Moontanman

I think some people are simply born different, either from the very beginning or they are more vulnerable to influences that push them in the direction of lacking any empathy and this can lead to being influenced into acts of depravity. IMHO these people are not different in some profound way but the difference is there and while it might be subtle they can be influenced in the direction of anti social behavior. A very few humans are actually born violently insane and seem to be set off by almost anything. I'm not sure i understand this mind set...

Jesus did not negate the laws of the old testament, I tire of having to tell wide eyed believers what their own holy book says, I also tire of pointing out their holy book is morally corrupt on a scale that is difficult to comprehend if you truly are a moral person, I also tire of pointing out their's is not the only god, goddess, or gods with a holy book and has exactly the same evidence as any other holy book. I tire of pointing out they are worshiping a book written about myths about god instead of god. I tire of morally bankrupt, self righteous, people who think they have to right to judge the moral character of others based on this crock of horse feathers they call religion... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75UeVLbkXeg I have no problem with people believing in a god or gods or a goddess, as long as they understand it's a belief and cannot be used to dictate reality I have no problem it it, in fact i will defend your right to your beliefs. You have every right to believe in your god, you have no right to assert it as reality...

So could invisible dragons, what is your point? A naturalistic cause that doesn't add a unnecessary layer of complexity... such as colliding branes in a multidimensional space... And yet you provide no evidence for the god you believe in that is any better than the evidence of Harry Potter.....

The first video I posted in post #7 explains that quite nicely, of course we could go with your objective morality and kill anyone who disagrees with your bible...

You have been shown evidence that this is a strawman argument yet you ignore it instead of trying to refute it... No, you cannot show out universe is fine tuned for life, in fact since more than 99.9999% of the universe is hostile to life i think it can be said the universe is not fine tuned for life... irreducible complexity is yet another strawman that has been refuted in this thread many times... Do you have any real science to back any of this up? Again, listen to this closely Elshamah, no one but you is saying chance made every thing, only you, this is a strawman argument.... Every time you assert this idea that chance made everything you are showing your own ignorance... The Holy bible, old testament clearly asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded over and under by water... That is an amazing collection of strawmen, do you get points to this constant rant of ignorance? If lightning come from god why is it so easy to prevent it from striking, makes god look awfully weak to me and NO, No one says that lightning striking a pool of goo made life. Elshamah, you are an embarrassment to creationists everywhere, I bet Ken Haim tells jokes about your poor arguments...

All of it...

Yes, please define better in reference to a fish eye lens'...

I think I'm going to ask for a link or something to support that assertion that goldfish can be frozen and revived. I've seen lots of frozen gold fish none of them did anything but rot after thawing...

Agree on objective morality if we are to discuss it? Subjective morality us superior to Objective morality, these videos explain it very well...

What you ask has been done so many times on this forum I suggest you search the forum for threads like that that have been hashed out over and over. Barring that I suggest you watch this video, it explains the things you ask easily and concisely. This is one of an entire series that makes science easy to understand...

Islands of stability is a relative term, they would still be gone in the blink of an eye

rigney, your stance would 't bother me, possibly any of us, if your stance was based in any way on anything but emotional responses to what is basically propaganda... I honestly think you are too smart to be acting this way...

DNA is not information....

Really, only christians? Why do other religions claim the same level of healing? why do atheists under go spontaneous healing at the same rate of christian healers? Why can't John of god or anyone else heal amputees? I thought I did but to be honest i am sure you don't care that they are nonsense... Seriously njaohnt, if you never watch anything else watch this series, yes it's long but it is well supported and shows why the idea that you can't be religious and scientific at the same time is false. I watched yours not watch this series... I do know that a great many "healers" have been tested and all or them, and I do mean all, were found to be charlatans, many of them actually fake the healing, the people who are healed lie and are paid to lie, I've actually seen it myself, people who claim to be healed and a few hours or days later are just as bad off if not worse than they were before. people told not to take their medications and died as a result. At best Faith healers are at best placebo and at worst fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing

All of it, your question is nonsensical, DNA only represents information because we label it as such, in fact it is not information in of it's self any more than the polyester molecule is information... This is so totally dishonest It's difficult to even understand what they are saying. No it does not, in fact all the evidence very clearly points to natural selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality The so called information stored in DNA is a strawman, it's only information because we call it information to make it easy to work with, in fact it is no more information that any other large molecules... We know there was no oxygen at the time of abiogenesis due to the minerals that formed at that time. only minerals that can form in the absence of oxygen formed then and free oxygen is a biological product, oxygen is too reactive to persist for significant periods of time with out a constant source, biology would be that source... Another strawman, the first "cells" did not and could not have been as complex as modern cells are and complexity came about slowly overtime. The idea that a modern cell had to form spontaneously is simply not an issue... There are other ways for the first life to pass down information that does not require DNA. This stuff is easily available if you look some place beside creationist sites. Talk origins is full of this information, take the time to read it... Read this page if you are able to read something that isn't creationist horse feathers, they actually give you links so you can check the information they give you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro God did it is not an absolute statement with no factual support? pot... kettle... black? I defy you to show empirical truth of a designer, all you have is baseless assertions and misinformation presented by creationists who only deny science and provide no evidence of their own...

This is such an outrageous assertion that even though mellowmorgan did a good job of explaining why i feel the need to confirm what he said, mice are not hermaphrodite animals and in fact hermaphroditic mammals are very rare and cannot reproduce with themselves...

The link you provided almost immediately gave misinformation, The summery it's self is very misleadign and asserts false assumptions from the very beginning., if the summery is false what does it say about the rest of the article? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis/ This is simply wrong, we do indeed know that an oxygen rich atmosphere is the result of biological activity. Oxygen is a highly reactive gas, it cannot exist long term in our atmosphere, only biological action can produce it and minerals formed at the time involved were oxygen poor and indicate the atmosphere did not contain oxygen. Answers in genesis is nothing but misinterpretations, fabrications, and out right lies. More from that one article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality'>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality Answers in Genesis simply do not tell the truth, they twist and spin any real information to fit their preconceived notions. They cannot be trusted, simple as that... I will not go through the entire article and point out the mistakes and false assumptions but if you really want information about abiogenesis I suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org not a creationist site that has an agenda they cannot move away from because it's based in dogma not evidence...

I would still like for Beanieb to tell us where his objective morality comes from. Why is human trafficking wrong? Why is might makes right wrong. Where is his objective morality coming from? If you think that morality is objective then you must have a source outside the human experience to obtain that objective morality from, from where does this objective morality come from? So far all he has done is evade this issue by asking about my morality...

Just a common iron nail will work in that context, remove the current the magnetic field disappears...

You dare express doubt in my expertise of bigfooot excrement? My pappy can even tell the individual bigfoot by the smell of his excrement.

Njoahnt, if he could really heal people why is he not employed by a hospital? yes i suffered through the entire mess, it was nonsense all the way through...

Rigney, are you suggesting the medal themselves are worth a huge some of money?

It's commonality is not the issue here njaohnt, the fact remains that people get better, atheists, Hindus, murderers, saints, pagans and, everyone else gets better sometimes. the faith healer is just taking advantage of this. yes, I was totally unimpressed by their lack of real evidence, much of it was hype, misinformation, argument from incredulity, straw man after straw man, and just plain horse feathers, in places even the videos even admitted to not being able to prove their points... The burden of proof is on someone who asserts something as true, not on the people who do not believe him...

If the resistance to heavy metals is acquired by vertebrates i would suggest that cooperation with bacteria that detoxify heavy metals is far more likely. Elephants is a good example of this, they eat things like grass, leaves, tree bark, small limbs and anything else vegetable they can ingest but they can't digest any of it, in fact with out their symbiotic bacteria that actually do the digesting they would starve no matter how much food they ate. Due to the elephants slow reproductive rate i once saw an estimate we that it would take literally billions of generation of elephants have a decent chance evolving the ability to digest their food items. Symbiosis with bacteria is far quicker and cheaper from a genetic stand point. Instead of evolving these traits complex animals use bacteria to do the work for them, termites are another example... with out their gut bacteria they could not eat wood...