Instead of pushing those useless "invitations" upon people, why not actually do something good for the community for once?
Knowsnothing
JoinedPosts by Knowsnothing
-
17
I Quit Preaching The "Door To Door and Tract Work" No Time For March 2012.
by Creep Side Congregation inwhy i have stopped preaching door to door, inactive now for march 2012!.
i can't participate in the door to door ministry anymore, how can i guarantee my bible studies won't experience the "dark side"?
are we providing a spiritually safe environment for new believers, free of sex offenders, thieves, gossiping bitter old women and "rock throwing hypocrites"?
-
-
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
I also found this article to be pretty interesting. Bad Designs?
Bad Design in the Human Eye?
The vertebrate eye is quite an exceptional organ in terms of its function. Light passes through the cornea, then through the lens where it is focused on the retina, which contains the photoreceptors (rods and cones) for detecting this light (see diagram to right). Each rod and cone that receives light fires a signal to the neural apparatus, which transmits the signal to the optic nerve, which goes to the brain for processing. The brain does some fancy processing, including inverting the image and interpreting what is seen (this is a whole other story that cannot be covered here).The invertebrate eye is much simpler and is quite different, especially in the design of its retina. The invertebrate retina is composed of the photoreceptors, which face the incoming light, followed by the neural layer, and the underlying layers that supply nutrients and oxygen through a capillary bed. However, the vertebrate retina is said to be "inverted," since the neural layers face the light and the photoreceptor cells actually face away from the incident light. Evolutionists say that this arrangement was the result of improvised evolution in which obvious errors in "design" were accommodated through successive mutational alterations to make the apparatus work in a functional manner. According to Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of evolution:
"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called �blind spot�) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don�t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago." 4
Dawkins doesn't know why the vertebrate retina is designed this way because he doesn't really understand how the eye works. In fact, the retina is designed with slightly suboptimal light gathering abilities so that it will be functional for at least several decades. If it were designed according to Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer," it would not work at all, as we shall see.
First, we need a short introduction to the physics of light. The electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the sun is composed of many different wavelengths, a small percentage of which are visible to our eyes (370-730 nanometers). The near-visible wavelengths include the longer wavelengths (infrared) and the shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet). The amount of energy within each wavelength is inversely proportional to the wavelength. Therefore, electromagnetic energy that consists of shorter wavelengths (e.g., ultraviolet light) is more energetic.
Neural
LayerRods and
ConesRPE
ChoroidClick on animation to enlarge
(444 KB)Although the visual apparatus cannot detect the high energy wavelengths, it is still affected by them, since the entire system is exposed to the full spectrum. In contrast, the rest of the body is protected from high energy light by pigment (melanin) in the skin. Even so, a lifetime exposure of the skin cells to this light can result in DNA damage, which may lead to the development of cancers. The eye contains a special layer of cells, the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE), which has complex mechanisms for dealing with toxic molecules and free radicals produced by the action of light. Specific enzymes such as the superoxide dismutases, catalases, and peroxidases are present to eliminate potentially harmful molecules such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. Antioxidants such as a-tocopherol (vitamin E) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) are available to reduce oxidative damage.
Because of continuous damage caused by light, the discs (along with the photopigments) of the photoreceptor cells are continuously replaced by the RPE. 5, 6 If this were not the case, the photoreceptors would quickly accumulate fatal defects that would prohibit their function. In addition, the RPE cells contain the pigment melanin, which absorbs stray and scattered light to improve visual acuity. The RPE is in contact with the choroid layer, which contains a very large capillary bed, which has the largest blood flow per gram of any tissue in the body. Why is the blood flow so high in the choroid? Since the RPE and photoreceptor cells are in constant regeneration, they require a high rate of exchange of oxygen and nutrients. In addition, it appears that the high rate of blood flow is required to remove heat from the retina to prevent damage resulting from focused light (the old magnifying glass in the Sun phenomenon). 7
So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go? If it were between the neural layer and the choroid, it would be too far away from the photoreceptors to constantly regenerate them. In addition, this design would put another layer between the photoreceptors and their blood supply, reducing the exchange of oxygen and nutrients, and minimizing the effectiveness of the choroid in removing heat from the receptors. Dawkins' idea of "good" evolution would prevent the photoreceptors from being regenerated and would likely lead to heat damage. Such a design would certainly fail within the first year of use. It's a good thing that God does not design the way evolutionists would!
More information on the design of the eye can be found at the links below. 8-10
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
They no longer accept such a pass.
So, there are no scientific axioms? I'm seriously not against progress. I'm just saying there is eventually an end, unless matter is infinite, which would be mind blowing.
-
-
-
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is."
Really? Who are these 'all' you speak of? Generally the real end is the idea that this is just the way god made it. As Cofty already pointed out, a brilliant mind like Newton's was stopped and simply decided this was just the way god did it. Had he pushed passed such a notion, perhaps he would have come up with something valuable there too. So much knowledge stops when the god factor goes up. But does a scientist today say 'that's just the way it is'? I hope not.
There are axioms upon which we build our arguments. It's just that simple. As we regress further and further, like a child that asks "why, why, why?" we eventually reach an end point.
Take matter, for instance. I'm almost certain that while we might not have discovered the smallest particle in existence, it's there. We have atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, and then quirks. I think there is one more step after that, but imagine there is more? And yet, I doubt matter is infinitely regressible.
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
So there you have it - Flew giving whole-hearted support to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Ugg, I wonder if he was aware of disfellowshipping and blood transfusions. So, what is he accepting here, paradise earth or knocking on doors?
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
Suppose your argument is correct. You can replace "designer" with "the fundamental law of the universe" and your speculation applies equally well. On the other hand, a "fundamental law of the universe" need not have (for instance) a son or emotions like God has (and which is rather strange, how can God have emotions without a brain? How can God have a son without a body?), so it is a simpler hypothesis. Why should i then choose God?
Why is there a fundamental law of the universe? "That's just the way it is."
Precisely because the universe contain matter in a non-trivial (ie. non-equilibrium) configuration. You can ask why that is so, and modern cosmology can give you the answer: the universe underwent inflation some 13.7 billion years ago. You can argue that God pulled in the universe and caused it to inflate, but that is another mystery -- why there is information is an answered question.
There seems to be a giant leap from "universal information" (if you want to call it that) to "DNA information."
And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?
I dont think anyone argue that...
No, but doesn't it seem strange to you that it needs decoding? Why does DNA decode?
The big bang theory is not the theory that there once was nothing and then something. It is a theory which describe the very early stages of the universe, nothing else.
If you assume "absolutely nothing", our language simply stop working in terms of making any explanations. To me your argument boil down to this:
Atheists cannot explain why the universe exist without assuming something. Assuming something allways existed is "bad" or "unacceptable" when atheists do it.
I can explain why something exist if i assume something allways existed. It is not "bad" or "unacceptable" when i assume something allways existed.
Point taken.
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point.
Why?
Why the exact laws of physics, for example? Perhaps for me it is difficult to see that the universe simply has these laws? Especially from a random explosion.
the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.
Why not?
Because, as far as we know, there was nothing and then there was something. Unless you want to get into m-theory, which is really theoretical, abstract, and so far has no concrete evidence. So, matter simply came with these properties (point of melting, chemical reactions, gravitational pull, etc.?)
-
49
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing inhttp://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.
british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.
however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.
-
-
Knowsnothing
Well betsy, no one can really claim to KNOW anything. We are always learning and I am certainly open to learn more. If you easily knock down my arguments, fine. It benefits all. It benefits me in that I can start to see the flaws in my logic. It is placed on an open forum where others can see my flaws as well and perhaps learn from them. It benefits the arguer in sharpening their rhetoric.
Believe me, my username was chosen with all the unwitting wit available.
-
33
is it normal for a father, to walk hand in hand in public with his adult daughter?
by varian intalking about europe and the western world....
-
-
Knowsnothing
But sometimes I think, that we have injected fear of normal physical affection into families that goes above and beyond necessary.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with this act, although it probably will be ill-perceived by some.
