Jump to content
The World News Media

Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood


Arauna

Recommended Posts

  • Member
19 hours ago, AlanF said:

then proclaims her righteousness and superior intellect.

I have said no such thing!  I am an ordinary pensioner - to your standards a nincompoop because in your mind all JWs are idiots. ......  the only thing I am better at than you is: I think things through step by step.  This has helped me tremendously in my life.

Nature had tremendous foresight or predictive skills: almost godlike in scope

By coincidence, not only did the male develop perfectly and separately from the female but also developed in perfect compatibility - each with different functions (eggs/sperm and many other differences) which complement each other perfectly; they developed simultaneously and yet separately by chance and were ready for each other at the same time.  Did nature 'plan' to develop both sex organs perfectly at the same time/ because it ‘knew’ what the species needed to survive?  These gaps are too many for logic conclusions – it favors blind belief on the part of evolutionists.

Additionally, if nature “knew ahead of time” how to cut and paste selected bits of DNA from other genera to duplicate the same functions in a different species together with totally new genes – does this not prove that nature has intelligence which can ‘decide” which parts to ‘cut and paste’ or save from one operating system onto another? Are evolutionists not simplifying the process so much that they are like a toddler who can shut his eyes to what he does not want to see?

To me - these coincidences are unexplainable miracles. Some evolutionists do acknowledge they still have NO leads as to how the sexual organs came to develop so perfectly in synchronization – yet function so differently while developing separately. Mathematical logarithms do not explain away the extreme complexity of the biological and chemical processes involved. Logarithms merely try to explain it away by “chance or possibility”  without taking into consideration the extreme complexity of the chemical building blocks themselves. This enlarges the pool of possibilities to “zero”.

If evolution were true: would nature not have selected the easiest way to survive instead of such a complex  way (2 partners) for the species?  Would it not have kept both sexes in one unit for better survival of the species such as found in simpler life forms? When one looks at the numerous different kinds of sex organs and their strange methods of pro-creation in many different species, then one comes to the conclusion that nature was indeed a theoretical God with access to a higher form of intelligence because it got it absolutely right over and over again. The different kinds of sex organs or procreation boggles the mind! And in all of these the parts function perfectly together – unexplained miracles – which defies critical thinking and logic.

Additionally - nature can count..... because half of the chromosomes (23) are in the male and the the female donates 23.... which gives 46.  Are you sure they developed separate by chance?  Lions have 38 in total..... 19 donated by female and 19 donated by male. Again - nature can count.  The sable antelope and the shrimp also has 46 chromosomes - same as humans.

There is a fern with 1440 chromosomes - 720 pairs........ it reproduces by spores.  The diversity in nature is too complex to explain away by "chance" 

The mathematics of hitting the jackpot spot-on over and over so many billions of times in a row seems like something with ‘foresight’ was manipulating the process.  


Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 19.9k
  • Replies 625
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm making a catch-all place for the discussions on these topics that were currently under different topics/subjects. As I move old posts into this new topic, the oldest ones will appear to identify t

On Whether Noah's Flood Is Physically Possible Consider the amount of water needed to flood the entire earth to a depth sufficient to cover the highest mountains. What depth would that be? T

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Don't fall for that apology.

Not to worry. Ever since Dawkins wussed out with the British atheist busses, with placards saying “There probably is no God”—the “probably” because he was jellified of the Truth in Advertising law—I have lost interest in him.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/10/atheists-buses-and-hellfire-buses.html

51 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The mathematics of hitting the jackpot spot-on over and over so many billions of times in a row seems like something with ‘foresight’ was manipulating the process.  

Yes. Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

He would not have said it if it was not a possibility in his mind.

Allowing for a possibility is in no way the same as advocating for it -- which is what you lied about.

Easy to see if you're not completely stupid -- IF pigs could fly, how high could they go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have said no such thing! 

You imply it in almost every post -- especially those where you advocate for Young-Earth Creationism.

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I am an ordinary pensioner - to your standards a nincompoop because in your mind all JWs are idiots. ...... 

Nope. I know plenty who are not. You, on the other hand . . .

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

the only thing I am better at than you is: I think things through step by step.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What you really do is hook your nose onto clips given you by Young-Earth Creationists and, to a lesser extent, the JW leadership, follow them wherever they lead you, and then pretend that you're stepping along by yourself.

Here's proof:

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Nature had tremendous foresight or predictive skills: almost godlike in scope

. . .


Every word of this nonsense was borrowed from Young-Earth Creationists.

And you're too much of a very stupid apostate to accept the fact that your JW leaders have condemned these idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes. Of course.

Nope. This is the fallacy of applying post-priori knowledge to a probabilistic situation, much like calculating the odds against True Tom Harley existing based on genetics. Such bogus calculations result in a near-zero probability that you exist. Yet here you are in all your glory.

Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, AlanF said:

This is the fallacy of applying post-priori knowledge to a probabilistic situation,

Are you sure that you are not committing the fallacy of postulatum pig flyum? 

Bart Ehrman, though I disagree with him on ever so many points, did contribute one gem for the ages: “If you know a Latin phrase and also a perfectly fine English phrase that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin so people will know that you are educated.

You think that by attaching a learned label to something you can explain away nonsense? Here @Araunaand the mathematicians have you, and no wistful wand will wave it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Bart Ehrman, though I disagree with him on ever so many points, did contribute one gem for the ages: “If you know a Latin phrase and also a perfectly fine English phrase that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin so people will know that you are educated.

You're nearly as ignorant as your girlfriend.

"Post-priori" is a common phrase known to most non-Trumpists. Much like its counterpoint "a-priori". And as common as "et cetera".

It means "after the fact".

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You think that by attaching a learned label to something you can explain away nonsense? Here @Araunaand the mathematicians have you, and no wistful wand will wave it away.

Ok, your after-the-fact 'calculation' of probabilities is invalid. Understand?

Now see if you can answer my question: Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

If you think they're valid, then by all means give us a link to a valid presentation of such calculations by your vaunted mathematicians. Summarize them to prove you understand them.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.

If you can't do that, you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You are one strange bird to think that the purpose of life is to win or lose on a here today—gone tomorrow internet thread perhaps read by 20 people.

It means you lose the probability argument, moron.

Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, AlanF said:

It means you lose the probability argument, moron.

Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

I lost nothing. I asked my mathematician friend, “What are the chances of life originating spontaneously?”

”Greater than that of all the atoms in the known universe,” he said.

I then followed up: “What are chances that Alan will leave his infantile personality behind and respond to disagreement like an adult?”

”Let’s take another look at that evolution question,” he said. “Maybe I was a little hasty,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, AlanF said:

means you lose the probability argument, moron.

You just don't get it....... do you?  And don't bother with more cursed name calling....... it rolls off our backs.  Cursing others is not a valid rebuttal........ lol.  You sound very desperate when you call us names

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Just now, Arauna said:

You just don't get it....... do you?  And don't bother with more cursed name calling....... it rolls off our backs.  Cursing others is not a valid rebuttal........ lol.  You sound very desperate when you call us names

The guy is a piece of work. Sometimes I fear his cherished evolution is true and that he is the final product. In that event, the end of all things will come far quicker than by any of the scenarios you have floated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.