This is something a scientist would know - which you are not.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I challenge you once again, for the 100th time, to select one or several papers amongst the thousands that have been published in recognized journals and tell us why the methods and results were wrong.

You won't do it.

As if you've read a fraction of any of those papers. But whatever, pick the article that you think is most compelling, and I will tell you why it does not prove evolution.

How did variable NK-cell receptors and MHC class I ligands influence immunity, reproduction and human evolution?

Preface Natural killer (NK) cells have roles in immunity and reproduction that are controlled by variable receptors that recognize MHC class I molecules. The variable NK cell receptors found in humans are specific to simian primates, where they have progressively co-evolved with MHC class I molecules. The emergence of MHC-C in hominids drove the evolution of a system of MHC-C receptors that is most elaborate in chimpanzees. In contrast, the human system appears to have been subject to different and competing selection pressures that have acted on its immunological and reproductive functions. We suggest that this compromise facilitated development of the bigger brains that enabled archaic and modern humans to migrate out-of-Africa and populate other continents.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And just in case you don't know because you're not a scientist, to verify the content of the paper you must refer to all the references. These are cited above and to the right of a particular topic.

Your job, since you chose to accept it, is to read the paper, analyze their results and tell us why the research does not support human evolution. Again, that means also going to the references because science is built on prior research. That research can be right or wrong or challenged in any way as long as there is sufficient evidence to support someone's case.

And that means you must provide evidence for anything that you don't agree with. Whatever you don't agree with in the paper must be met with opposing evidence that can be repeated by any scientist.

Good luck.

a reply to: cooperton

Thank you coopteron for your response. You bring out some interesting thoughts. Allow me to respond and hop around a bit in the interest of logic.

Not sure what you guys are looking for in terms of proof.

See, this is where is goes of the rails. There is something called scientific method. For this reason hypothesis are published in peer reviewed papers. Anyone who wishes to repeat the test but does not get the same results, can contest and logically demonstrate why a certain hypothesis is to be rejected. The onus is on the person who makes a claim in the first place. I would certainly recommend you to read up on the scientific method.

The amazing nature of the human body? The perfect habitable equilibrium of our solar system?

You are making these statements and I totally agree with your sentiment here. Every time I sit here with a glass of wine in my hand, watching the day give way to the night, I am deeply filled with wonder. When I work out, when I make love to my girl ... Yeah ... amazing! The amount of chemicals that race through our body ... getting high on your own natively produced drugs!

The countless testimony of people's experience of spiritual euphoria and an all-loving presence?

I have personally experienced what you describe as spiritual euphoria and an all-loving presence. And it is a wonderful feeling. It is proof. But of what? That we are subject to chemicals? That we are able to convince ourselves of what we go through? I do agree there is more to this than meets the eye. Do you see what I mean. You postulate it as proof of what you want it to be.

Our ability to express emotions and love?

And what does that proof. That there is a god of some nature, where you get to describe that nature? What does that proof other than that you have a bright imagination? Which in and by itself is a beautiful thing. All that our ability shows, is that the higher in consciousness a being is, the more it is capable of expression. Compare a worm with a dolphin and you see what I mean.
While we are at it, even among us humans, there are vast differences in capability of expressing emotion, of receiving and giving the catch all phrase love. Some of it has to do with our experience, others with our brain and chemical functions. So, ability to express emotions, is not proof of gods existence having created the universe, though I think it does proof how devine one can feel from time to time.

The perfect habitable equilibrium of our solar system?

I am not so sure I agree with you. There is not an equilibrium but a cycle that can produce quite extreme situations and conditions. And it is exactly these cycles that influence natural selection and thus over time evolution. On top we have to add, that astronomy and geology add to our knowledge by giving us insight in ELE for instance. ELE stands for extinction level event.

At a certain interval in time, asteroids visit our plant. The last time this happened as a close call was 1910 in Russia. Impact craters of vaster size are easily discoverable. One such event is considered the reason why dino's went extinct, giving rise and space to smaller and other creatures that were better suited to survive in the ensuing environment. S h i t happens, yes, and this is one such example. Goldilocks alone are not gospel and tell only part of the story. ( see 12 ANGRY MEN)

There are people who died for their belief in God.

I am sure many indeed have, and we have not seen the last one.
But let me ask you this: A mohammedan suicide attacker, shouting Allah Akbar, totally convinced he is executing the will of God, is proof of what exactly? That God exists? Or that some people are quite prone to crazy ideas ( see Gervais movie: the invention of lying, very funny and it raises consciousness) and that we as humans are open to be convinced (sic) or convince ourselves of anything? We are able to hold two opposing views at the same time (I know cause massive trauma, but it can be done)!

What would suffice as evidence for God?

it is far from me telling you what to bring to the table to proof anything. The onus is on the person who makes the claim.

When you have ever considered the difference between the objects we use in our day to day life and those of somebody from the Rome in the 1st century, the world we live in is completely alien to them.
A box that talks? cars? internet? airplanes? soda pop? Nuked food? Glasses, laser, and what about them weapons! The list is long. We would be not only be perceived as alien but as magical. ( see cargo cult 1944/1945 for a contemporary example)
Understand that depending on the disposition of a people, they may not only consider our society as alien, magical but as divine, and may consider you as a god.

The difference between technologically advanced and magic is indistinguishable. With this in mind, reponder the miracles in the bible and approach it from a Star Trek next Generation point of view. You do now see where this goes. Allowing a blade to float on water .... I mean we are not far away from achieving such a feat ourselves. And with regards to changing water in wine. ( see Mind f u c k . This is a TV series of a guy who does all kinds of tricks)

Around the world, there are traces of what look like figures with space suits. The ancient stories of flying machines (vimana's ) and arrows with the power of a thousand suns, that burn everything, cook the water and peel of the skin.

Does written history from various cultures suffice?

No, because what it proofs is that around the world people have been arguing from nescience or not knowing, instead of knowing. To a degree we still do, but we use what we do know. While confronted with the big questions, how can you answer for the things that happen, both the good as well as the bad? You postulate to make sense of things. So, in some cultures, what was once considered forces of some sort, became symbols, were anthromorphized, you name it. This, is a very interesting subject in and of itself. I would very much encourage you to read: Gerald Massey's "Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World". It gives you very much an idea of what this process is.

What if God came incarnate, not as a Father figure, but as a Brother, to unambiguously tell us the Truth, and conquered death as a sign to demonstrate his power and authenticity? What if he also fulfilled prophecy from cultures across the globe from thousands of years prior to his coming?

These are hypothetical questions and if you want to scientifically proof that this has actually happened, by all means go ahead. But do not be surprised if by some miracle, you will find even more ancient texts to have spelled out this story several times (the world's 12 crucified saviors )

At any rate, the scientific method is very cruel and harsh. I would add though, that at the bottom of this process you will find fact.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your job, since you chose to accept it, is to read the paper, analyze their results and tell us why the research does not support human evolution.

This is a theoretical paper that assumes evolution is true. I see no proof, just the assumption that "evolution did it".

My initial question is how could adaptive immunity be so meticulously wired as to not target bodily process? How does it so intelligently target specific threats, and more importantly, how could this mechanism ever have evolved through piece-by-piece mutation?

You, having the burden of proof, must put forth a complete mechanism as to how random mutation could have created the complex mechanism of adaptive immunity. Otherwise, spontaneous Creation through intelligent forces would have been much more capable of making such a complex, intuitive immune system.

originally posted by: Yvhmer
a reply to: cooperton
But let me ask you this: A mohammedan suicide attacker, shouting Allah Akbar, totally convinced he is executing the will of God, is proof of what exactly? That God exists? Or that some people are quite prone to crazy ideas ( see Gervais movie: the invention of lying, very funny and it raises consciousness) and that we as humans are open to be convinced (sic) or convince ourselves of anything? We are able to hold two opposing views at the same time (I know cause massive trauma, but it can be done)!

I appreciate the level-headed amicable response. Yet this segment above demonstrates the humans ability to convince themselves of anything, certainly. You have people saying God wants me to go to war, God wants me to spread peace, God doesn't exist and we are descendants of mutant apes, etc. Since we can convince ourselves of essentially anything, there must be a better way to judge what is right. A somewhat cryptic saying that is seldom discussed in the Bible:

"Wisdom is proved right by her children"

In other words, authentic and true ideas are proved right by what they yield or produce.

1) What does evolution yield? Meaninglessness, survival of the fittest, etc. Surely this is a dead end, and could result in no betterment of the cooperation of humankind, but rather, justifies genocide, elitism, and eugenics.

2) What does ignorance of an all-loving God yield? Violence, for many justify their selfish motives by twisting and fraudulently claiming to be acting according to the most high God. Examples include those who kill others for supposedly the most high God. Surely they are twisted because violence is not the fruit of an all-loving force. Surely this yields only death, destruction, elitism, etc.

3) What does adherence to altruistic, turn-the-other-cheek attitude bring? Peace, prosperity and mutual cooperation. If the ideals of Jesus were to be perpetuated, we would enter a service-based selfless golden age (Acts 4:32). For this reason, the wisdom of Jesus is authentic, due to the fruits that it yields. This is how we are told to recognize true children of God - by their fruits.

the scientific method...

We have been given answers by scientific method but we simply do not believe them. Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter. This simple experiment demonstrates that we as the conscious observer are integral to the physical reality of this world. Surely, if matter is naught without the observer, matter could not have given rise to the observer. For more info, research the copenhagen interpretation, the double slit experiment, and any of the big hitters in quantum physics.

a reply to: cooperton

Your reply really does demonstrate that you do not understand science (despite saying you hold degrees in it). You anthropomorphize a theory in science (Evolution). You assume your all loving God (who is not demonstrated in your Bible) is the only answer, and you quote the bible.

Go home cooperton, you are being a Zealot.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your job, since you chose to accept it, is to read the paper, analyze their results and tell us why the research does not support human evolution.

This is a theoretical paper that assumes evolution is true. I see no proof, just the assumption that "evolution did it".

My initial question is how could adaptive immunity be so meticulously wired as to not target bodily process? How does it so intelligently target specific threats, and more importantly, how could this mechanism ever have evolved through piece-by-piece mutation?

You, having the burden of proof, must put forth a complete mechanism as to how random mutation could have created the complex mechanism of adaptive immunity. Otherwise, spontaneous Creation through intelligent forces would have been much more capable of making such a complex, intuitive immune system.

I suspect you knew your answer before you even looked at the paper. Phony baloney once again.

I told you to look at the references. You didn't open them because you didn't have time to open them. This is a very long paper explaining the mechanics of a system.

Either address the paper as it is with the references, with the experimental data and the conclusions or admit that you do not have the ability to do it.

And I don't have the burden of proof. You said you would review any paper I posted and describe why evolution isn't true. I told you that the term "proof" is the sum total of all research and that "support" for the concept is defined by the thousands of papers that have been researched and published.

Once again, you ignore the vitals. You swing from the rafters in the hope that someone is going to buy your crap.

So either do what you said you were going to do or admit that you're not up to it.

a reply to: cooperton

I see from your response that the science part is now closed? And we are now heading into moral territory? Very well! I will play along.

Indeed, the bible does say that about wisdom.

1) What does evolution yield? Meaninglessness, survival of the fittest, etc. Surely this is a dead end, and could result in no betterment of the cooperation of humankind, but rather, justifies genocide, elitism, and eugenics.

Really? Allow me to say that the theory of evolution by natural selection has come into being in the mid 19th century. Have you actually read Darwin's expose? If not, I would highly recommend you to do so. You will like his complete sense of wonder! Before that we had only the hypothesis that the Gods or God had done it.
Were there elites? Why yes. Please read the Talmud and tell me if that is not breading elitism, racism, a dead end as you say. Or do you think that only your version of Christendom is valid? Was there aristocracy? Yes. War? Yes. I am afraid that pig don't fly.

Natural selection is a natural process by which over many thousands of years slight differences can lead to a new species. Note please, which processes Darwin himself attributed to supporting this process and, in my view, conveys also his sense of wonder:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Meaningless? I already mentioned briefly in my response to your equilibrium statement, how this death thing can come about. Do you read in here a license to just kill everything? Or do you read: we are all connected?

How does a woman in essence chooses a mate? What makes a man tick when chosing a mate? In essence, signs that spell perfect for procreation. This is not genocide, this is the most natural thing to do. This is how we are wired. There are some people who get their freak on by IQ and others by the lack there off. But I guess these are actually symptoms of an over civilized society in which the struggle for scarce natural resources is eradicated.

And indeed, you and I cannot stand at the same place on this earth. Were I stand you will have to yield. And were you stand, I will have to yield. Subsequently, voluntary cooperation may yield more for the both of us. So, what do we do? kill each other? of course not, we seek a trade off. This can lead to symbiotic life, also a common phenomenon in nature. Knowledge of natural processes do not give rise to eugenics or genocide. On the contrary.

I do, however, acknowledge that the idea has been coopted and abused for political purposes. With this in mind, I separate two things: Within the Nazi ideology, there was no problem with other races per se, as long as they kept to their own races. That has been in general a view for hundreds of years. Even at the craddle of the US.

The races, if you will, that posed a problem were Jews given Germany's history. The Jewish question in Europe has been a question since the Roman era, and in each time and country that question was differently answered (Russia, Ukraine/ Poland, Germany, etc), Now, we can argue a long time why this was, I think it suffices to mention that the basic idea was to keep to your own race and not water it down.
Simply consider the fact that the Protestants / Calvinists of Europe financed by some Jews from Spain were deeply embroiled together with the catholic Iberians in slave trade. Not the least using the bible to support their work.

What does ignorance of an all-loving God yield? Violence,

Granted. violence is abound. And can be found in all kinds of denominations. But the question is whether your bible does indeed support such a notion. Genesis 3 clearly states that after eating Adam and Eve did not have to die, were it not for Gods deliberate act to cut off the access to replenishing food by violence. Failing to have that, death set in. Genesis 11 states that God was afraid that mankind would be successful in everything, so he confused languages. Cooperation, peace changed to chaos and war.
So, you contention here is quite debatable.

What does adherence to altruistic, turn-the-other-cheek attitude bring?

I guess we should ask those who adhered to such notions and lost their lives or were sold as sexslaves in Syria. As for me, I consider anyone who is bent to deprive me or my people from life, limbs or goods to be a mortal enemy. So we either trade to each others advantage or not. In the latter case death is the consequence. And then there is hopping that my aim is better. In nature there is no altruism. There is always a trade off. Absence a trade off, and heavenly unproven eternal life is no trade off, altruism will get you killed.

We have been given answers by scientific method but we simply do not believe them. Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter. This simple experiment demonstrates that we as the conscious observer are integral to the physical reality of this world. Surely, if matter is naught without the observer, matter could not have given rise to the observer. For more info, research the copenhagen interpretation, the double slit experiment, and any of the big hitters in quantum physics.

I am aware of these experiments. But they are not as you say: photons exists in superposition, both wave and particle. What they appear to be DOING depends on the observer. So, although you make reference of a very interesting experiment, both your allusion as well as your conclusion are off the mark. Sorry.

So, that leaves us where? By the question that has brought humans to postulate a power struggle between good and evil because of the lack of knowledge of the natural order. God is clearly a human construct. Neither our next of kin (chimps and Bonobo's) or other high conscious beings like dolphins, sharks and Orca's have this particular need. Everything God is slanted with human bias. It explains nothing but does help to accept the things we have not yet been able to explain.

a reply to: Phantom423

Conformation bias is a wonderful thing It has allowed people to seem smart for centuries.

a reply to: Noinden

Unbelievable. And then he expects everyone to accept his fallacious position. He posted his response about 1.25 hours after I posted. That paper would take a professional several hours of serious reading plus reviewing the references.

The guy is a phony and a fraud. End of story.

a reply to: cooperton

In the bible the wealth of the nation of Israel was predicated upon their obedience to the Law. Disaster was considered a curse due to disobedience ( see Jobs lamenting for instance)

If that is the case: explain why the nothern Kingdom of the 10 tribes was filthy rich and the 2 tribe Judean kingdom dirt poor? The north were Calf worshippers in Dan and Bethel and not Jerusalem. See, when you start out with a presupposition, and the facts are not according to that, there are two options:
1. You can accept rejecting the presupposition
2. You can scheme to take the other guy's goods.

By the way, this notion of the god of the tribe giving bountiful harvests and stuff, is a worldwide thingy. And never ever made sense. But what can you do when you have no other explanation .....
See... arguing from nescience.

a reply to: cooperton

Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter. This simple experiment demonstrates that we as the conscious observer are integral to the physical reality of this world.

I want to know what book or publication you got that information from.

You're so deep in lies and fraud that you can't see the light.

I'm sure you'll be very relieved to hear that I, for one, will NEVER respond to your posts again. To me, you are persona non grata. You're an embarrassment even to your own crackpot community.

a reply to: Phantom423

I am pretty sure if he read anything it was the abstract, then the conclusion, and that was it. Even then, no understanding was shown.

Lmao!!

Thanks guys, you've given me lots to read at work