Scientific paper says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator'!

[MVP]

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they always lose scientific debates with creation scientists.

Oh really? First - there is no creation scientists. Second, even if some deluded creationists have some degrees in chemistry or other scientific subjects their theories were dismissed by all scientific world and/or in legal cases in courts as well - for example : In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify

 

[carolinajazz]

Sorry CJ, but your racist/bigoted God didn't, after all, receive any scientific support.

So your saying that the Creator is "racist/bigoted because he, at one time, favor the ancient nation of Israel above other nations? God did single out the nation of Israel in Bible times, and he protected the Israelites in some of their conflicts with other nations. Additionally, the Bible says of God: “He is telling his word to Jacob, his regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation.” (Psalm 147:19,*20) But do God’s dealings with Israel suggest that he is partial? Not at all. Consider three reasons.

First, God singled out Israel in order to benefit all nations. He made a covenant with the forefather of that nation, Abraham, saying: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Genesis 22:17,*18) God’s purpose in dealing with Israel was to produce a “seed” that would make great blessings available, not just to the people of one nation but to people of “all nations of the earth.”

Second, God’s blessings were never limited to the people of Israel. He impartially opened the way for individuals of other nations to join with his chosen people in worshipping him. (2*Chronicles 6:32,*33) Many accepted that invitation and were blessed as a result. The Moabite woman Ruth was just one well-known example of such.—Ruth 1:3,*16.

Third, God’s special relationship with earthly Israel was temporary. In 29*C.E., Israel produced the foretold “seed” in the person of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16) But Jesus’ countrymen rejected him as the Messiah. He said to them: “Look! Your house is abandoned to you.” (Matthew 23:38) Thereafter, God’s dealings with mankind have been separate from individual secular nations and their conflicts. Rather, he has impartially made blessings available to all mankind.

(Acts 10:34, 35) 34  At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35  but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

LOL at people attempting to have a scientific discussion with CJ? Not only will logic never penetrate his skull, but do you realize that this Christlike individual plagiarizes almost every word he posts to you in response? (Stealing is not so Christlike, huh.) Check out this link.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102005885

Look familiar? If not then I'm sure that's because you didn't even bother reading post #42.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So your saying that the Creator is "racist/bigoted because he, at one time, favor the ancient nation of Israel above other nations? God did single out the nation of Israel in Bible times, and he protected the Israelites in some of their conflicts with other nations. Additionally, the Bible says of God: “He is telling his word to Jacob, his regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation.” (Psalm 147:19,*20) But do God’s dealings with Israel suggest that he is partial? Not at all. Consider three reasons.

First, God singled out Israel in order to benefit all nations. He made a covenant with the forefather of that nation, Abraham, saying: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Genesis 22:17,*18) God’s purpose in dealing with Israel was to produce a “seed” that would make great blessings available, not just to the people of one nation but to people of “all nations of the earth.”

Second, God’s blessings were never limited to the people of Israel. He impartially opened the way for individuals of other nations to join with his chosen people in worshipping him. (2*Chronicles 6:32,*33) Many accepted that invitation and were blessed as a result. The Moabite woman Ruth was just one well-known example of such.—Ruth 1:3,*16.

Third, God’s special relationship with earthly Israel was temporary. In 29*C.E., Israel produced the foretold “seed” in the person of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16) But Jesus’ countrymen rejected him as the Messiah. He said to them: “Look! Your house is abandoned to you.” (Matthew 23:38) Thereafter, God’s dealings with mankind have been separate from individual secular nations and their conflicts. Rather, he has impartially made blessings available to all mankind.

(Acts 10:34, 35) 34  At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35  but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

No, I'm not, since I don't believe in any Creator, I don't attribute human characteristics to something that doesn't exist.

God didn't single out Israel, Israel singled out Israel. The God of the Bible is a tribal deity that, as a matter of course, has a hard on for that particular tribe. He's also a mass murdering, egotistical, ****** that, surprise-surprise, reflects back the cultural and other beliefs of the tribe. But since he doesn't actually exist, he's not really like that, that's just how this particular tribe imagined him.

Like Biblical people, YOUR God reflects back to you your beliefs, being a creature of your imagination, and since you're a racist bigot, your God naturally is too. It's so funny how that works.

 

[carolinajazz]

LOL at people attempting to have a scientific discussion with CJ? Not only will logic never penetrate his skull, but do you realize that this Christlike individual plagiarizes almost every word he posts to you in response? (Stealing is not so Christlike, huh.) Check out this link.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102005885

Look familiar? If not then I'm sure that's because you didn't even bother reading post #42.

....just posting a response to the question/issue at hand! Regardless of the source of this information, why concern yourself with the source and pay more attention to the content? If you disagree with the rebuttal or observations to the question or questions raised, I can live with that! The consequences of what we believe or support is something all of us must deal with.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

....just posting a response to the question/issue at hand! Regardless of the source of this information, why concern yourself with the source and pay more attention to the content? If you disagree with the rebuttal or observations to the question or questions raised, I can live with that! The consequences of what we believe or support is something all of us must deal with.

Because the individual making the initial response isn't here, so there's no point responding.

And you can't say it's your argument since it's not in your own words. If you can't even remake an argument into your own words, how much do you really understand what you're plagiarizing?

 

[Gameface]

Because the individual making the initial response isn't here, so there's no point responding.

And you can't say it's your argument since it's not in your own words. If you can't even remake an argument into your own words, how much do you really understand what you're plagiarizing?

No kidding. Seriously, CJ, just say what you want to say in support of the work and then copy/paste to your heart's desire with a link to the source material and the copied work in a quote box or with quotation marks. If you need instruction on how to use the quote box I can help.

 

[carolinajazz]

No, I'm not, since I don't believe in any Creator, I don't attribute human characteristics to something that doesn't exist.

God didn't single out Israel, Israel singled out Israel. The God of the Bible is a tribal deity that, as a matter of course, has a hard on for that particular tribe. He's also a mass murdering, egotistical, ****** that, surprise-surprise, reflects back the cultural and other beliefs of the tribe. But since he doesn't actually exist, he's not really like that, that's just how this particular tribe imagined him.

Like Biblical people, YOUR God reflects back to you your beliefs, being a creature of your imagination, and since you're a racist bigot, your God naturally is too. It's so funny how that works.

....here's something I recently read/learned that I'm going to pass on that may clear up a matter!

"God’s Law said that false prophets and idolaters should be put to death. (Deut. 13:5-9) These Baal priests were committed enemies of God, and they deliberately worked against his purposes. Did they deserve mercy? Well, what mercy had they ever granted to all those innocent children who were burned alive as sacrifices to Baal? (Proverbs 21:13) 13 Whoever stops up his ear to the cry of the lowly one Will himself call and not be answered." (Jeremiah 19:4, 5) 5 They built the high places of Baʹal in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to Baʹal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of and that had never even come into my heart.”’

"Those men were well beyond the reach of mercy! So Elijah ordered that they be executed, and executed they were.—1*Ki. 18:40.
Modern-day critics may decry the conclusion to this test on Mount Carmel. Some people may worry lest religious zealots use it to justify violent acts of religious intolerance. And sadly, there are many violent religious fanatics today. However, Elijah was no fanatic. He was acting on God's behalf in a just execution. Furthermore, genuine Christians know that they cannot follow Elijah’s course in taking a sword to the wicked. Rather, they follow the standard for all disciples of Jesus as found in Christ’s words to Peter: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) God will use his Son to carry out divine justice in the future."

So the concerns of modern-day critics about Elijah’s execution of the Baal priests is unfounded! Even human governments and authorities today, don't tolerate child abuse of any kind and punish the abusers accordingly! So there's certainly no bigotry or racism here...just plain old justice!

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

....just posting a response to the question/issue at hand! Regardless of the source of this information, why concern yourself with the source and pay more attention to the content? If you disagree with the rebuttal or observations to the question or questions raised, I can live with that! The consequences of what we believe or support is something all of us must deal with.

Dude, I've explained this to you multiple times. Plagerizing is stealing. Not only is taking someone elses words and presenting them as your own completely dishonest and an unethical way to conduct a discussion, but it is an outright theft. Yet you ignore it, and you refuse to take the simple step of giving credit where credit is due. When you use someone else's words simply provide a link. What's so hard about that? And yet you do it again and again and again and again...

 

[MT Steve]

CJ in this thread has been engaging in the most blatant display of confirmation bias I've ever seen.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

....here's something I recently read/learned that I'm going to pass on that may clear up a matter!

"God’s Law said that false prophets and idolaters should be put to death. (Deut. 13:5-9) These Baal priests were committed enemies of God, and they deliberately worked against his purposes. Did they deserve mercy? Well, what mercy had they ever granted to all those innocent children who were burned alive as sacrifices to Baal? (Proverbs 21:13) 13 Whoever stops up his ear to the cry of the lowly one Will himself call and not be answered." (Jeremiah 19:4, 5) 5 They built the high places of Baʹal in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to Baʹal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of and that had never even come into my heart.”’

"Those men were well beyond the reach of mercy! So Elijah ordered that they be executed, and executed they were.—1*Ki. 18:40.
Modern-day critics may decry the conclusion to this test on Mount Carmel. Some people may worry lest religious zealots use it to justify violent acts of religious intolerance. And sadly, there are many violent religious fanatics today. However, Elijah was no fanatic. He was acting on God's behalf in a just execution. Furthermore, genuine Christians know that they cannot follow Elijah’s course in taking a sword to the wicked. Rather, they follow the standard for all disciples of Jesus as found in Christ’s words to Peter: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) God will use his Son to carry out divine justice in the future."

So the concerns of modern-day critics about Elijah’s execution of the Baal priests is unfounded! Even human governments and authorities today, don't tolerate child abuse of any kind and punish the abusers accordingly! So there's certainly no bigotry or racism here...just plain old justice!

All this clears up is that the God of the OT was a vengeful, murderous psychopath.

It also raises the question as to why, otherwise decent people, (maybe this includes you, but I'm not sure, as I tend to think bigotry and 'decent' are mutually exclusive, but humans are complex, so perhaps you're not a total douchebag in your non-virtual life)can rationalize away such brutal murderous acts commanded/committed by a 'loving heavenly father.'

BTW, just so you know, trying to convince me on any issue by citing the Bible will be about as effective as citing the Lord of the Rings. I don't find fiction, or in this case historical fiction, to be compelling rationale for settling disputes over things such as morals and public policy.

 

[Red]

....here's something I recently read/learned that I'm going to pass on that may clear up a matter!

"God’s Law said that false prophets and idolaters should be put to death. (Deut. 13:5-9) These Baal priests were committed enemies of God, and they deliberately worked against his purposes. Did they deserve mercy? Well, what mercy had they ever granted to all those innocent children who were burned alive as sacrifices to Baal? (Proverbs 21:13) 13 Whoever stops up his ear to the cry of the lowly one Will himself call and not be answered." (Jeremiah 19:4, 5) 5 They built the high places of Baʹal in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to Baʹal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of and that had never even come into my heart.”’

"Those men were well beyond the reach of mercy! So Elijah ordered that they be executed, and executed they were.—1*Ki. 18:40.
Modern-day critics may decry the conclusion to this test on Mount Carmel. Some people may worry lest religious zealots use it to justify violent acts of religious intolerance. And sadly, there are many violent religious fanatics today. However, Elijah was no fanatic. He was acting on God's behalf in a just execution. Furthermore, genuine Christians know that they cannot follow Elijah’s course in taking a sword to the wicked. Rather, they follow the standard for all disciples of Jesus as found in Christ’s words to Peter: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) God will use his Son to carry out divine justice in the future."

So the concerns of modern-day critics about Elijah’s execution of the Baal priests is unfounded! Even human governments and authorities today, don't tolerate child abuse of any kind and punish the abusers accordingly! So there's certainly no bigotry or racism here...just plain old justice!

Other respondents in a discussion have the right to examine any source you quote. That's why it is important to provide citations for your quotes. If the second and third paragraphs above are located at an Internet link, simply provide that link. Other respondents may, or may not, wish to examine that source first hand. Were you to actually publish what you quote without providing any attribution, it's called intellectual property theft. Maybe not as serious a no-no on an Internet forum, I doubt the author will come calling for you, but cherry picking in service to confirmation bias is not a position of strength, usually. Bottom line, if I want to examine where you copied and pasted your quoted passages, I have to go digging for it. But, in a discussion, you are obligated to provide that citation for us. At the very least, you can copy and paste the link itself, the source, the citation, the original credit for the quotes. You are always fully entitled to your position, but people are going to keep pointing out plagiarism until you cease committing plagiarism. I should think, since it is so very easy to correct that shortcoming, that you would just do so. In the above instance, by providing quotation marks, you are at least broadcasting "hey guys, these are not my words". That's a start, but without a link, you are making it difficult for any other respondent to examine your source. And certainly there is nothing to fear in providing that link.

 

[carolinajazz]

Other respondents in a discussion have the right to examine any source you quote. That's why it is important to provide citations for your quotes. If the second and third paragraphs above are located at an Internet link, simply provide that link. Other respondents may, or may not, wish to examine that source first hand. Were you to actually publish what you quote without providing any attribution, it's called intellectual property theft. Maybe not as serious a no-no on an Internet forum, I doubt the author will come calling for you, but cherry picking in service to confirmation bias is not a position of strength, usually. Bottom line, if I want to examine where you copied and pasted your quoted passages, I have to go digging for it. But, in a discussion, you are obligated to provide that citation for us. At the very least, you can copy and paste the link itself, the source, the citation, the original credit for the quotes. You are always fully entitled to your position, but people are going to keep pointing out plagiarism until you cease committing plagiarism. I should think, since it is so very easy to correct that shortcoming, that you would just do so. In the above instance, by providing quotation marks, you are at least broadcasting "hey guys, these are not my words". That's a start, but without a link, you are making it difficult for any other respondent to examine your source. And certainly there is nothing to fear in providing that link.

...I will do as you request, from now on! But it seems to me that many posters on this board consider the "source" rather than the "content" or reasoning of the arguments presented, thus closing there minds to both before allowing the information to sink in! For example, jimmyeatsjazz will not even CONSIDER any material from the Bible as being trustworthy or historic NO MATTER HOW reasonable or scientific it proves to be! Others have followed suit! Now, if they sight information whether it be there own thoughts or those of others, even so-called "experts" on the subject, I at least have the decency to read it and then make a sound rebuttal based on evidence, sound reasoning and factual documentation! I'm just saying.

 

[Gameface]

CJ, please explain the qualities that make a thing "scientific"

 

[carolinajazz]

CJ, please explain the qualities that make a thing "scientific"

Scientific - definition and synonyms

Relating to science, or based on its methods
Scientific research/Evidence/Procedures

A scientific Truth/Fact/Claim

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

The ​systematic ​study of the ​structure and ​behavior of the ​natural and ​physical ​world, or ​knowledge ​obtained about the ​world by ​watching it ​carefully and experimenting.

Awake 02 6/8 p. 4 How Did the Universe and Life Originate? “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein.

"Scientists’ theories often seem to rely on premises that require their own kind of faith. For example, when it comes to the origin of life, most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain “doctrines.” Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution, they are in reality implying: ‘You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics.’

Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.’

To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life.

Even if we allow for billions of years of time, the accidental forming of the complex molecules required to form a functional living cell has been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. Thus, the dogmatic theories on the origin of life that appear in many textbooks must be considered invalid."

 

[VINYLONE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

 

[Gameface]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!

 

[carolinajazz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

There's no evolution here! Possibly a birth defect of some sort.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There's no evolution here! Possibly a birth defect of some sort.

I have a question CJ. Were you born prematurely? What month?

 

[VINYLONE]

There's no evolution here! Possibly a birth defect of some sort.