Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

[geoff]

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp Very interesting read that wont take much of your time. For the "open minded" "free thinkers" I thought I would share some information so that you might be able to make an informed decision. Discuss......

[.blank cd]

Mmmmmmmmm. Thermodynamics. My specialty :) Why do you post the good shit when I'm at work?

First, before I explain away this site tonight when I get home, you have to be totally open to scientific reasoning. If you're not, the conversation isn't gonna go anywhere, and you're gonna be a lost puppy.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.diabetesmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn.jpg

[geoff]

I am completely ready to hear your thoughts. But from this site and many others I have read, I see that the theory of evolution is just that...a theory; not "fact" as you said before. After all, scientific "fact" must agree with other scientific "fact"....especially the first and second law. From what I have researched, I see evolutionary biologists tweek their statements, ideals, and beliefs every time a valid arguement is made. What they have failed to do as of yet, is to come up with a theory that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, I have an open mind and am willing to be "schooled" in the theory of evolution.

[.blank cd]

I am completely ready to hear your thoughts. But from this site and many others I have read, I see that the theory of evolution is just that...a theory; not "fact" as you said before.Alright. Let's stop right here. Before we go any further in discussing any scientific information, we must first be on the same page with our scientific definitions, if you plan to use science to discredit evolution anyway. First is a lesson on the word "theory"

In short, you need to forget everything you know and everything you've been told about the word "theory".

Nowhere in academia (that's any secondary or post secondary science classes, or any scientific field) does "scientific theory" mean, or equal to "educated guess". We have to get past this false definition if we are to understand ANYTHING related to any kind of scientific discussion.

So are we still on the same page?

[.blank cd]

I will break it down one step further.

The word theory (when talking about scientific things) basically means a verified way of explaining things. Let me give you an example of another theory which you should be regarding as "fact"

Heliocentric "theory" basically states that the earth (and the other planets) revolve around the sun. You believe the earth revolves around the sun correct?

[geoff]

Blank cd- we are on the same page. But, what is your definition of scientific fact? To me, a fact can not clearly contradict other known facts. It is a fact that I am 6ft 3/4" tall. It could not be said that i am any taller or shorter.

[.blank cd]

Blank cd- we are on the same page. But, what is your definition of scientific fact? To me, a fact can not clearly contradict other known facts. It is a fact that I am 6ft 3/4" tall. It could not be said that i am any taller or shorter.Glad you asked that, as that was step two. Colloquially and mathematically (distance is primarily dealt with in geometry) yes, A fact would be you are 6' 3/4" tall. With the information we have, as long as we use a standard measuring device, no one will dispute that. Scientifically, a fact is something that is verified through repeated testing through the scientific method. The scientific method is equivalent to, let's say, order of operations in mathematics. In order to get correct results, this never changes. Every time you add 1+1, you will always get 2. Every time you combine two atoms (stable atoms, but that's another topic) of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, you get water. So a scientific fact would be that water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Another scientific fact is that the earth spins on an axis

We still on the same page?

[geoff]

Yes we are on the same page, yet, if a so called scientific fact conflicts with other known scientific facts....is it then valid?
Also, if we are to discuss this as mature adults, i would like for you to present your arguement, backed by evidence, and address the problems found in the theory of evolution as discussed in the link i provided. I will then give my counter arguement with evidences. We will then continue by a friendly back and forth with intelligent responses not dodging questions and not simply mocking one anothers statements...agreed?

[geoff]

I have to say man, i have spent the last 48 hours studying anything and everything i can find on evolution....from what i have witnessed, compared, and researched...it has only solidified my belief in a Creator...

[geoff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6raodW5Ypt0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUC9drrEAVU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iwzzR0lUKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MVDiNl7bBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs5wGFbkb40&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamNoA6Cfjc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idxRxIrybBs&feature=related

Please watch and tell me what you think? Remember, we agreed we would go into this with open minds.

[geoff]

still waiting...

[98blackcivic]

There is a creator
and evolution is the tinkerer

[.blank cd]

Ive been trying to figure out a way to explain all of this in the simplest terms possible, as everyone reading this thread may not have a good grasp on science, which isnt a bad thing. Some were bad in science, some in math, some in history, whatever the case may be. So delving into deep biological thermodynamics and entropy might sound like spanish to most people

I just got around to watching that video. They presented a quite interesting case, however the video was kinda leading (read: misleading). It sounded like they were trying to spin alternative hypothesis as "negative evidence" in some cases. There is no "negative evidence" (evidence that something doesnt exist) for evolution, or anything for that matter. You can either have positive evidence, an alternative hypothesis, or something doesnt exist until further information is provided.

I want to point out a particular excerpt in this video that stuck out in my mind, if I may, regarding the anti-evolution document. "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was a document created in 2001 by a group of conservative lobbyists called the Discovery Institute. A little research shows that courts and other scientific organizations have found D.I. is engaged in manufacturing controversy in evolution, as well as other areas of public policy. The video stated that almost 700 scientists with PhDs from around the world have signed the document. What wasnt mentioned was the areas of professional expertise of the people that signed this document, which basically means that its not exactly all evolutionary biologists with PhDs, we may have some people with political science degrees, business science degrees, law science, psychologists, computer scientists, aviation scientists, etc. Less than a quarter of the signatories were actual biologists. What also wasnt mentioned is how much exactly does 700 people represent to the entire scientific community. There are about a million registered biologists according to the NSF, so if we said half of the signatories of the "Dissent" were biologists, we get far less that 1% of the entire biological science community. Even if we take all the signatories and compare them to the ENTIRE scientific community world wide (im gonna guesstimate, but I'd say ten million is a pretty conservative number) we still have less than 1% of an entire scientific community that signed this document. We also have to look at the wording of the document itself. It doesnt necessarily say "a complete rejection of darwinism" The dissent states:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This isnt 700 people that completely reject darwinian theory, as this video is leading you to believe, this is 700 people who are skeptical.

Another is the Miller-Urey experiment as described in the video. I'll explain later

[geoff]

The video did bring up interesting points. I would also like to make another point that I would like you to address. Darwin was a very smart man for his time and with the available technology, put forth a great movement of intellectual thinking and is considered to be the "father" of evolution. Yet, he himself said something along the lines that if there was ever discovered a complex organism that could not have formed slowly over time...his theory would be invalid.( not an exact quote but generally what he said. Exact quote can be found in video link) Also, science is supposed to be the objective, unbiased, search for explanations of the natural world. Yet these days i would say that all believers in evolution are atheist's. Those that claim religion and evolution are completely wrong. So, if the if these experts are self-proclaimed atheist's....is not their study, hypothesis, and prediction biased and all together invalid? After all, science claims itself to be fallible and those that seek to find truth regardless of where it might lead. For example, Richard Dawkins, a very big proponent of evolution and in my eyes a (prophet) of the atheist religion. He to me is not a scientist nor one who seeks truth, but rather a fan boy that uses propaganda to try and mock and defeat the Judeo-Christian faith. Every video or writing i have seen from him, he claims Faith is "attacking" the scientific community. He then goes to the " Holy Land" and churches and tries to make them look foolish. I am sorry to say, but i see the theory...yes theory...of evolution as a tool used by atheists to defeat faith. It has lost its credibility because it is completely biased.

There is a fact of evidence. Evidence found in cells, nature, the cosmos, ect...Evolution is just one view of interpreting what that evidence means, creationalism is another. Much like evidence in a murder trial. One side presents a theory or arguement on the evidence found, and the other side does the same. The interpretation of that evidence is up to the men/women who observe it. I can say that only ONE FACT is actually true and apparent based on empirical evidence...Some thing did happen to start the universe/life....what that is, is up to how such evidence is observed.

[Vteckidd]

Evolution is an interesting theory, but if we evolved from apes, how come there are STILL APES :P ? How come we havent seen a middle evolved human-ape of some sort?

Evolution in other species is not quite as dramatic as darwin makes it in our own species. If their were apes before , surely, by his own law, we would have seen half species and progressions in the fossil record. Currently we do NOT.

Evolution happens in very small patterns of species, but to believe we as humans came from apes, extremely far fetched with little to no information to support that theory. ANyone that believes otherwise, is just living in fantasy world.

[geoff]

Adaptation.....is a FACT! It is clearly seen in nature and necessary for species to continue. That does not mean evolution is occurring. Things can adapt in order to survive, it does not mean that some how there genes have mutated in a way to survive. Also, i am very curious as to this first "super cell" that we all apparently mutated from. The environment of early earth was well...uninhabitable. Yet what you expect me to believe is that for no reason at at and by sheer chance, a random cell or bacteria came into existense already prepared to survive the harsh atmosphere of early earth. What a load of crap. The way i see it, the earth, the universe, and all life in general show purpose. If something shows purpose, it shows intent, which shows intelligence. Chaos and chance do not show purpose,intent, or intelligence....but an Intelligent Designer does.

[.blank cd]

The video did bring up interesting points. I would also like to make another point that I would like you to address. Darwin was a very smart man for his time and with the available technology, put forth a great movement of intellectual thinking and is considered to be the "father" of evolution. Darwin was one of the pioneers, but there are newer figures in the study of evolution, and "darwinism" has become a colloquialism. There are newer evolutionary models along the same line scientists refer to as "modern evolutionary synthesis" (this is like what "general relativity" is to its former "laws of gravity"


Yet, he himself said something along the lines that if there was ever discovered a complex organism that could not have formed slowly over time...his theory would be invalid.( not an exact quote but generally what he said. Exact quote can be found in video link) The cambrian explosion is something i was going to explain as well


Also, science is supposed to be the objective, unbiased, search for explanations of the natural world. Yet these days i would say that all believers in evolution are atheist's. Those that claim religion and evolution are completely wrong. So, if the if these experts are self-proclaimed atheist's....is not their study, hypothesis, and prediction biased and all together invalid?There was a study done not to long ago in the scientific community. It found that (out of the ENTIRE scientific community, some not in any kind of biological field at all) around 40% believed in creator-guided evolution. That means that a creator (not necessarily a biblical god) laid out all the plans and they're happening as designed. Absolutely plausible. Around 60% did NOT believe in creator-guided evolution. Also absolutely plausible. The rest around 5% did NOT believe in any form of evolution at all. All atheists may understand evolution, but most of faith do as well. we're not saying "oh you believe in god so you don't understand evolution" because that's not the case. They are two separate things.


After all, science claims itself to be fallible and those that seek to find truth regardless of where it might lead. For example, Richard Dawkins, a very big proponent of evolution and in my eyes a (prophet) of the atheism. He to me is not a scientist nor one who seeks truth, but rather a fan boy that uses propaganda to try and mock and defeat the Judeo-Christian faith. Dawkins has his Masters and PhD in Ethology, the study of animal behavior. He is very much a scientist.


Every video or writing i have seen from him, he claims Faith is "attacking" the scientific community. He then goes to the " Holy Land" and churches and tries to make them look foolish. I am sorry to say, but i see the theory...yes theory...of evolution as a tool used by atheists to defeat faith. It has lost its credibility because it is completely biased. Its not, because they're not opposites. You can, and people of faith do understand evolution


There is a fact of evidence. Evidence found in cells, nature, the cosmos, ect...Evolution is just one view of interpreting what that evidence means, creationalism is another. Much like evidence in a murder trial. One side presents a theory or arguement on the evidence found, and the other side does the same. The interpretation of that evidence is up to the men/women who observe it. I can say that only ONE FACT is actually true and apparent based on empirical evidence...Some thing did happen to start the universe/life....what that is, is up to how such evidence is observed.I think you're starting to understand....

[.blank cd]

Evolution is an interesting theory, but if we evolved from apes, how come there are STILL APES :P ? How come we havent seen a middle evolved human-ape of some sort?

Evolution in other species is not quite as dramatic as darwin makes it in our own species. If their were apes before , surely, by his own law, we would have seen half species and progressions in the fossil record. Currently we do NOT.

Evolution happens in very small patterns of species, but to believe we as humans came from apes, extremely far fetched with little to no information to support that theory. ANyone that believes otherwise, is just living in fantasy world.

Are you being serious right now?

You do know there is evidence and fossils of the common ancestor between humans and other primates right?

[Vteckidd]

Are you being serious right now?

You do know there is evidence and fossils of the common ancestor between humans and other primates right?

Dead serious, there is little to no evidence to support evolution, on the scale that Darwin believes and wrote about, actually happened or happened. The Tree of Life has been debunked, the fossil catalog is eons bigger than when darwin wrote his theory so we have much more evidence to go by.

He was right about evolution happening but on a much smaller scale. Evolution also happens for bad reason, like a genetic change to a species that doesnt work. Where are all those ancestors?

Also, the time frame of it(primate evolution) all doesnt work out. If we evolved from Primates, why are there still primates? If evolution is survival of the fittest should the apes be long gone by now considering humans have been around for AT LEAST 2000 years?

Are we to believe we made 1 giant leap from barely speaking or communicating primates to walking and talking humans in 1-2 generations?

In almost all other cases of evolution the species evolves and the evolution survives. But somehow not in our case.

You can believe evolution is true, but there are far too many holes to shoot in it to make it plausible. A simple google search will provide you with thousands of 3rd party scientists (since thats what you like) that will say evolution is very hard to prove. Probably more evidence than creationism, but still no where near the defacto "THATS WHERE WE CAME FROM"

[.blank cd]

Adaptation.....is a FACT! It is clearly seen in nature and necessary for species to continue. That does not mean evolution is occurring. Things can adapt in order to survive, it does not mean that some how there genes have mutated in a way to survive. Also, i am very curious as to this first "super cell" that we all apparently mutated from. The environment of early earth was well...uninhabitable. Yet what you expect me to believe is that for no reason at at and by sheer chance, a random cell or bacteria came into existense already prepared to survive the harsh atmosphere of early earth. What a load of crap. The way i see it, the earth, the universe, and all life in general show purpose. If something shows purpose, it shows intent, which shows intelligence. Chaos and chance do not show purpose,intent, or intelligence....but an Intelligent Designer does.You're getting there. Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process. You just seem to be at odds with how it all started...I think when I explain the Miller-Urey experiment a little more, it'll fall into place

[.blank cd]

Dead serious, there is little to no evidence to support evolution, on the scale that Darwin believes and wrote about, actually happened or happened. The Tree of Life has been debunked, the fossil catalog is eons bigger than when darwin wrote his theory so we have much more evidence to go by That whole post absolutely boggled my mind

But really, are you being really serious right now? I refuse to believe someone with any kind of post secondary, paid higher education background has such limited understanding of evolution. Unless you went to BYU

[geoff]

One of Faith cannot believe in evolution. These two do not go hand in hand. I like your numbers on how many in the science community believe in a Creator driven evolution.....but those numbers still show that only 5% believe in any evolution at all. The science behind the theory is still not unbiased. I saw a video offering a critique of the "Case for a Creator" videos. He never really gave evidence against what the video said but rather tried to dismiss it by saying that " science nor the scientific method could comment on the "supernatural". His aim was to say that the "evidences" that exist cannot be used to show a case for Creation. What I find ironic is that this same evidence is used to say " there is no way God can exist". Kind of hypocritical wouldn't you say?

As far as Dawkins goes....i don't care what kind of degree he has....he still pushes atheistic agenda...not science. Therefore, he and any "scientist" that pushes agenda or tries to use scientific study to further atheistic thinking, has lost all credibility. Why? because his science is no longer unbiased. He and many evolutionists( many who are atheists) are no longer looking at evidence for truth but rather looking for evidence to further their personal beliefs. That would be like putting a man on trial for killing a black person, with the entire jury being black and former black panther members. Do you see how it could be a problem?

[geoff]

You're getting there. Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process. You just seem to be at odds with how it all started...I think when I explain the Miller-Urey experiment a little more, it'll fall into place

No theory or math is needed to see that "adaptation" happens. That is something very observable that can be seen in each of our life times. I am not at odds with " how it started ". One, because evolution does not show empirical evidence how it started. Two, because the theory itself has many holes and is at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The real problem lies in this, the model is changed to somehow "fit" into natural laws not based on the search for truth (wherever it might lead) but rather to fit in with the atheistic agenda. By the way, i understand the Miller-Urey experiment very well, I also understand that the experiment came under a lot of fire. "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." When new experiments were conducted with what is now believed to be a more realistic "early atmosphere"...no amino acids were formed. So that experiment is invalid as the results have not been reproduced.

[.blank cd]

One of Faith cannot believe in evolution. These two do not go hand in hand.Why do you believe this? My wife believes in god and understands evolution. Is she a lone exception?

Evolution and faith are two different things. Evolution is not a belief system. It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happens, this is why we have dissent over it in the first place


That would be like putting a man on trial for killing a black person, with the entire jury being black and former black panther members. Do you see how it could be a problem?I don't see what this has to do with anything but if a man killed someone, it doesn't matter what jury he goes against as long as the evidence is followed and not beliefs.

[Vteckidd]

That whole post absolutely boggled my mind

But really, are you being really serious right now? I refuse to believe someone with any kind of post secondary, paid higher education background has such limited understanding of evolution. Unless you went to BYU

Ok, answer my questions then mr. Scientist

Where did MATTER come from. Apes didnt just shit themselves out of the sky.
Explain the differences in chromosomes between humans and apes
Why are there still apes? How come no other species has experienced evolution on the scale that humans supposedly have?
we know ONE GENE-ONE PROTEIN-ONE FUNCTION is wrong , at least the mapping of the human genome proves it
The time phase of the age of earth compared to when humans supposedly SHOWED UP, doesnt make sense. assuming the universe is 20 billion years old:
The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 1064,489! Now that is just one complex molecule and life requires much, much more. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of the free living organisms, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. A human DNA molecule can contain three billion amino acid bases. That is not counting all the other enzymes, proteins, hormones and other life chemistry needed. These odds are utterly impossible and shows that evolution being the source of life’s beginning is not even remotely possible.

thats just a few.

I guess i question the material im taught more than you do.

[Vteckidd]

I believe there is evidence that shows evolution is happening, but at the extent that man was evolved from apes, is rediculous. Where did the apes come from? Where did the primordial soup come from? Where did MATTER come from ?

Go back far enough and there are so many problems with evolution, it cant possibly be right.

[.blank cd]

No theory or math is needed to see that "adaptation" happens. That is something very observable that can be seen in each of our life times.Almost got it....


I am not at odds with " how it started ". One, because evolution does not show empirical evidence how it started.This is because no evolutionary theory has ever attempted to explain how life began. Ever. This is not what evolution is. That is called "abiogenesis"


Two, because the theory itself has many holes and is at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It doesn't if you understand what the 2nd law of biological thermodynamics means.


The real problem lies in this, the model is changed to somehow "fit" into natural laws not based on the search for truth (wherever it might lead) but rather to fit in with the atheistic agenda. By the way, i understand the Miller-Urey experiment very well, I also understand that the experiment came under a lot of fire. "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." When new experiments were conducted with what is now believed to be a more realistic "early atmosphere"...no amino acids were formed. So that experiment is invalid as the results have not been reproduced.There is very little debate to what early atmosphere is. The only debate is between those manufacturing dissent

[geoff]

Why do you believe this? My wife believes in god and understands evolution. Is she a lone exception?

Evolution and faith are two different things. Evolution is not a belief system. It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happens, this is why we have dissent over it in the first place
You answered your own question right here.
It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happensEither the entire Bible is true or none of it is.


I don't see what this has to do with anything but if a man killed someone, it doesn't matter what jury he goes against as long as the evidence is followed and not beliefs.
I would like to see this explanation be given in the court of law in the case i listed above. The jury would be biased to side with " one of their own" and would be considered unfair. Their opinion would be biased. The point was to show the biased agenda of evolutionary scientists.

You care to still use the Miller-Urey experiment? Or can we go ahead and agree it is invalid?

It is extremely funny how you agreed that the evidence that clearly exists, is up to interpretation, yet when that same evidence is used to be the base of Creationalism...it is dismissed. One man in the video put it this way," Creation science and intelligent design theory are not "based" on theology of any sort, but rather empirical evidence. If the path towards truth leads to theological ideas...so be it". It seems though that these days, science is no longer on the path to seek truth, but rather on a path to disprove God.

Oh and by the way, adaptation can happen without evolution. Adaptation is a result of environmental effects whereas evolution would be an actual change in the genetic make up of an organism to adapt. Adaptation can be seperate and can be used by either intelligent design or evolution theory.

[geoff]

It doesn't if you understand what the 2nd law of biological thermodynamics means.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?" from allaboutscience.org. That about right?


There is very little debate to what early atmosphere is. The only debate is between those manufacturing dissent
Um, here is a fact...The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted with what they believed at the time to be an accurate portrayal of what early earth atmosphere was composed of. Upon further study it was found that this was wrong. Under new experiments with the correct elements...the results were never reproduced. Quit trying to use an experiment that has been proven invalid.

[geoff]

Oh but wait, an asteroid hit earth and was carrying amino acids with it and thats how life sprung up and evolution began. How long with scientist concoct ridiculous explanations? How long will they avoid serious evidences against their theories? How long will you use the available evidence to support your theory but then deny that the same evidence can be used for another explanation?

That is my entire point. The theory of evolution is self defeated by men who have a biased opinion on available evidence. They are no longer interested in discovering true facts but rather how to make their theory fit in. Evolution started as good science by Darwin but has now been abused as propaganda by "hero's" such as Dawkins. Call it what it really is...a war on faith. The Fact is this....every organism on earth and in the universe has a purpose. Purpose shows intent and intent intelligence. Bacterial flagellum are a complex "machine" system which it is implausible that could have "evolved" gradually over time. Darwin himself stated that if such an organism was found, his theory would be utterly defeated. Where is your white flag my friend?

[.blank cd]

Whoops

[geoff]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin


This is because no evolutionary theory has ever attempted to explain how life began. Ever. This is not what evolution is. That is called "abiogenesis"
So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened.....:thinking: yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?

[.blank cd]

You answered your own question right here.Either the entire Bible is true or none of it is.Yes, either Genesis is true or none of it is.



I would like to see this explanation be given in the court of law in the case i listed above. The jury would be biased to side with " one of their own" and would be considered unfair. Their opinion would be biased. The point was to show the biased agenda of evolutionary scientists.If you're on trial for killing a black man, and you know you definitely killed him, and you get convicted of murder by a jury full of the most racist black people you can find, you think there's a bias there?


You care to still use the Miller-Urey experiment? Or can we go ahead and agree it is invalid?If it were invalid, I wouldn't use it. It is the case though that scientists have used the experiment as recently as 2009 with conclusive results. No scientists have ever ruled out the first early atmosphere, they have only tested other ideas.


It is extremely funny how you agreed that the evidence that clearly exists, is up to interpretation, yet when that same evidence is used to be the base of Creationalism...it is dismissed. One man in the video put it this way," Creation science and intelligent design theory are not "based" on theology of any sort, but rather empirical evidence.which is....the bible?


Oh and by the way, adaptation can happen without evolution. Adaptation is a result of environmental effects whereas evolution would be an actual change in the genetic make up of an organism to adapt. Adaptation can be seperate and can be used by either intelligent design or evolution theory.I didn't say adaptation wasn't separate.

[.blank cd]

Charles Darwin


So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened.....:thinking: yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?

Are you serious right now? There is a separate theory for this! I've said it a million times. Abiogenesis. They are separate. They always have been. The only people using evolution as propaganda are the Christian Right.

Evolution = how single cells evolve into humans

Abiogenesis = how the cells came to be in the first place

I understand science the same way I understand math. I don't believe in evolution like I don't "believe" in the order of operations in mathematics. I know both of them work. Atheism is not a religion, evolution is not something you believe in, it is something everyone except the misinformed understand.

[bu villain]

Unfortunately the very first thing this article states is not true:

"The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)"

Neither (1) nor (2) are part of evolutionary theory.

[.blank cd]

Unfortunately the very first thing this article states is not true:

"The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)"

Neither (1) nor (2) are part of evolutionary theory.That's what I'm trying to tell them, but in creationists eyes, evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. So they'll never get past this because it conflicts with their belief that the bible is the absolute truth

[bu villain]

So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened.....:thinking: yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?

Since when does a single theory have to explain everything? No one knows what causes gravity (many think it has something to do with dark matter) but it doesn't stop us from believing it because we have the evidence that it exists.

[geoff]

If you're on trial for killing a black man, and you know you definitely killed him, and you get convicted of murder by a jury full of the most racist black people you can find, you think there's a bias there?

I didnt say the man was 100% guilty, i said he is on trial. Yes it would be biased and unfair.


If it were invalid, I wouldn't use it. It is the case though that scientists have used the experiment as recently as 2009 with conclusive results. No scientists have ever ruled out the first early atmosphere, they have only tested other ideas.
Yes an experiment that was based on a theory of what the atmosphere could have been....thats not empiricle evidence and is there for invalid.


which is....the bible?
No, by the same clearly existing evidence used by the "evolutionists", just interpreted differently. You agreed early in the thread to there being more than one possible interpretation.


I didn't say adaptation wasn't separate.
I am glad this is understood, many unlearned believers in an intelligent designer are unaware of this.


Are you serious right now? There is a separate theory for this! I've said it a million times. Abiogenesis. They are separate. They always have been. The only people using evolution as propaganda are the Christian Right.

Evolution = how single cells evolve into humans

Abiogenesis = how the cells came to be in the first place

I understand science the same way I understand math. I don't believe in evolution like I don't "believe" in the order of operations in mathematics. I know both of them work. Atheism is not a religion, evolution is not something you believe in, it is something everyone except the misinformed understand.
Once again you present evolution as some "universal" fact. Which is wrong. It is one way of interpreting the available evidences. And as far as atheism goes....see Richard Dawkins. That man spends more time spreading atheistic doctrine than studying evolution.


Since when does a single theory have to explain everything? No one knows what causes gravity (many think it has something to do with dark matter) but it doesn't stop us from believing it because we have the evidence that it exists.
True. But you and other "evolutionists" pass on a theory as fact that does not even explain where it originated. Creationalism not only gives a how but a why. Once again like every other proponent of evolution you pick and choose which issues to dismiss and which to continue discussing. I see this tactic all the time, its called politics. Science is supposed to present itself as fallible, yet every single evolutionist, seeks only to prove themselves right. In my mind that is biased and disqualifies the theory and men behind it due to the fact that they contradict the very purpose of science and the scientific method.

[geoff]

Science is the study of the "natural world" and as evolutionist so eloquently put it, cannot be used to comment on the "supernatural". In the same way though, how can it be used to deny the existence of such?

[.blank cd]

I didnt say the man was 100% guilty, i said he is on trial. Yes it would be biased and unfair.You can't be less than 100% guilty. You're guilty or you're not guilty. If the man wasn't guilty then there would be reason to believe the jury was biased.



Yes an experiment that was based on a theory of what the atmosphere could have been....thats not empiricle evidence and is there for invalid.Miller used environment X, performed the test and it was conclusive. Someone else said it could have been environment Y, they tested it, it was inconclusive. Others said it could have been environment Z, A, B, C, whatever. No scientists have ever ruled out the first environment X.


Once again you present evolution as some "universal" fact.[/quote]Where did I say evolution was a universal fact? I just looked through the whole thread and no where did I say that. I just said evolution only explained ONE thing. You are trying to argue that it IS universal.


True. But you and other "evolutionists" pass on a theory as fact that does not even explain where it originated. Thats because Abiogenisis and evolution are two different theories of how and why


Once again like every other proponent of evolution you pick and choose which issues to dismiss and which to continue discussing. I see this tactic all the time, its called politics. Science is supposed to present itself as fallible, yet every single evolutionist, seeks only to prove themselves right.You mean search for correct answers


In my mind that is biased and disqualifies the theory and men behind it due to the fact that they contradict the very purpose of science and the scientific method.No. No it doesn't

[.blank cd]

You understand adaptation right? If it suddenly started snowing every day in GA, you would buy a couple jackets, correct? You have adapted to your new environment right?

So what do you think when it happens on a cellular level. You get the flu virus. You get sick, your body fights it off, and now your well again, and your body now has the antibodies to fight off the flu again. Then NEXT YEAR, you get the flu again. A doctor tests you and it's 100% confirmed a flu virus. The virus looks almost exactly the same as the last one, except it has one little change in its appearance. All the information the virus carries however is the exact same.

What did the virus do???

[geoff]

You can't be less than 100% guilty. You're guilty or you're not guilty. If the man wasn't guilty then there would be reason to believe the jury was biased.
I think you are missing the point im making with this. The man is on trial for the accused murder of a black man. The jury is made up of 12 black men/women. This would never happen in an actual court of law because this said jury would have a biased opinion. Don't believe me, look how many people voted for Obama just because he was black.


Miller used environment X, performed the test and it was conclusive. Someone else said it could have been environment Y, they tested it, it was inconclusive. Others said it could have been environment Z, A, B, C, whatever. No scientists have ever ruled out the first environment X. can you show me non biased articles to support this?


Where did I say evolution was a universal fact? I just looked through the whole thread and no where did I say that. I just said evolution only explained ONE thing. You are trying to argue that it IS universal. I can show you exactly were you have said before that evolution is a "fact". And facts are universal, they cannot be only partly true.


You mean search for correct answers no i meant exactly what i said. Their actions speaks louder than their words. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example.


No. No it doesn't
Can you elaborate with specifics or is no. no it doesn't considered an intelligent response?

I want to ask you another serious question. Do you believe that the evidences that are readily available today, can only be interpreted as supporting the theory of evolution? Or is/are there other possibilities?


You understand adaptation right? If it suddenly started snowing every day in GA, you would buy a couple jackets, correct? You have adapted to your new environment right?

So what do you think when it happens on a cellular level. You get the flu virus. You get sick, your body fights it off, and now your well again, and your body now has the antibodies to fight off the flu again. Then NEXT YEAR, you get the flu again. A doctor tests you and it's 100% confirmed a flu virus. The virus looks almost exactly the same as the last one, except it has one little change in its appearance. All the information the virus carries however is the exact same.

What did the virus do???
You literally just made my point for me. Would you say, ( in your scenario provided) that i had evolved? No. That species have changed over time is absolutely observable, to say that they have changed on a molecular level and that every species known to man has come from the same ancestor....that is quite a leap of faith...excuse the pun.

[Vteckidd]

He didn't answer any of my questions, that's proof enough.

Evolution is not infallible, there are plenty of questions it doesn't answer.

/discussion

[.blank cd]

can you show me non biased articles to support this?
Yes. But you've already proven you're not willing to accept scientific evidence. So when I show you science researched by scientists, you'll automatically write it off as bias.



Can you elaborate with specifics or is no. no it doesn't considered an intelligent response?Yes, but see above


I want to ask you another serious question. Do you believe that the evidences that are readily available today, can only be interpreted as supporting the theory of evolution? Or is/are there other possibilities?Evolution is regarded as fact in the scientific community. I don't write the rules, this is just what all these scientists say. You've even shown yourself that a small minority are only skeptical of evolution. There is absolutely zero evidence that a biblical god created everything. If evidence opens up to the contrary, then yes, there would definitely other possibilities


You literally just made my point for me. Would you say, ( in your scenario provided) that i had evolved? No. That species have changed over time is absolutely observable, to say that they have changed on a molecular level and that every species known to man has come from the same ancestor....that is quite a leap of faith...excuse the pun.So you understand evolution, you just believe god is guiding it, and you are still unsure of life's origin, but you're leaning towards god creating it.

Or you still believe in biblical genesis?

[.blank cd]

He didn't answer any of my questions, that's proof enough.

Evolution is not infallible, there are plenty of questions it doesn't answer.

/discussionI'm gonna wait till you figure out why what you copy pasted didn't make sense

[geoff]

Yes. But you've already proven you're not willing to accept scientific evidence. So when I show you science researched by scientists, you'll automatically write it off as bias.
I would love to see the research. What I write off as bias would be atheistic scientists that are no longer objective or seeking truth but rather seeking to further their agenda...once again...see Richard Dawkins.


Evolution is regarded as fact in the scientific community. I don't write the rules, this is just what all these scientists say. You've even shown yourself that a small minority are only skeptical of evolution. There is absolutely zero evidence that a biblical god created everything. If evidence opens up to the contrary, then yes, there would definitely other possibilities
If evolution was regarded as fact, then there would be no debate, Faith would be defeated, and we would not be having this conversation. I am not convinced that it is regarded as fact in the scientific community, i can't argue thought that it is a widely held belief. I have not shown anywhere that a small minority are only skeptical of evolution...they disregard it totally as nothing more than theory. How is there zero evidence that a biblical God created everything? It is the same evidence you are observing only viewed differently. The evidence has open up to the contrary, it is called Creation theory and intelligent design.


So you understand evolution, you just believe god is guiding it, and you are still unsure of life's origin, but you're leaning towards god creating it.

Or you still believe in biblical genesis? I most definately understand the concept of evolution. I am no expert in the field and cannot explain the complex mathematics or molecular biology. I am not unsure of life's origin. I am sure that the Biblical God spoke everything into existence. How He did so is above me and everyone else, including scientific method.I do believe that species will adapt to their surroundings, this is very evident and easily observed. That does not though mean that things evolved from one single celled organism. To me, if everything in the natural world shows purpose and intent, then it would stand to reason that it was a design of higher intelligence. The same evidence you view is the same that i look at. I believe it to be a signature of God and that science is a way for us to come closer to Him and understanding the world He created around us. It really is beautiful and magnificent how everything seems to just "fit" together.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTr48KigjBD_MNxBJBKUVRMmWEN8tQxp d7Rz5oc3Nw9HmonwSiy2w
Give it a few years...it could happen...:yes:

[.blank cd]

If evolution was regarded as fact, then there would be no debate, Faith would be defeated, and we would not be having this conversation. I am not convinced that it is regarded as fact in the scientific community, i can't argue thought that it is a widely held belief. I have not shown anywhere that a small minority are only skeptical of evolution...they disregard it totally as nothing more than theory. How is there zero evidence that a biblical God created everything? It is the same evidence you are observing only viewed differently. The evidence has open up to the contrary, it is called Creation theory and intelligent design.The debate stems from the people that don't fully understand and completely reject evolution because it conflicts with their belief in biblical genesis and the great flood/noahs ark in the bible. Because they believe the bible is absolute truth. This is called cognative dissonance. When people hold onto beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. These are the people that think evolution is an "educated guess". Creation and I.D. are called conjectures in the scientific community. Hypotheses that are untestable. Simple statements, because, as you mentioned before, they deal with the supernatural and are not bound by any laws of physics. Faith is not defeated becuase science is still open to the possibility that a creator may have initiated the whole process, but currently lacks the evidence since it is not bound by physics.


I most definately understand the concept of evolution. I am no expert in the field and cannot explain the complex mathematics or molecular biology. I am not unsure of life's origin. I am sure that the Biblical God spoke everything into existence. How He did so is above me and everyone else, including scientific method.If god is outside of the laws of physics and the scientific method, why do creationists, who have a limited understanding of physics in the first place, use physical laws and the scientific method to try and explain it?


I do believe that species will adapt to their surroundings, this is very evident and easily observed. That does not though mean that things evolved from one single celled organism.Are you open to the possibility that complex life did evolve from one single celled organism and that a creator put all those amino acids in place to make that organism?


To me, if everything in the natural world shows purpose and intent, then it would stand to reason that it was a design of higher intelligence. The same evidence you view is the same that i look at. I believe it to be a signature of God and that science is a way for us to come closer to Him and understanding the world He created around us. It really is beautiful and magnificent how everything seems to just "fit" together.

Thanks so much god for designing this for us. The human race just wouldnt be the same without it

http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/virus_big1dl.jpg

^^^ Human Immunodeficiency Virus

[geoff]

The debate stems from the people that don't fully understand and completely reject evolution because it conflicts with their belief in biblical genesis and the great flood/noahs ark in the bible. Because they believe the bible is absolute truth. This is called cognative dissonance. When people hold onto beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. These are the people that think evolution is an "educated guess". Creation and I.D. are called conjectures in the scientific community. Hypotheses that are untestable. Simple statements, because, as you mentioned before, they deal with the supernatural and are not bound by any laws of physics. Faith is not defeated becuase science is still open to the possibility that a creator may have initiated the whole process, but currently lacks the evidence since it is not bound by physics.
I see what you are saying here. I am not saying that the existence of God is some how proven with the available evidence. What I am saying is that the available evidence can be seen as showing purpose, intent, design, and intelligence. All those things point to a Intelligent Designer. Even Creationalism believing scientists ( yes with phd) will say that it is not based on theological beliefs but actually points towards it. Come on man, you read the article and saw the videos. That evidence isnt produced from thin air nor completely fabricated. It can be observed and rationalized. There are some very good points that Creationalist make...you said so yourself. I like the fact that you said faith is not defeated by science...not many evolutionists see that...ie Richard Dawkins. Many though would like to use the theory to destroy religion, faith, God in general. Would it not seem that way to you?


If god is outside of the laws of physics and the scientific method, why do creationists, who have a limited understanding of physics in the first place, use physical laws and the scientific method to try and explain it?
So all creationists have a limited understanding? Even those with p.h.d.'s in biology and physics? The question can be flipped my friend. Why do atheists believe this same evidence can be used to disprove God? This same evidence is used by creationists to point towards intelligent design.


Are you open to the possibility that complex life did evolve from one single celled organism and that a creator put all those amino acids in place to make that organism?
No. Not simply by my faith but also by scientific evidence/lack of explanation. For example, bacteriam flagellum. Complex organism that could not have evolved over time gradually through natural selection. Please explain how this organism exists then, or did it never evolve?

Are you open to the possibility that there is an Ultimate Creator who put forth the motions to the universe and life as we know it? I'm not asking whether you are open to the possibility that He guides evolution or that He merely spoke everything into existence. I just wanna know, is it at all possible that He exists?

Also, you never answered my question earlier about every single living thing having a purpose in life. What are your thoughts on this statement..."everything in nature has a purpose, purpose that shows intent, intent that shows intelligence." ?

Oh, and still waiting on your response to the cambrian explosion

[Vteckidd]

I'm gonna wait till you figure out why what you copy pasted didn't make sense

Evolution is the theory that species evolved ,survival of the fittest, natural selection, but it doesnt answer where the original species comes from. It largely ignores that.

SO on one hand you use evolution to explain why god doesnt exist, but on the other hand you argue that evolution doesnt try to explain where anyone comes from. Its double talk, and its funny.

After pages of posts it still comes down to the 1 statement i always make and its still true:
You cannot prove god exists, and you cannot prove he DOESNT exist.

Thats it.

[bu villain]

The only ones who think evolution disproves God are religous people. No self respecting atheist (including Richard Dawkins) would say that it does.

[Benefit]

Birds are fish which were "dna in the water" .... huh?

[geoff]

The only ones who think evolution disproves God are religous people. No self respecting atheist (including Richard Dawkins) would say that it does.
I would really like to see you back this up. I can personally give you i don't know...20 examples off the top of my head where Richard Dawkins uses evolution to disprove God, mock religion, and make those who have faith out to be foolish uneducated morons. If what you say above is true, then Dawkins is no longer a self respecting atheist. He has taken it upon himself to spread the anti-god agenda. How do I know this? Look at his website, look at the videos he has made, look at the interviews....

[Benefit]

birds are fish

[geoff]

birds are fish
Dude, what are you saying lol

[Benefit]

there was DNA in the water, which somehow turned into fish....then the fish learned to walk on land and breathe air, turn into something else...and eventually grow wings...DUH

[geoff]

Oh ok lol. Yeah, some of the specifics in the theory are well....far fetched to say the least. What astounds me most is this. In the beginning (yes we all believe their was a beginning) was nothing. Then out of nothing came matter, then for no reason that matter decided to change into stars, planets, ect....Then on one particular planet, which would have been considered uninhabitable...nothing once again turned into a single celled organism which became the mother/father of all living things.

Wanna really throw a wrench into the "Law of Evolution"( after all it is an undisputed fact amongst learned folks) ask them about bacteria flaggelum. It is a complex "machine" organism that could not have simply evolved over a gradual amount of time....otherwise it would not exist....

[Benefit]

In the first days, water was pure. it did not contain DNA and bacteria like todays water

and earth is just that lucky bastard that has a breathable substance called oxygen instead of carbon dioxide

[Benefit]

Absurd shit, cant believe people actually believe that shit....wtf

its just a way to escape the reality i guess

[geoff]

i believe its a way to escape morality and submission to an authority higher than themselves. God demands a higher way of conduct and lifestyle.

[.blank cd]

I like the fact that you said faith is not defeated by science...not many evolutionists see that...ie Richard Dawkins. Many though would like to use the theory to destroy religion, faith, God in general. Would it not seem that way to you?No. Have you ever read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "The God Delusion". I would highly recommend reading those.



So all creationists have a limited understanding? Even those with p.h.d.'s in biology and physics? The question can be flipped my friend. Why do atheists believe this same evidence can be used to disprove God? This same evidence is used by creationists to point towards intelligent design.I would be incredibly surprised if you found me a biologist or a physicist that said "god spoke everything into creation as it is today"

No one has ever tried to disprove god here. We have simply said it is highly unlikely that he exists. Since he doesnt want to play by the rules of science, we simply cant assume he is real. If one day he decided to play by the rules and say "here I am!", then that would be a totally different story.



No. Not simply by my faith but also by scientific evidence/lack of explanation. For example, bacteriam flagellum. Complex organism that could not have evolved over time gradually through natural selection. Please explain how this organism exists then, or did it never evolve?Picture if you will a 5-20 billion year old earth. On one side of it, lets say where georgia sits, lets say we have this environment X. we hit it with lightning and we get amino acids. Lets travel way on the other side, where Moscow sits. There happens to be a little higher concentration of oxygen gas in this spot so we get a little higher concentration of amino acid A. Lets say in every spot we hit with lightning we get a different concentration of different amino acids (If we stop right here, we have just given an example of ABIOGENESIS). pretty soon these acids blend together develop into DNA. lets say that due to the concentration of acids in ga, we develop single cell X, in moscow, due to the different concentration acids, we develop single cell Y. Y is a simple bacterium. Over the years and years and years the concentration in the bad gasses lessens, nitrogen and oxygen become more prevalent. At just the right time, maybe it took a couple billion years, but the concentration of gasses became just right for more complex life. energy sources change, environment changes, now we get multicellular organisms, and sexual reproduction. and remember, there are all these different organisms all over the earth because of small environment changes, evolving at their own pace due to their own environments and energy sources. mix all that together and life begins to expand exponentially. This is the reason behind the "cambrian explosion". Theres a mathematical equation that also explains this, I gotta find it though...


Are you open to the possibility that there is an Ultimate Creator who put forth the motions to the universe and life as we know it? I'm not asking whether you are open to the possibility that He guides evolution or that He merely spoke everything into existence. I just wanna know, is it at all possible that He exists?Unlikey, because as we both agreed, scientifically, the creator is not currently playing by the laws of physics and the scientific method. Scientifically, we cannot assume he exists. WHEN THE DAY COMES that the creator, whatever it is, decides to play by the rules, then we can examine it.


Also, you never answered my question earlier about every single living thing having a purpose in life. What are your thoughts on this statement..."everything in nature has a purpose, purpose that shows intent, intent that shows intelligence." ?I know everything has a purpose as well. Its just a different intent than yours


Evolution is the theory that species evolved ,survival of the fittest, natural selection, but it doesnt answer where the original species comes from. It largely ignores that.No, it completely ignores that. Evolutions job isnt to explain where everything comes from. That is called Abiogenesis. If i told you about internal combustion theory, air/fuel comes in, gets compressed, explodes, exits chamber, turns crankshaft. I totally left out who invented internal combustion, didnt i?


SO on one hand you use evolution to explain why god doesnt exist, but on the other hand you argue that evolution doesnt try to explain where anyone comes from. Its double talk, and its funny.Ive never once used evolution to explain that he doesnt exist. Ive explained how evolution works, and how its highly unlikely that a creator exists. Can you point me to an instance where I did this and I'd be happy to further explain it.

[.blank cd]

Oh ok lol. Yeah, some of the specifics in the theory are well....far fetched to say the least. What astounds me most is this. In the beginning (yes we all believe their was a beginning) was nothing. Then out of nothing came matter, then for no reason that matter decided to change into stars, planets, ect....Then on one particular planet, which would have been considered uninhabitable...nothing once again turned into a single celled organism which became the mother/father of all living things.No. Not a single scientist thinks this. This is also not evolution.


Wanna really throw a wrench into the "Law of Evolution"( after all it is an undisputed fact amongst learned folks) ask them about bacteria flaggelum. It is a complex "machine" organism that could not have simply evolved over a gradual amount of time....otherwise it would not exist....Flagellum doesnt throw a wrench in evolution at all. Its about like legs on a human.


i believe its a way to escape morality and submission to an authority higher than themselves. God demands a higher way of conduct and lifestyle.Escape morality? What do you mean by that?

[Benefit]

just right for more complex life. energy sources change, environment changes, now we get multicellular organisms, and sexual reproduction. and remember, there are all these different organisms all over the earth because of small environment changes


so these "organisms" that came from "LIGHTNING" turned into PTERODACTYLS AND T-REX'S????
?

[Benefit]

listen to yourself man

lightning put organisms on the earth and they turned into flying pterodactyls

i know you are going to respond with

"over time"

[.blank cd]

listen to yourself man

lightning put organisms on the earth and they turned into flying pterodactylsYes thats what I'm saying. You have a different theory? Supported by physical evidence?

Lemme guess. You think allah snapped his fingers and t-rex's and pterodactyls just....happened, right?

[Benefit]

he didnt have to snap his fingers

Why dont you go to google and type in slight concavity?

or better yet, why dont you go look for a dimple on YOUR OWN forehead, let alone try to find one PARALLEL to it

[Benefit]

lol lightning...pterodactyls...

wtf this world come to

[bu villain]

I would really like to see you back this up. I can personally give you i don't know...20 examples off the top of my head where Richard Dawkins uses evolution to disprove God, mock religion, and make those who have faith out to be foolish uneducated morons. If what you say above is true, then Dawkins is no longer a self respecting atheist. He has taken it upon himself to spread the anti-god agenda. How do I know this? Look at his website, look at the videos he has made, look at the interviews....

Well I dont own any of his books so I can't look for quotes but I've seen interviews before and read a couple of his books. I never remember him making any such claim. If you can show where he said evolution disproves God then I will admit I am wrong. No doubt he hates religion and is a proponent of evolution, but I don't believe he ever said evolution proves God doesn't exist because that doesn't make any logical sense.

[bu villain]

listen to yourself man

lightning put organisms on the earth and they turned into flying pterodactyls

i know you are going to respond with

"over time"

So you don't think God has the ability to start life with lightning? I think you underestimate him.

[Benefit]

no comment

[.blank cd]

So you don't think God has the ability to start life with lightning? I think you underestimate him.

/thread. Lol.

[Echonova]

But really, are you being really serious right now? I refuse to believe someone with any kind of post secondary, paid higher education background has such limited understanding of evolution. Unless you went to BYUI disagree with a lot of your views... But I LIRL'd for real.



And I can prove it with science ;)

[geoff]

Flagellum doesnt throw a wrench in evolution at all. Its about like legs on a human.
Yes that is what flagellum means. But the bacteria flagellum is a complex organism described as a "machine" that could not have existed according to the current evolution model.


No. Have you ever read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "The God Delusion". I would highly recommend reading those.

Well I dont own any of his books so I can't look for quotes but I've seen interviews before and read a couple of his books. I never remember him making any such claim. If you can show where he said evolution disproves God then I will admit I am wrong. No doubt he hates religion and is a proponent of evolution, but I don't believe he ever said evolution proves God doesn't exist because that doesn't make any logical sense.
I too have seen videos of his and his web page. The video " The God Delusion" he goes around with a figurative " Evolution is god" sign, mocks those of faith and uses evolution as a tool to disprove faith/creation. How do I know this? I watched the videos and read his page.


Yes thats what I'm saying. You have a different theory? Supported by physical evidence?

Lemme guess. You think allah snapped his fingers and t-rex's and pterodactyls just....happened, right?
You understand that the Intelligent Design theory is not based on theological reasoning but on the same evidence you use for evolution don't you? If you took the time to research it, you would see it is not so far fetched. They do not claim any certain "God" as the designer. They simply state that a higher intelligence that is not bound by physical law was responsible. Is it really so hard to believe? Abiogenesis is a load of crap and evolution relies completely on "chance". Mathematically speaking the "odds" of evolution are way less than a 50/50% of God.


Escape morality? What do you mean by that?
Men are naturally selfish and do what pleases them most above all else. The " faith " is supposed to be about a strict code of conduct, self sacrifice, and service to fellow man. Not to say that all atheists are "bad" or that all those with some sort of faith are " good". But the atheist world is mostly of those who support gay marriage, abortion, ect....

This is the way I personally view evolution....the theory of evolution provides a convincing story of how life came to be the way that it currently is. There are several different evidences that are used. But, this theory can in no way give a logical explanation of why it came to be nor how it eventually came from absolute nothing.You can not simply ignore these two important aspects by saying they don't matter or they are irrelevant. What if the theory of evolution was said by scientists to have been put in motion by an ancient super alien race? Would that make you agree or disagree with it?

[Benefit]

Convincing story? its complete bs

lightning=pterodactyls

[.blank cd]

Yes that is what flagellum means. But the bacteria flagellum is a complex organism described as a "machine" that could not have existed according to the current evolution model. So then what do you think the difference is between a flagellum on a bacteria and an animal sperm?




I too have seen videos of his and his web page. The video " The God Delusion" he goes around with a figurative " Evolution is god" sign, mocks those of faith and uses evolution as a tool to disprove faith/creation. How do I know this? I watched the videos and read his page.Did you read the book "The greatest show on earth" and "The God Delusion"?




Men are naturally selfish and do what pleases them most above all else. The " faith " is supposed to be about a strict code of conduct, self sacrifice, and service to fellow man. Not to say that all atheists are "bad" or that all those with some sort of faith are " good". But the atheist world is mostly of those who support gay marriage, abortion, ect....Yes, human equality is a something a lot of atheists believe in



What if the theory of evolution was said by scientists to have been put in motion by an ancient super alien race? Would that make you agree or disagree with it?If we had empirical, physical, evidence the earth began by an ancient super alien race, then absolutely. In that same respect, if there was the same evidence that god created everything, then I would believe it as well.

[.blank cd]

Convincing story? its complete bs

lightning=pterodactylsDid you happen to answer bu's question? Or do you still have no comment? Or is that your comment?

[Benefit]

organisms? cells?

if i dumped 100 alive humans in the ocean, with dna, sperm, cells, organisms

i would not even have bone in 1 million years

[Benefit]

Did you happen to answer bu's question? Or do you still have no comment? Or is that your comment?

did you type in slight concavity in google?

[.blank cd]

did you type in slight concavity in google?Absolutely.

"hair is thick, his forehead is broad and there is a slight concavity on his forehead. His nose is small, and there is a very small protrusion right on the bridge. A small mole protrudes on his cheek."

Im assuming thats what you're looking for

[Benefit]

yea, there are 100's of physical characteristics like that, written before he was born...and he possesses them all

your answer will be "coincidence"

this "slight concavity" is on the right center of the forehead...and there is another exactly parallel to it...can you find one on YOUR forehead?

im guessing the pyramids were giant boulders at one time and wind shaped them into the way they are now?

[Echonova]

organisms? cells?

if i dumped 100 alive humans in the ocean, with dna, sperm, cells, organisms

i would not even have bone in 1 million yearsScience can explain that.

[Benefit]

Science can explain why i wont have bone in 1 million years? that was my whole point

I dont need science to explain me anything, i already know

Not only would "just water" be enough for Eukaryota or amoeba to evolve into a fish or w/e...(and remember, water back then was not like todays contaminated water)

but then there are people who think lightning did it?what?

lets be serious here

[RL...]

Religion hasn't proven that god invented the world, and science hasn't concretely proven evolution, but it's far more plausible than how the bible tell us of how the world came to be. From a purely logical point of view, I think it makes more sense to believe in evolution than what the bible says.

Story about evolution > story about a god creating the world in 7 days

[Echonova]

Story about evolution > story about a god creating the world in 7 daysSimple answer... He didn't. God created the universe in six days, he rested on the seventh... But I digest.


God didn't create light until the third day... How do you know how long a day was before that? ~insert question I don't really expect an answer to, but will probably get one anyway~

[RL...]

Simple answer... He didn't. God created the universe in six days, he rested on the seventh... But I digest.


God didn't create light until the third day... How do you know how long a day was before that? ~insert question I don't really expect an answer to, but will probably get one anyway~

We don't, but I'm sure god knew/knows. He knows all, after all.

[Benefit]

lightning...bolts

[Benefit]

ptero...dactyls

[Benefit]

pyramids

[geoff]

Story about evolution > story about a god creating the world in 7 days

The only thing i find compelling in the evolution theory is .....adaptation. Adaptation is something you don't have to be a scientist to observe. So what you are telling me is that this theory, which relies completely on chance, and can not even begin to describe where it came from or what was the cause that put it into motion is more believable than intelligent design or that God created everything? The theory of evolution is an effect that can not point out its cause...goes against the law of causality.

When you talk about God being responsible for it all, you have to consider a few things. For one, there are evidences that point to intent and design ( the same evidences used to describe evolution). In order for a being to literally take nothing and then create every form of matter and natural law, that said being would have to be eternal and infinite to create a finite universe. This being would have to be not bound by space and time and be above every known physical law of nature. So, how can we being finite and bound by laws and relatively new to this planet ( some 6000years since writing and civilization) expect to be able to explain this God? Now, we have evidence supporting design, we have a cause for the effect, and honestly there is only a 50% chance that He did or didn't do it. Now, logically, how is evolution more probable? Or are we the general populous being fed a theory that is very improbable?

Remember this, not too long ago the entire scientific/philosophical community swore that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe. I'm sure just as today, the theory was changed numerous times to "fit" in. This theory today is considered false and if you still believed it you would be ridiculous. So how many times does this current theory of evolution have to be "tweaked" before it to is found to be improbable or ridiculous.

Go watch the series called " The God Delusion" on youtube and please tell me what Richard Dawkins purpose is. Evolution has been abandoned as a science and has become propaganda to further the atheistic cause.

[bu villain]

I dont need science to explain me anything, i already know

Because we all know from history, the scientific method has never advanced knowledge beyond anyone's gut feelings or "common sense".

By the way, I'm still insulted that you think you can tell God what is possible and what is not. His power is infinite!

[bu villain]

Go watch the series called " The God Delusion" on youtube and please tell me what Richard Dawkins purpose is. Evolution has been abandoned as a science and has become propaganda to further the atheistic cause.

I've read the book by the same name, is that sufficient? His purpose is to explain why its illogical to believe in God, not that it is impossible for God to exist.

[geoff]

My point exactly...he uses evolution and his own beliefs to as you said, " explain why its illogical to believe in God". Science is supposed to be objective and without bias....would you describe Dawkins as such?

[.blank cd]

Yes.

[geoff]

Really? " explain why its illogical to believe in God" this right here shows bias.

[.blank cd]

So then if he believes in god, it wouldnt be biased, right?

[RL...]

The only thing i find compelling in the evolution theory is .....adaptation. Adaptation is something you don't have to be a scientist to observe. So what you are telling me is that this theory, which relies completely on chance, and can not even begin to describe where it came from or what was the cause that put it into motion is more believable than intelligent design or that God created everything? The theory of evolution is an effect that can not point out its cause...goes against the law of causality.

When you talk about God being responsible for it all, you have to consider a few things. For one, there are evidences that point to intent and design ( the same evidences used to describe evolution). In order for a being to literally take nothing and then create every form of matter and natural law, that said being would have to be eternal and infinite to create a finite universe. This being would have to be not bound by space and time and be above every known physical law of nature. So, how can we being finite and bound by laws and relatively new to this planet ( some 6000years since writing and civilization) expect to be able to explain this God? Now, we have evidence supporting design, we have a cause for the effect, and honestly there is only a 50% chance that He did or didn't do it. Now, logically, how is evolution more probable? Or are we the general populous being fed a theory that is very improbable?

Remember this, not too long ago the entire scientific/philosophical community swore that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe. I'm sure just as today, the theory was changed numerous times to "fit" in. This theory today is considered false and if you still believed it you would be ridiculous. So how many times does this current theory of evolution have to be "tweaked" before it to is found to be improbable or ridiculous.

Go watch the series called " The God Delusion" on youtube and please tell me what Richard Dawkins purpose is. Evolution has been abandoned as a science and has become propaganda to further the atheistic cause.



You say the theory of evolution is based on chance. Perhaps, but the idea of religion is based on pure faith, there is nothing scientific at all about it. And I'd take chance over blind faith any day.

[geoff]

So then if he believes in god, it wouldnt be biased, right?
I don't think you could have missed the purpose of my original statement any more than you have already. Dawkins is a scientist that uses such science and the theory of evolution to mock the belief in a God. That is biased. Any scientist who uses science to disprove/prove God is bias. That is the point, science is supposed to be unbiased and objective. Dawkins by his own mouth and actions makes his point invalid.


You say the theory of evolution is based on chance. Perhaps, but the idea of religion is based on pure faith, there is nothing scientific at all about it. And I'd take chance over blind faith any day.
You sir do not understand the theory of intelligent design then.

[Benefit]

birds are fish

[.blank cd]

I don't think you could have missed the purpose of my original statement any more than you have already. Dawkins is a scientist that uses such science and the theory of evolution to mock the belief in a God. That is biased. Any scientist who uses science to disprove/prove God is bias. That is the point, science is supposed to be unbiased and objective. Dawkins by his own mouth and actions makes his point invalid.

He doesn't use evolution to mock god. He uses logical fallacies in the bible to mock god.

Intelligent Design is not a theory by the way, it's a conjecture

[bodhi]

heh, I see geoff continues his journey through the valley of logic -dodging the hints and knowledge, in search of the holy land and his father jesus

... uh, fyi bro


there is no need for the apostrophe in the title..."evolutionists". porque u do dat?

perhaps you should get yer nose outta the bible and into a punctuation for dummies book, dewd.

[geoff]

Bohdi, I was wondering if you'ld show up in here lol. Still taking on the role of grammar police I see. Care to add an oppinion on the subject? oh how I miss the intense back and forths we had. Still haven't found God eh?

[-EnVus-]

Bohdi, I was wondering if you'ld show up in here lol. Still taking on the role of grammar police I see. Care to add an oppinion on the subject? oh how I miss the intense back and forths we had. Still haven't found God eh?
I went down that road many times for many years with him and nothing so i doubt he did

[bodhi]

Bohdi, I was wondering if you'ld show up in here lol. Still taking on the role of grammar police I see. Care to add an oppinion on the subject? oh how I miss the intense back and forths we had. Still haven't found God eh?

yeah i found god, he told me to tell you to stop masturbating so much and to go get laid....


now if you wish for me to beat you in the same little game i will, but where to start? are we talking about evolution and if its real? if so it is impossible to deny that evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. to deny this is to deny reason.
we can see evidence that it has occurred in the past through the study of fossil records, through natural selection... life learns to adapt to and thrive in an ever-changing environment. a perfect example is religion and its relevance centuries ago compared to its irrelevance today

am i getting too deep for you? anyway, with that being said, there are certain aspects of evolution that i am unable to wrap my head around especially when it comes to humans

we already know that certain types of bacteria and other microscopic life forms can survive in space for limited amounts of time

this is all basic

thinking in general terms of evolution, we are one of the most successful species known....correct? we thrive and live in many different types of environments and instead of adapting to new environments, we have learned to use technology to change an environment to be more suitable to us
through the process of manipulating our environment, we have also interrupted the "natural" phenomenon of evolution. we are slowly but surely forcing a shift from survival of the fittest to survival of whatever fits us


this is all common knowledge to people like me not fag-hating religious tards who are trying to hold people back from learning and evolving. dont take me calling you an idiot personal, just take it as me re-teaching you what you science teacher taught you in middle school

[bodhi]

you know what, geoff, i bet you have debunked everyones opinion on evolution in this thread...


go jump off a bridge and debunk the theory of gravity now

[bodhi]

hey geoff i found god! ya like a few seconds ago bro, omg it was awesome...it has hit me


everything makes sense now! i think god created the universe with me in mind, and when i sleep god in heaven keeps a notebook where he makes notes of all naughty sex dreams and when i die he opens this books and says

"heeeey you had naughty dreams and thoughts and once you masturbated so thats bad also and even though you never killed or raped anyone you are going to hell because you worked on sundays and sundays are everyones day off because when i created the planet i had to sleep on the seventh day because i was tired oh and you had sex before you were married so that only adds to your evil ways... you'll stay in hell forever and everyone that never sinned will get to heaven where they will spend an eternity with me and that means they get to praise me 24-7 for an eternity."

yeah i love god

my bible tells me everything about space that i need to know. it should totally get the nobel prize for physics and medicine

[bodhi]

zZz...

im outtie, geoff, but i will be back tomorrow so respond and try to sound esmart k

[Benefit]

love how people correct grammar while making grammar mistakes themselves...bandwagoner, follower, unoriginal

lightning bolts!

i will say it again, darwin was only right about natural selection...higher jumping frogs elude predator and babies are higher jumping frogs

THEY DO NOT DEVELOP POISON GLANDS IN THEIR SKIN TO KILL THE PREDATOR.

there are too many holes in that evolution THEORY, while in religion there are 0 holes

except for you would need to see proof.

when muhammed split the moon in peoples faces they said it was magic. ~2000 years ago

what makes you think you have gotten that much smarter since then?

there is too much proof

i swear there is some radiation in the air of this earth that is making you dumb but at the same time making you think you are super smart


a hummingbird and woodpecker are two completely different birds, but a hummingbirds wings flap 100 times faster than that of a normal bird to enable it to fly backwards,forwards, and fucking HOVER(only bird who can)...this is CLEARLY intelligent design...not ADAPTATION/evolution


a woodpecker can peck 30 times per second...how the fuck are they even ancestors? just because they have wings?

EVEN IF YOU GOT PROOF, YOU WOULD DENY IT. (even though you have blatant proof)

im done posting about this shit, ignorance is bliss

-this is a sign of the end times-

[RL...]

love how people correct grammar while making grammar mistakes themselves...bandwagoner, follower, unoriginal

lightning bolts!

i will say it again, darwin was only right about natural selection...higher jumping frogs elude predator and babies are higher jumping frogs

THEY DO NOT DEVELOP POISON GLANDS IN THEIR SKIN TO KILL THE PREDATOR.

there are too many holes in that evolution THEORY, while in religion there are 0 holes

except for you would need to see proof.

when muhammed split the moon in peoples faces they said it was magic. ~2000 years ago

what makes you think you have gotten that much smarter since then?

there is too much proof

i swear there is some radiation in the air of this earth that is making you dumb but at the same time making you think you are super smart


a hummingbird and woodpecker are two completely different birds, but a hummingbirds wings flap 100 times faster than that of a normal bird to enable it to fly backwards,forwards, and fucking HOVER(only bird who can)...this is CLEARLY intelligent design...not ADAPTATION/evolution


a woodpecker can peck 30 times per second...how the fuck are they even ancestors? just because they have wings?

EVEN IF YOU GOT PROOF, YOU WOULD DENY IT. (even though you have blatant proof)

im done posting about this shit, ignorance is bliss

-this is a sign of the end times-


0 holes in religion? Religion is nothing but one BIG ASS HOLE. The foundation of religion is based on faith, blind faith that what these books say is true.

[.blank cd]

this is all common knowledge to people like me not fag-hating religious tards who are trying to hold people back from learning and evolving. dont take me calling you an idiot personal, just take it as me re-teaching you what you science teacher taught you in middle school
All the resistance against evolution is just making people want to learn about it. Its called the Striesand Effect, and with it, religion dies just a little bit more

[.blank cd]

EVEN IF YOU GOT PROOF, YOU WOULD DENY IT. (even though you have blatant proof)You have yet to bring any scientific proof.

Here's my challenge to you, benefit, and other believers of creation. The first person to bring me hard scientific evidence in proof of creationism, I will renounce my atheism and baptize myself in the winners religion

[Vteckidd]

Here's my challenge to you, benefit, and other believers of creation. The first person to bring me hard scientific evidence in proof of creationism, I will renounce my atheism and baptize myself in the winners religion

this is why you are incapable of arguing with. YOu think that we are supposed to change your mind, that is not my goal.

I dont care if youre an atheist.

After 6 pages, you are still too naive to understand what the argument is all about.

I cant prove god exists, you cant prove he doesnt. Despite all your double talk, all your distorting of the arguments and facts, there is stacked evidence to approve and disprove evolution ,as well as gods existence. If 1 was infallible over there other, then it would be PROVEN, its not.

Evolution i believe happens, but it doesnt explain where species and mammals started from. It doesnt explain where we came from. I dont by the "we just evolved from single cell organisms" crap.

Creationism gives us a theory where we came from, but again, its not proveable because we werent there.

Both sides have things we cant prove, that is why its based on faith.

you however, want everyone to think your way , which is wrong.

[.blank cd]

I dont by the "we just evolved from single cell organisms" crap.Fortunately, evolution isn't something you have to "buy" for it to happen, kinda like the Pythagorean theorem in math, kinda like the theory of relativity, triangles are relative, and we're all stuck to the ground. All life evolves. Either you understand it or you don't.

[bodhi]

humans ARE apes, like ducks are birds... you don't outgrow your ancestry

creationism is simply retarded and to think of it as even .00000000000009% plausible is laughable.

i love when people preach creationism, it is basically saying my god is a moron. if god knew everything and created us in his image he is an idiot, and i can say that he would be like 3rd grade special needs 4real...
we have a vestigial muscle in our foot, for grabbing branches, we have an appendix, we have wisdom teeth, we have a undeveloped muscle in our ear...

whales have useless hips and a undeveloped hind leg

so if creationism is real you are saying god is a moron that threw a bunch of extra parts into his/her/its creations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

1. people being born with abnormalities
2. pedophiles inserting fruit in lil girls vaginas
3. hardcore racists
4. infecting kind, hardworking citizens with cancer


no no, that's the work of the devil to throw us off the true path to god right?

for anyone to believe in a god and everything being created by him has been blinded by god's jizz and cannot see life clearly..for what it is, and how it should be viewed. why would anyone actually bother to argue with someone as closeminded as this geoff dude?

referring god as a he...who the fuck has seen him? a being with that kind of supernatural power could be a transvestite for all we know.

creationism is bimbo logic PERIOD!

[bodhi]

Fortunately, evolution isn't something you have to "buy" for it to happen, kinda like the Pythagorean theorem in math, kinda like the theory of relativity, triangles are relative, and we're all stuck to the ground. All life evolves. Either you understand it or you don't.

heh, honestly


why some people REFUSE to come to terms with reality is beyond me...i have always liked you as a poster, black cd, since back when ia used to be the place to post...and now i know why +1

[bodhi]

a hummingbird and woodpecker are two completely different birds, but a hummingbirds wings flap 100 times faster than that of a normal bird to enable it to fly backwards,forwards, and fucking HOVER(only bird who can)...this is CLEARLY intelligent design...not ADAPTATION/evolution


a woodpecker can peck 30 times per second...how the fuck are they even ancestors? just because they have wings?

EVEN IF YOU GOT PROOF, YOU WOULD DENY IT. (even though you have blatant proof)

im done posting about this shit, ignorance is bliss

-this is a sign of the end times-


oh wow

hahahaha lol how did i miss that?!!

[Vteckidd]

Fortunately, evolution isn't something you have to "buy" for it to happen, kinda like the Pythagorean theorem in math, kinda like the theory of relativity, triangles are relative, and we're all stuck to the ground. All life evolves. Either you understand it or you don't.

Just proved my point, you read what I write and only see what you want to see.

Creationism explains where we came from, as a theory
Evolution doesn't answer where we came from it assumes we were already here. There's no evidence to suggest a primordial soup evolved into complex organisms, and frankly evolutions time frame is so far off with the AG of the earth that alone is hole enough.

Lastly, gravity you can prove exists, you cannot prove how complex organisms began.

You guys honestly ar so close minded it really is pointless to argue

[bodhi]

Just proved my point, you read what I write and only see what you want to see.

Creationism explains where we came from, as a theory
Evolution doesn't answer where we came from it assumes we were already here. There's no evidence to suggest a primordial soup evolved into complex organisms, and frankly evolutions time frame is so far off with the AG of the earth that alone is hole enough.

Lastly, gravity you can prove exists, you cannot prove how complex organisms began.

You guys honestly ar so close minded it really is pointless to argue

creationism explains where we came from...theoretically

so that alone is enough for you? really... thats all? man it doesnt take much for you

yeah and its not that "we're" close-minded, its that we're NOT retarded

HOW HOW HOW is "intelligent design" the answer to how we became what we are today? we were created by a being in his image, in a short time span...EVERYTHING WAS JUST BOOM...done? gimme a break dude, for someone to accept that as FACT and disbelieve in evolution is - is just wow.

i come back to ia only to see why i left in the first place. if i dont see any reason and logic being posted by others ima peace it the fuck out

[.blank cd]

heh, honestly


why some people REFUSE to come to terms with reality is beyond me...i have always liked you as a poster, black cd, since back when ia used to be the place to post...and now i know why +1
And I have always been somewhat mildly terrified of your user avatar. Keep up the good work. Lol

[Vteckidd]

creationism explains where we came from...theoretically
i come back to ia only to see why i left in the first place. if i dont see any reason and logic being posted by others ima peace it the fuck out

ok, then good bye? no one really cares about your threats to leave. Participate or leave, none of us cares.

Lastly, there is NO EVIDENCE that suggests we simply appeared by the grace of god, likewise, there is ZERO evidence that we are here because lightning zapped a pool of matter than turned into complex organisms that then evolved into species that gave us man, billions upon billions upon billions of years later. For that to happen , the earth would hae to be FAR OLDER than what evolution THINKS we are. And the fossil records have GIGANTIC holes in them.

Its a very simple concept, there is no concrete infallible evidence we evolved from the big bang or something else, or that god created us in 7 days. they are both BELIEFS, not proven.

Ill ask a simple question then, where did MATTER COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from in the first place?
These things you, evolution, and creationism cannot answer.

all you 2 jackasses want to do is berate people into agreeing with you, you want everyone to respect your opinions and beliefs while shitting on everyone elses.

I just choose to have an open mind and say "i dont know"

[Vteckidd]

And I have always been somewhat mildly terrified of your user avatar. Keep up the good work. Lol

why dont you guys go circle jerk each other somewhere else

[.blank cd]

Just proved my point, you read what I write and only see what you want to see.I read your whole post, I promise, I've just stopped responding to stuff you don't understand, like how you believe evolution is supposed to be some all encompassing concept, when it's not


Creationism explains where we came from, as a theory
Evolution doesn't answer where we came from it assumes we were already here.Evolution doesnt have to, thats called abiogenesis.[/quote]


There's no evidence to suggest a primordial soup evolved into complex organisms, and frankly evolutions time frame is so far off with the AG of the earth that alone is hole enough.Did you not see my post about the miller-Urey experiment?



You guys honestly ar so close minded it really is pointless to argueYou know, I used to be closed-minded. I thought that god was the only explanation for everything that exists. But the more I got my head in other books, I found out how less and less likely that was.

[Vteckidd]

the fact that you try to pass yourself off as some intellectual is truly just funny. You resort to this "you dont understand im so much smarter than you i wont bother explaining" that just makes me chuckle.

WHat is your degree in again? Highest level of education? Surely you make good money being as smart as you are.

Lastly, i never said i ONLY believed in GOD and that creationism was the ONLY ANSWER. For you to suggest that shows absolutely how FUCKING DUMB you are. Ive never once said that. Ive only said that there is just as much evidence (as lack of evidence) to support creationism and evolution.

Furthermore your double talk tactics are retarded. On one hand you argue that evolution explains why god doesnt exist, then when i ask simple questions you say "oh no evolution doesnt deal with that".

Evolution deals with species evolving, but it doesnt explain where the species come from in the FIRST PLACE. Nothing does. Evolution DOES try to say that man came from apes, which COULD be true, but that means apes came from somewhere right?

Evolution attempts to explain the origins or species and how we came to be today, the problem is it largely ignores any other factor that has to do with complex organisms changing over millions of years.

Creationism explains where we came from, and all the other animals, and regions, countries, matter etc. Its far fetched and not able to be proven, but you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt it never happened.

Just like i cant say that we DIDNT come from apes, even though most likely we did NOT. Because i DONT KNOW. there is no proof.

NOW 7 PAGES LATER YOU ARE STILL TOO INCOMPETENT TO EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING.

Im seriously done with this thread, and probably any other further discussions with you because i have wasted far too much time arguing with people that refuse to accept all possibilites in the name for them condemning everyone else so they feel they are right.

Now you can double talk , argue with yourself, and proclaim how right you are to the empty void of IA, because i have better things to do with my time.

Never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[bodhi]

ok, then good bye? no one really cares about your threats to leave. Participate or leave, none of us cares.

Lastly, there is NO EVIDENCE that suggests we simply appeared by the grace of god, likewise, there is ZERO evidence that we are here because lightning zapped a pool of matter than turned into complex organisms that then evolved into species that gave us man, billions upon billions upon billions of years later. For that to happen , the earth would hae to be FAR OLDER than what evolution THINKS we are. And the fossil records have GIGANTIC holes in them.

Its a very simple concept, there is no concrete infallible evidence we evolved from the big bang or something else, or that god created us in 7 days. they are both BELIEFS, not proven.

Ill ask a simple question then, where did MATTER COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from in the first place?
These things you, evolution, and creationism cannot answer.

all you 2 jackasses want to do is berate people into agreeing with you, you want everyone to respect your opinions and beliefs while shitting on everyone elses.

I just choose to have an open mind and say "i dont know"
... i dont know what to say really, only...





DUH FUCK?!!


bro, i always knew you were kinda slow side and i know rational thinking might be too difficult for you

your question can be simply answered:

matter has existed since before...why do you think it needs a beginning and an end?

http://i41.tinypic.com/ft9vt.png


a cycle

earth's age has been calculated around 4.5billion...i guess you think that's nothing when it comes to the amount of progression the earth has gone through since then
your style of thinking is rather lame and gay, really. more of agnostic "im on the fence" type of belief. ugh its all too common for me and ive been in so many debates about this thats its boring to me now. i dont even bother with exposing links, books, experiments, differences in terminology, detailed explanations...
my atheist point of view doesnt make me close-minded, son...you do know what that word means rite? you think im close-minded because of what ive posted, but you know so little

i wont bother though

[bodhi]

i like how mike acts like he's so important and has ZERO time to chit-chat with others about a topic as complex as this

he thinks apes had to evolve from SOMETHING incredibly complex first..."but where did that species come from... oh and what about that one? oh and what about that one?" dude, stuff changes overtime...it happens, its been proven and if you dont believe me go do some research. no, im not talking about researching through yewtoob- there are tons of sites and articles out there that can answer your questions

gezz u guys are assholes, thinking youre so smart when in reality you be dumb cause joo close-minded. think about it creationism, evolution to different things that cannot be fully explained or disproven...bahbahabahlhalah. - vteckidd

[bodhi]

but hey dewds, ill be back later ok
mike please dont leave i enjoy reading agnostic point of views and think its rather lovely how you fight so hard for your belief


heh see i dont really care

god, religion, karma, luck... its all the same shit to me. pointless, boring and i dont believe in any of it. yeah i dont giva fuck

[Benefit]

If evolution were real, wouldnt a human be a transformer by now?

Doesnt the species with the less traits , DIE OUT?

You dont understand both sides, and once again...you have BLATANT proof of god, you are just ignorant as fuck

I guess if i just responded with "hahahahaha" to your posts, IT WOULD MAKE ME RIGHT. its sad that you dont have a real explanation to that

[Benefit]

humans ARE apes, like ducks are birds... you don't outgrow your ancestry




AHAHhhahAhahahahhahAhAHAHaHAHhahahAhaHa

arent apes fish?

wouldnt a ape die out?

wouldnt a ape develop more language than "AHH AHH AHH", compared to humans?

what the fuck are you talking about 0.00000009% plausible, you are a fucking idiot


go watch rise of the planet of the apes you damn monkey, i swear that movie got you too riled up

[bu villain]

Its a very simple concept, there is no concrete infallible evidence we evolved from the big bang or something else, or that god created us in 7 days. they are both BELIEFS, not proven.

Just to be clear, the big bang is not a 'fact' and it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory but...
Evidence for big bang: cosmic background radiation, red shifting, elemental distribution just to name a few
Evidence for Creationism: None (what would evidence of creationism even look like)

I believe the theory with the strongest evidence but I know it can change as the evidence changes.


Ill ask a simple question then, where did MATTER COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from in the first place?
These things you, evolution, and creationism cannot answer.

I just choose to have an open mind and say "i dont know"

Exactly, "I don't know" is a much more logical answer than "God did it" which is the answer many people in this thread are proposing. My personal goal is for people to be honest with themselves and admit when they don't know. I wish people didn't feel the need to have all the answers to all the questions of life.

[bu villain]

I'm not sure if you are serious with the kind of comments you have been posting.


arent apes fish?

No, apes are apes and fish are fish. No animal alive today comes from any other animal alive today. The apes that humans evolved from are not the same apes that exist today.


wouldnt a ape die out?

Why would apes die out? They don't have any natural predators, the have sufficient food supplies.


wouldnt a ape develop more language than "AHH AHH AHH", compared to humans?

Why would they? Not all animals develop all characteristics.

[Vteckidd]

If evolution were real, wouldnt a human be a transformer by now?

Doesnt the species with the less traits , DIE OUT?



No because evolution refuses to look forward or backward in time. it only deals with what it can rationally pass off to the next person it wants to teach, and continues to ignore everything else.

Isnt the oldest record Hominid fossil something like 4 million years old? Surely in 4 million years we have seen humans "evolve", if what evolution teaches is true, then that means apes turned into humans over BILLIONS OF YEARS, and that simply isnt mathmatically possible considering what we know of the age of the earth.

It would have taken somewhere around an infinite amount of years for primordial soup to become and organism, then become complex organisms, then 1 strand of DNA then blah blah blah then an ape, then blah blal blah HUMANS! Yet that doesnt explain the vast number of species, while apes still exist (BILLIONS OF YEARS LATER DESPITE NATURAL SELECTION)

I mean by their theory, Apes naturally evolved into humans, but the lesser species has lived on, FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.

[Benefit]

LOL bu, wow...im done

not all animals develop characteristics...wowwtf

i already told you, you have PROOF of god, you are just ignorant

evolution is only right to NATURAL SELECTION.

no animal alive comes from another animal...Lol

you dont even know what you are talking about do you?

[Vteckidd]

Exactly, "I don't know" is a much more logical answer than "God did it" which is the answer many people in this thread are proposing. My personal goal is for people to be honest with themselves and admit when they don't know. I wish people didn't feel the need to have all the answers to all the questions of life.
ive never advocated either stance, ive argued that your buddy needs to acknowledge that despite his best efforts and fact distortion, the ultimate answer is WE DONT KNOW.

You CAN ARGUE creationism with Evolution because evolution is a sideway of saying this is where we came from. Evolution was brought up because Darwin didnt believe in creationism. To act like they dont both try to reference each other is just stupid.

Evolution happens in species, IMO, but not at the scale the Darwinians want us to think.

[Benefit]

what the hell was so wrong with "apes" that they needed to double the size of their brain, walk upright, and be 80% less stronger

i thought species "evolved" to ADAPT better?

the most evolution a ape would see is...hmmm...NONE because it is perfect for the environment

not turn into a different species because we both have tailbones

[geoff]

Man Oh man this has gotten way out of hand. I believe Blank_cd and I agreed we would keep this rational and not mock each others personal views. Then Bohdi comes in here like a 5 year old that just discovered his " peepee" for the first time and expects us all to be impressed. Grow up bro, your links to wikipedia show no more intelligence then the irrational comments you make about my faith. That being said, blank_cd, you have still not given me a response to the videos or article...i'm waiting, simply because you seem to be rational and I expect a reasonable answer from you.

Now, I have spent the last week doing vast amounts of research on this subject. I am no scientist or expert, so doing experiments myself was out of the question. How then did I look deeper into this debate? I reasearched papers, exerpts from books, articles, and ancient human and natural history. I was shocked to come to the conclusion i have now. I will list several points numerically...

1. The theory of evolution, or, Dawrinism does lay out some very interesting evidence.
Darwin’s theory has legs. It has vast explanatory power. In many cases it even predicts what later will be discovered. Although there are big mysteries still out there, “black boxes” where Darwin’s theory is seriously strained, Darwin’s theory is one of the hardest working theories in science and continues to be more successful than not.
Darwin’s two-stage mechanism cannot be proven true in the strictest sense because it depends on unprovable assumptions of randomness and naturalness. What we have are lots of observations in laboratory settings and fossil remains that point to the near absolute certainty that variation and selection are happening in regularly all around us. But being unprovable is not a deal breaker for a hard-working theory like Darwin’s. Variation and selection not only is observably at work; the assumptions of randomness and naturalness make sense. Rick Kennedy
Richard Dawkins, in Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), creates a parable of a mountain climb to answer the mathematical problem that troubles Darwinian natural history. The mathematical problem of Darwinian natural history is portrayed in Dawkins’ book as a steep cliff that blocks climbers from getting to the top. Dawkins recognizes that genetics may have found DNA and people can watch in laboratories the process of variation and sexual selection, but he also acknowledges a problem with the mathematics. There does not seem to be enough time in earth’s history to allow enough random variation through sexual selection to create complicated things like the human brain. The math in natural history is a daunting problem that he depicts as a steep cliff.

There are various ways to handle this mathematical problem. “Chaos theory” posits the possibility of fast spurts of variation and selection. Theories of multiple universes allow us to spread the mathematics broader so that the calculations of random variation work. The idea that Dawkins likes best emphasizes algorithms. In Dawkins’s parable, an easy trail, the algorithm, winds up the back of the mountain, avoiding the mathematical cliff. The randomness in random variation is not really random, because variation is affected by algorithmic “pressure.”

Daniel Dennett, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995), describes Darwinian evolution as “algorithmic sorting processes which take the probabilities or biases that are due to fundamental laws of physics and produce structures that would otherwise be wildly improbable.”
An algorithm is a closed information system in which infinite possibilities are honed into a finite form by the action of a recurring set of rules. Algorithms domesticate wildness. Modern computers, the World Wide Web, and hopes for continuing development of artificial intelligence are rooted in the wonders of algorithms. Probably nothing in mathematics is so inspirational to futurists as the idea that algorithms seem to make simple the complex. David Berlinski, in his breathless The Advent of the Algorithm: The Idea that Rules the World (2000), writes that after Newton’s calculus, the algorithm “is the second great scientific idea of the West. There is no third.”

Limited time is a problem for natural history. Louis Agassiz, whose mountain namesake is appropriately not in the Evolution Range, could not accept Darwinian evolution because he thought the islands of the Galapagos were geologically too young for the mathematics of chance variations being sexually selected. Dawkins points out that “if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work.” Dawkins believes “Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection.”

The possibility that algorithmic pressures affect natural history solves some problems but raises others. Not the least of these problems is: how did the algorithm get started? If algorithms work from rules, where do the rules come from? These would be some problems found with in the theory of evolution.

[Benefit]

if there was nothing on earth, and 100's of monkeys just materialized out of nowhere...




they would not be humans in 239478209357920347092402937490237094 years

[Benefit]

Darwin stated the obvious...then added his imagination to it

ie. this here caterpillar will transform into a butterfly....then turn into a seagull in 6 billion years

yeah , its a big comparison , but that is how monkeys and humans is...

anyways, everyone who has anything to say about evolution, has a DIFFERENT THEORY , EVERYTIME

religion remains the same

even darwin was unsure about his theory

[geoff]

Also this in point one.
Natural selection is the Achilles heel of Darwinism. Darwin saw Malthus’ population theory as the basis NS. This has never been established scientifically and I would submit is dead WRONG. Nonetheless Dawkins still supports Malthusism and many scientists are trying to demonstrate how conflict might lead to cooperation.

There is a long history of dualistic thinking where change is generated by conflict, Being vs Non-Being, (which does not rally work either,) so maybe we should not be too hard on Darwinism. However Darwinism is supposed to be science, which means that it is supposed to be based on scientific evidence, that is experimentation and/or observation. Darwinian NS has none of this.

The result of the failure of Darwinian NS as a system leads multiple concepts of how it works, so evolution as it now stands is not a Theory, but a family of concepts, none of which are acceptable. My own theory for why evolution is so messy is based on a nondualistic, nonlinear understanding of Reality which goes against monististic, linear scientism. See my book, DARWIN’S MYTH. Roger A. Sawtelle

The point of this is to show that evolution shows itself to be valid, yet is in fact based on flaws and assumptions, it is not a definite answer but rather leads to more questions. As more questions arise, more assumptions are made and the theory is "tweaked". ADAPTATION is FACT, it can be seen, we as people do it all the time...i.e. the example blank_cd gave about winter and jackets....but because i put on a jacket to escape the cold...does not mean i changed at a cellular or genetic level.

[.blank cd]

the fact that you try to pass yourself off as some intellectual is truly just funny. You resort to this "you dont understand im so much smarter than you i wont bother explaining" that just makes me chuckle.You didn't understand the 17 other times I've tried explaining it to you, why continue?


WHat is your degree in again? Highest level of education? Surely you make good money being as smart as you are.Income level never has or never will correlate to one's intellectual level. There are just as many stupid people making insane amounts of money as there are brilliant people making a pittance.



Furthermore your double talk tactics are retarded. On one hand you argue that evolution explains why god doesnt exist, then when i ask simple questions you say "oh no evolution doesnt deal with that".Never have I once tried to explain that god doesnt exist. I've tried to explain why it's illogical to believe that god did it


Evolution deals with species evolving, but it doesnt explain where the species come from in the FIRST PLACE. A breakthrough!!! Congrats!!!


Evolution DOES try to say that man came from apesNo, evolutionary synthesis says we have the same ancestor, which due to genetic evidence, is true.


Evolution attempts to explain the origins or species and how we came to be today, no, it doesnt once again, evolutionary sysnthesis is not an all encompassing theory. What was that word again that deals with the origin of life? Starts with an A and ends with BIOGENESIS? I cant think of it, i know i mentioned it at least once before in this thread...



Creationism explains where we came from, and all the other animals, and regions, countries, matter etc. Its far fetched and not able to be proven, but you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt it never happened.At this point in science, we can rule out that a god simply spoke everything into existence, and biblical creation/great flood/Noah's ark type stuff. We know that didn't happen. What we can't rule out scientifically is if a creator was instrumental in the beginning of life


Never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.This is for sure.

[.blank cd]

ADAPTATION is FACT, it can be seen, we as people do it all the time...i.e. the example blank_cd gave about winter and jackets....but because i put on a jacket to escape the cold...does not mean i changed at a cellular or genetic level.So what do you call it when this adaptation happens at a genetic level?

[geoff]

2. I have come to realize, that one can not be Christian and also believe in evolution. The two do not go hand in hand. I also realized that I do not really buy into the Creationist or Intelligent Design schools of thought either. Why? because they change christianity and the Biblical God to fit into the accepted modern sciences of today. There are occurances in nature that would seem to show purpose and design. That is very evident. Darwinism shows this to be illusion and a product of natural selection. But, how does nature know which qualities are best? Both the schools of Creation and I.D. try and "fit" God into our modern logic. They give a little of God away so they can gain more reputation with logic. God is absolute, God is unchanging, and cannot fit into our logic. Simple. One can not say well maybe the Bible didn't really mean that. Maybe it was a metaphor and this is what it really meant....No, Gods' Word is final, not to be changed by wishy washy christians that want to reconcile with science and the academic community. They should be ashamed of themselves.

3. That being said, belief in God requires faith. There are evidences in nature that people can use to say " ah ha!!! See, only God could do that", but the sad fact is that it will never be enough. Atheists and evolutionists practice double standards and whats good for the goose is never good for the gander. God is Absolute. The Creationist and I.D. proponents can be described as Gnostics. I found an interesting quote that said exactly what i want to say now but for the life of me cant find it....

4.How can nature be purely physical if it is governed by laws which are not physical or material? I would like to know, When did the physical laws that govern our universe come into existence? Why? and what was the cause or reason behind it?

5. You say belief in God is completely ridiculous as there is no evidence or "proof". Here is an example. I jump off a roof that is 40ft high. The law of gravity states im going to hit the ground, it is impossible for me to continue suspended yes? Tell me then, at which precise moment is law observed? Can you tell me when it begins or when it stops? Can you measure the gravity that is involved in this scenario? What is the measurement for gravity? You can not physically touch it nor see it nor hear/smell...yet you believe. It is an invisible force....as is my God.

6. You easily dismiss the belief in God as pure fiction due to the appearance that it doesn't fit into any modern scientific model. But what about Human history? What about Jesus? What about the miracles He performed and His ressurection and ascension into heaven? These all break known physical laws, yet they are documented not only by believers but others and were passed down as "truth" from one to another, from one generation to the next. Do you so simply deny written history?

[geoff]

matter has existed since before...why do you think it needs a beginning and an end?
You sir are ignorant. The universe is finite, there is evidence for this.


ie. this here caterpillar will transform into a butterfly....then turn into a seagull in 6 billion years
Evolution cannot explain metamorphasis and is stumped by it.


So what do you call it when this adaptation happens at a genetic level?
Have we cracked the genetic code of every species? Give me an example of this occuring...

[geoff]

No, evolutionary synthesis says we have the same ancestor, which due to genetic evidence, is true.
Show me this.


At this point in science, we can rule out that a god simply spoke everything into existence, and biblical creation/great flood/Noah's ark type stuff. We know that didn't happen. What we can't rule out scientifically is if a creator was instrumental in the beginning of life

I would also like for you to show me this FACT......if such one exists.

[Benefit]

Evolution cannot explain metamorphasis and is stumped by it.

.

so if you cant explain the origin of it, why try to explain that it will turn into a moth or monarch, or mosquito or something "over time"

[Benefit]

when did grass evolve into a venus fly trap?

[geoff]

Benefit: you are just ranting and raving now. Metamorphasis cannot be explained by evolution. It is a process that happens very rapidly and does not need millions or billions of years to take place. I give you props for supporting the God side of the debate but come on man, slow your roll a bit.

I saw somewhere, not sure if it was one of you that said it, but it was stated that humanity has come to make his environment fit him and has adapted his surroundings to himself. i.e. a/c, medicine, technology, ect....evolution is supposed to be a natural occurring event that takes place when a species adapts to new surroundings. My question then is this, if humanity is able to manipulate his environment to be more suitable and to adapt to his needs, will technology then stop humans from continuing to evolve? After all, what would be the need if one can simply "change" something in our environment to adapt to our liking or needs?

[Benefit]

i wasnt saying it takes millions of years to take place, i was saying it has been happening for millions of years, but then humans came and said the butterfly evolved into a mosquito

[Benefit]

Oh well "never cry wolf", religion has , and something has really happened now,

[geoff]

Oh well "never cry wolf", religion has , and something has really happened now,
:thinking:

[Benefit]

idk , jesus gunna save u dont worry

[Echonova]

In other news today, scientists just discovered why Zebra's have stripes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16965266


God has known all along.

~instigate~

[RL...]

You do all know that evolution takes MILLIONS of years right, it doesn't happen overnight. And for the record, humans have evolved through various stages. It's fucking common sense. Here, read a little about our evolution, it's not the most credible source but I don't have away of showing my biology textbook on here which btw makes a hell of a lot more sense as to how things came to be than the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

[geoff]

Echonova-almost seems like you believe in God...yes?

Rl: can you answer any questions that i have asked? What about metamophasis? What about human emotion?

[Benefit]

lollllllllllllllll @ the pictures

and its a certain type of monkey we evolved from?lol

i must of been the monkey with horns

rattlesnakes and cobras both evolved from lizards fyi

[Benefit]

. Charles Darwin struggled with the problem of evil and poor design in nature, and though his natural selection explained adaptation without the need for a designer, he was still inclined to think that everything resulted from designed laws.

[Echonova]

Echonova-almost seems like you believe in God...yes?I absolutely, unequivocally believe in God.

However, I read in a book once, not to cast your pearls before swine. Therefore I don't. Waste of time.


You cannot teach the deaf to hear. But certain people here like to play like they are smart, by using Google or sites like http://asktheatheist.com and regurgitating what other people say.

Here's the thing, most people look to Christ (religious or not) and at the first hint of imperfection they shout hypocrite. Thing is, Christ isn't for the people that are already saved. It's for the unredeemed. The Bible is chock full of people that on the surface should have no business representing God. But they died for it, before it became a "corporation", before man got in the way... They died for it. Why?


But anyway... Yes, I believe. I dare say I'm the smartest guy posting in this thread. If blank cd/maniac/bandwagoneers could even beat me at a simple game of trivia (http://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=93558 BTW: Baseball Friday doesn't count) I would have more respect for them. But they dare not show their true stupidity in a public forum.

Last little bit... I actually respect blank and maniac, because I do believe they honestly say what they believe. I don't have to agree, just as they don't agree with me... But you will never "prove" or "force" someone else to believe. It's something they have to experience for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

[Echonova]

If Churches were to vanish... Who would feed/care for the poor?


Evolution doesn't make room for the weak. Survival of the fittest.

[Echonova]

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm128/richard_freese/vtec-7.jpg

[.blank cd]

Eco, you don't wanna play trivia against me

[geoff]

Echonova- does it bother you to see many church folk and those that claim to believe in God alter their beliefs to fit in with modern science? I see creationists and I.D.proponents stating that the Bible is irrelevant for modern times, or they say it is not meant to be interpreted literally, or they try and fit God/Jesus into a form of "logic" that the modern philosopher can digest. My point in this thread was simply this; the beauty and diversity in nature, the complexity of life, and the mystery surrounding the universe can equally be seen as evidence of an All Mighty Gods' signature.


However, I read in a book once, not to cast your pearls before swine. Therefore I don't. Waste of time.
You and I among others were such swine not long ago. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" romans 10:14

[Echonova]

Eco, you don't wanna play trivia against meYes... I do.

[Echonova]

Echonova- does it bother you to see many church folk and those that claim to believe in God alter their beliefs to fit in with modern science? I see creationists and I.D.proponents stating that the Bible is irrelevant for modern times, or they say it is not meant to be interpreted literally, or they try and fit God/Jesus into a form of "logic" that the modern philosopher can digest. My point in this thread was simply this; the beauty and diversity in nature, the complexity of life, and the mystery surrounding the universe can equally be seen as evidence of an All Mighty Gods' signature.


You and I among others were such swine not long ago. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" romans 10:14What bothers me is people that think that the God that created this universe, is somehow bound to those rules as we understand them.

I never claimed to be a preacher, however... If you're going to preach, do it to those that are at least willing to listen. Otherwise preach to a wall in your house. It's the same thing.

[Echonova]

When you look at a sunset, can you see the magnificence? Or do you just see light refracting off the atmosphere at a certain angle combined with water particulates in the air?

[Echonova]

FYI: I'm half-asleep and going to bed. I will double-check my posts for coherency tomorrow/today.

[.blank cd]

When you look at a sunset, can you see the magnificence? Or do you just see light refracting off the atmosphere at a certain angle combined with water particulates in the air?

This, but despite my lack of belief in a god, I can still see the beauty in things like this.

[geoff]

Blank cd- what beauty is there in life for one who believes their entire existence is without purpose, with out meaning, without inspiration? What beauty is there in such a short life span? The world is not pretty and life is not a fairy tale. Life is hard and full of disappointment. It is full of death and sorrow. Sure there are some good things to life....but in the end....to an atheist....it is all for nothing. You are born, you live ( either successful or not), maybe have some children and hope to leave them something behind. That to me, is empty. To me God is life, light, direction, peace and hope. This thread and the couple like it recently have really made me take a second glance at my own life, my own beliefs, and my own purpose. I now know i have been lacking...that i have much to catch up on. I truly hope blank that some day you too can come to see life how I and so many others see it.

[.blank cd]

Blank cd- what beauty is there in life for one who believes their entire existence is without purpose, with out meaning, without inspiration? What beauty is there in such a short life span? The world is not pretty and life is not a fairy tale. Life is hard and full of disappointment. It is full of death and sorrow. Sure there are some good things to life....but in the end....to an atheist....it is all for nothing. You are born, you live ( either successful or not), maybe have some children and hope to leave them something behind. That to me, is empty. To me God is life, light, direction, peace and hope. This thread and the couple like it recently have really made me take a second glance at my own life, my own beliefs, and my own purpose. I now know i have been lacking...that i have much to catch up on. I truly hope blank that some day you too can come to see life how I and so many others see it.you definitely have the wrong idea about being atheist. This stereotype is the reason we're still the most hated group of people in the world, despite being the happiest group of people in the world.

[Benefit]

lightning bolts

[.blank cd]

lightning bolts

Gods warriors

http://www.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/taliban.jpg

[Benefit]

http://i43.tinypic.com/iekyt0.jpg

Atheist warrior

[.blank cd]

http://i43.tinypic.com/iekyt0.jpg

Atheist warriorWe have warriors, but they look more like this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/dawkinsnett.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dcgSogfeaAs/TutFolLrd_I/AAAAAAAAC6k/d0OLxLnGkiw/s1600/hitchbeardlean.jpgGuys with nice suits and intellectual prowess

[Benefit]

Im sorry , you have proof of god but still refute it

I would try to outsmart god with google too

[.blank cd]

Im sorry , you have proof of god but still refute it

I would try to outsmart god with google too

You still haven't shown me that proof bro, my challenge is still on the table

[Benefit]

They will look like this in hell
http://i44.tinypic.com/1t7be1.jpg

[Benefit]

You should ask those guys what they think about a book written 100's of years ago about a man who will be born with a slight concavity while simultaneously a double solar eclipse happens

See what they say

[.blank cd]

They will look like this in hell
http://i44.tinypic.com/1t7be1.jpg

According to your holy book, you'll have a nice warm spot just for you right next to them. Lol

[Benefit]

Ha, if only you were informed

[.blank cd]

You should ask those guys what they think about a book written 100's of years ago about a man who will be born with a slight concavity while simultaneously a double solar eclipse happens

See what they say

I know exactly what they think about the Quran and the Holy Bible. I've heard both of them speak.

[.blank cd]

Ha, if only you were informed

So you think it says differently. Have you read the Quran, or the bible? I know they candy coat it pretty good, but you're going to hell. Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

Why dont you give the whole book a good read. Just once.

[Benefit]

The bearer of bad news? of course you know more than me and god combined, shit you control it because you can use google

Ive read the quran 4 times, only read the revelations of the bible

how does the quran know neurology before you knew what neurology was?

You must not know what i mean by slight concavity, mr bearer of bad news

[Benefit]

God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad from praying at the Kaaba:

No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)! (Quran, 96:15-16)


So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies and the speaking of truth

[.blank cd]

A neuroscientist would disagree with you

[Benefit]

Im pretty sure a neuroscientist wrote that

[Echonova]

Ive read the quran 4 times, only read the revelations of the bible

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt108/goodwolf211/d770b7cb.jpg



Wait, wut??? You do know the Bible isn't one of those books you can just skip to the end and read the last few pages right?

[Echonova]

I mean, there are people that have dedicated their entire lives to studying that book... When all they had to do is skip to the end????

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/RoanK/Brillant.jpg

[Benefit]

lol...

[Echonova]

Your ignorance is not funny.

[Benefit]

I read some other parts, there are flaws so i only read the end

[geoff]

Benefit- So the Bible has flaws but the Quran does not?

Blank cd- your views on this? http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html
Apparently there is some division even in the atheist camp.....is there gonna be a seperation of denominations now?

[RL...]

Echo's "gift" with strategically and comically posting the right picture at the right moment is almost enough of a reason for me to believe in god. Bravo sir.

[Echonova]

Echo's "gift" with strategically and comically posting the right picture at the right moment is almost enough of a reason for me to believe in god. Bravo sir.http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc110/santitos74/jesuse.jpg

[bodhi]

heh

[bodhi]

i had forgotten about this thread, but um i see no real reason to continue.

echo has posted his opinion, and so has everyone else. benefit is... well... i dunno kinda weird. i dont get him or what hes saying. anyway, gg, mt.dewds

[Benefit]

Not a single dot of the quran was ever changed


Oxygen + gravity, you cant see it , it does not EXIST!

[geoff]

Not a single dot of the quran was ever changed
I could debate with you with great length about the quran....im guessing youre muslim?

[Echonova]

Not a single dot of the quran was ever changed


Oxygen + gravity, you cant see it , it does not EXIST!I cannot comprehend stupidity on this level.


http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc169/george041950/o-facepalm.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p205/DrChase/tumblr_lyudnrEneC1qi6133o4_250.gif
http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc383/JessWink22/Rob%20%20Kristen/tumblr_lw1qypcv8l1qf0eblo2_250.gif
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r570/SuperJazz24/Gifs/OptimusFacepalm.gif
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/carfreaksg/facepalm.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/Sephiroth166/facepalm-1.gif
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc169/george041950/2011-12-12t233527z_01_bks19_rtridsp.jpg
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FraxinusD/Watsonfacepalm.gif
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n639/ninjaphotobucket/Macros%20and%20Gifs/615px-Third-party-facepalm.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i174/Ruthoron/facepalm.png
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p25/Alarim/facepalm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll83/Khaos2525/facepalm.gif



Let's just accept your statement as being true... What does that prove? So what if it's never been changed? How does that make it right or wrong?


And your other statement about oxygen and gravity, I know you thought you were being clever.

You weren't.

[Benefit]

Its ok, you are going to heaven man, i am not going to debate it

and i love how you call someone stupid then agree with them, adding stupid images to emphasize your statement, real mature

if you had a little clue, probably wouldnt be talking to me

keep face palm'ing your saggy jaw

[alpine_aw11]

I believe in God, but the concept of organized religion is fucking dumb, and there isn't a single thing anyone could ever say to convince me otherwise. Creationism and evolution can work together....a creator laid the foundation, and the devil magic we know as scientific laws took over and gave us what we have today. Seems really simple to understand in my opinion.

[Bamboozler]

^^^I agree with this guy

[Aeroscout977]

I'm also one than has no problems accepting the laws of science and existence of God. Science to me does not disprove God but explains the means. An all powerful creator and designer will also have the intelligence to create a universe that works the way ours does. Darwin and God just work for me. I do agree with one of the posters above about organized religion. While I attend a Baptist Church it's also one that reflects my belief that church is not required but is a great tool when used correctly.

[Benefit]

designs

[Echonova]

I just re-read this thread and LOL'd all over again.


Thanks for reviving a (funny) forgotten thread Benefit.

[Benefit]

heh i evolved from a fish

[.blank cd]

heh i evolved from a fish

Im almost scientifically sure you did.

[Benefit]

lmao

[ItODDospeed]

I LOVE SCIENCE!

[Benefit]

like i said, if i threw a monkey in the ocean...i wont even have bones in a million years...eukaryote my ass

water destroys , doesnt create shit

"im the ignorance trying to keep the people dumb"

and you are meaning to tell me that a eukaryote evolved into a dinosaur, then the dinosaurs got completely wiped out...then RE-EVOLVED into a fucking human?

da fuk wrong wit u

if they dont believe millions of years, tell em billions, if they dont believe that, trillions...and if not that, tell em it was linear

that must of been a gangster ass eukaryote , shit had gills and eyes and shit then decided it wanted to breathe air then started flying

seriously noob, da fuk wrong wit u



oh well, if someone wants to think they are a monkey, then let em

[.blank cd]

like i said, if i threw a monkey in the ocean...i wont even have bones in a million years...eukaryote my ass

water destroys , doesnt create shit

"im the ignorance trying to keep the people dumb"

and you are meaning to tell me that a eukaryote evolved into a dinosaur, then the dinosaurs got completely wiped out...then RE-EVOLVED into a fucking human?

da fuk wrong wit u

if they dont believe millions of years, tell em billions, if they dont believe that, trillions...and if not that, tell em it was linear

that must of been a gangster ass eukaryote , shit had gills and eyes and shit then decided it wanted to breathe air then started flying

seriously noob, da fuk wrong wit u



oh well, if someone wants to think they are a monkey, then let em

Have you ever taken cold medicine ever in your life?

[Benefit]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2a5kjr.jpg

TO

http://i41.tinypic.com/ei6mj4.jpg

what cold medicine? like what shit are you taking cause i want to smoke some of that shit that makes me think i evolved from a spec of dust...forreal


not even a "spec"...the shit was microscopic.

i would love to have that mindset, its very cool and all...but im sorry thats not what it is

i would put a period or decimal point before the first image...but even that is too big from what it REALLY evolved from

[Benefit]

dafuq, thread is over

[sport_122]

I believe in God, but the concept of organized religion is fucking dumb, and there isn't a single thing anyone could ever say to convince me otherwise. Creationism and evolution can work together....a creator laid the foundation, and the devil magic we know as scientific laws took over and gave us what we have today. Seems really simple to understand in my opinion.

dumb or not, organized religion is no different that organized government, or this forum full of organized car enthusiasts. You are entitled to your opinion, but lets not be blind to the fact that we ALL subscribe to a collective thought in some sense. You either go to work, pay your bills, pay your taxes, vote for your politician, or drive your favorite care make. We ALL do it.

Just like some people in organized religion forget that their faith is grounded in something (their book or their experiences) people in politics, people on this forum, people at your job, will forget that what they are there for is somethings specific. That doesn't mean that gov't is bad, it doesn't mean this forum is bad, it doesn't mean the concept is dumb, it means the people who are forgetting and misguiding the purpose for such things are.

I believe the Bible. I believe that most of us, myself included, can find ourselves missing the point most of the time. I would shutter at the thought of trying to explain to God that "I did it right and those other people didn't". My organized religious belief is what tells me to not rush to judge because I am just as guilty of that as the next guy.

[Benefit]

Someone name a object, any object just say it

[.blank cd]

Ice

[Echonova]

polybutylene.

[.blank cd]

Butyl Acetate

[.blank cd]

Deoxyribonuclease

[Benefit]

those arent objects...lets say something like a..chair , it would have more bacteria and eukaryotes and molecules ...right? if I threw it in the ocean, I would have humans in millions of years

[.blank cd]

those arent objects...lets say something like a..chair , it would have more bacteria and eukaryotes and molecules ...right? if I threw it in the ocean, I would have humans in millions of years

No. You're 100% wrong on all fronts again. LOL

[Benefit]

look monkey, i AM intelligent design, refer to skull picture

[Benefit]

please elaborate how i am wrong, because that is what you have been trying to preach for the past 6 pages monkey

[.blank cd]

please elaborate how i am wrong, because that is what you have been trying to preach for the past 6 pages monkey

Why? You're just gonna say something about how documented, hard, provable science doesn't match up with your millennia-old beliefs, and that 99.999% of the entire scientific community is wrong, but your 2000 year old textbook is the truth, then you'll say something about how we cant throw a chair in the ocean and get an eyeball, then we'll be right back here where we started again.

I understand learning something that goes against what you've been taught all your life is difficult. It's called cognitive dissonance. Not a lot of people can overcome this phenomenon. So when you're ready to learn what life is really about, ask with some seriousness.

[Sinfix_15]

Why? You're just gonna say something about how documented, hard, provable science doesn't match up with your millennia-old beliefs, and that 99.999% of the entire scientific community is wrong, but your 2000 year old textbook is the truth, then you'll say something about how we cant throw a chair in the ocean and get an eyeball, then we'll be right back here where we started again.

I understand learning something that goes against what you've been taught all your life is difficult. It's called cognitive dissonance. Not a lot of people can overcome this phenomenon. So when you're ready to learn what life is really about, ask with some seriousness.

Need an umbrella for the irony that is dripping from this post.

[Sinfix_15]

Benefit, you are not offering up a very good argument in defense of the religious community.


I honestly dont see how anyone can logically argue against evolution. I thought christians had decided to quit trying, guess not.


Proof of evolution....... good luck refuting this evidence.....

http://actionamerica.org/images/evolofdems.jpg

[Benefit]

whatever monkeys

[Sinfix_15]

whatever monkeys

You live your life based on a book of 2nd hand accounts that have been retranslated across multiple languages. You believe that a white jesus from basically north africa is the son of god and the savior of man.

Do you not realize how easy it is to poke holes in this story?

[Benefit]

lmao, yeah you got me all figured out

i am whatever you believe to be god/satan/mithra/osiris pyramid mecca shit

i can post pictures of designs on my skull/skin/hair all day, it all lines up too like 14 ways

did you miss the skull drawing? designs and spirals on my BONES

but if you cant face the fact that the sun is creating the perfect amount of energy for optimum life then just continue to believe you are a monkey

see the SMARTER people in this world, believe in me and get paid real big money, while you are a big monkey

and normal people, can just open their eyes and think all this shit didnt come from a fucking pebble in the ocean

[Benefit]

dafuq

[ItODDospeed]

Religion is so weird in the 21st century. Its an antiquated way to approach life. How anyone believes in any modern Dogma is beyond me.

[RandomGuy]

lmao, yeah you got me all figured out

i am whatever you believe to be god/satan/mithra/osiris pyramid mecca shit

i can post pictures of designs on my skull/skin/hair all day, it all lines up too like 14 ways

did you miss the skull drawing? designs and spirals on my BONES

but if you cant face the fact that the sun is creating the perfect amount of energy for optimum life then just continue to believe you are a monkey

see the SMARTER people in this world, believe in me and get paid real big money, while you are a big monkey

and normal people, can just open their eyes and think all this shit didnt come from a fucking pebble in the ocean

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/8/129022169427540583.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

lmao, yeah you got me all figured out

i am whatever you believe to be god/satan/mithra/osiris pyramid mecca shit

i can post pictures of designs on my skull/skin/hair all day, it all lines up too like 14 ways

did you miss the skull drawing? designs and spirals on my BONES

but if you cant face the fact that the sun is creating the perfect amount of energy for optimum life then just continue to believe you are a monkey

see the SMARTER people in this world, believe in me and get paid real big money, while you are a big monkey

and normal people, can just open their eyes and think all this shit didnt come from a fucking pebble in the ocean

When you look up into the sky at night and see all those little lights...... know that the millions you actually do see... are about .0000000000000000000000000001% of the amount that actually exist, then know that every single one of those are a sun, in another solar system. Now, using mathematical reasoning, what do you think the chances are that another planet also supports life???

[-EnVus-]

When you look up into the sky at night and see all those little lights...... know that the millions you actually do see... are about .0000000000000000000000000001% of the amount that actually exist, then know that every single one of those are a sun, in another solar system. Now, using mathematical reasoning, what do you think the chances are that another planet also supports life???
Zero since we cant find any that could sustain life less alone bacteria

[.blank cd]

Zero since we cant find any that could sustain life less alone bacteria

Zero? Are you sure? Did we give up the search?

[David88vert]

When you look up into the sky at night and see all those little lights...... know that the millions you actually do see... are about .0000000000000000000000000001% of the amount that actually exist, then know that every single one of those are a sun, in another solar system. Now, using mathematical reasoning, what do you think the chances are that another planet also supports life???


Zero since we cant find any that could sustain life less alone bacteria


The answer has already been calculated by mathematicians. Just over 1 in Undecillion.

Possibility is calculated as either 0 or 1. We cannot know that something is never possible nor always occurring. The answer therefore cannot be 0, and you cannot state that it is impossible for there to be life on other planets. We are just not able to currently observe the evidence of any life (as we currently define it) outside of our planet. Of course, we may not have a full understanding of the full definition of life, which is also a topic of debate.
Probability is calculated as in-between 01 and 1, but it is never actually 0 or 1. This is what can actually be calculated, and the last I saw anything on the calculations, it was under 1 in a duodecillion. While that number is extremely small, it is not an absolute zero.

[Echonova]

Ok... As a believer in God and 8lb 6 oz baby Jesus... Even I still believe that other life is also a possibility. Anyone that thinks otherwise (to me) has an overdeveloped since of self-importance. Well, at least in my humble in my opinion.




In the crap-stain of a movie "Contact" it was put best...."But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."

[eraser4g63]

After 12 pages of this the only person that makes any sense is Vteckid. However I have a question, why does it matter how we got here? Or what bullshit line you believe as to why/how we got here. If Geoff likes the God thing then good for him, if blank like the science thing then YAY. The issue in my mind is we are here, how can we not fuck it up worse than we already have. Or for that matter what the fuck were we think for at least the last 2000 years to fuck it up as bad as we did!

[Sinfix_15]

Zero since we cant find any that could sustain life less alone bacteria

So you think because we havnt found one that none exist? with our current scientific ability, what percentage of space do you think we are capable of exploring?

[-EnVus-]

If there was life on other planets then that would mean Science is more wrong then religion. Yes a type of god or higher being could have created all of us but how can earth science explain others reason for existing ?
I guess if Aliens came tomorrow Evolutionist would argue with them they evolved from something ?!?! LOL

[Sinfix_15]

If there was life on other planets then that would mean Science is more wrong then religion. Yes a type of god or higher being could have created all of us but how can earth science explain others reason for existing ?
I guess if Aliens came tomorrow Evolutionist would argue with them they evolved from something ?!?! LOL

The ideas arent conflicting and science is open to adjust to new found evidence..... that's it's biggest advantage vs religion.

Evolution is correct. Aliens visiting us wouldnt change that. Maybe Aliens "planted" us here.... maybe humans on another planet launched human DNA into space and it landed here and evolved into what we are. Who knows?

the only thing i know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that we dont know shit. Science says to keep looking, religion says to waste your life believing we already know the answers. I chose my side.

[Benefit]

i dont know about you but im believing the guy with engravings on his fucking bones

[.blank cd]

i dont know about you but im believing the guy with engravings on his fucking bones

What guy with the engraving on his bones?

[.blank cd]

After 12 pages of this the only person that makes any sense is Vteckid.

So you also have a gross misunderstanding of evolution?

[ItODDospeed]

So you also have a gross misunderstanding of evolution?

It seems that a lot of members commenting do; moreover, it seems to be a waste of time explaining evolution to some out here.

Here's my theories about people who don't believe in evolution.
1. They're lacking intelligence
2. They chose a camp-side story over facts

Faith/Beliefs are nothing more than opinions. Facts are facts, and nothing can take away from a fact. One thing about facts is they evolve through out time just like humans have.

To all the die hard Dogma thinkers, please tell me, so that I don't waste modern chemistry and science on your religious ass when you come into my ER for care. I know, I wish I could actually do that...

It seems most plead for help from a deity when in crisis, especially in the ER. I always tell them, God has left the building, however, chemistry and science hasn't, so most likely you'll be fine. The looks are priceless.

[Benefit]

wow people are morons

[Sinfix_15]

wow people are morons

You've yet to express anything that could be confused as a complete thought, yet have the confidence to call other people morons.

Who is this person you are talking about with etching on his bones?

[-EnVus-]

Evolution does exist I ate food yesterday and Today It evolved into a huge shit i made there for i am its God now

[Sinfix_15]

Evolution does exist I ate food yesterday and Today It evolved into a huge shit i made there for i am its God now

Even though your evidence is shit (Pun intended). At least you're seeking evidence. That alone puts you ahead of the religious.

[Benefit]

You've yet to express anything that could be confused as a complete thought, yet have the confidence to call other people morons.

Who is this person you are talking about with etching on his bones?

here...simple minds wont be able to comprehend it tho

http://i42.tinypic.com/2mdnm8z.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

idk i think a page back...simple minds wont be able to comprehend it tho

Simple minds fabricate a purpose to life when they otherwise cant explain it.

If there was a being capable of creating all of existence.... do you really think he would give a fuck if you say the word fuck? or if you have sex with 3 blondes at the same time? or drink till you cant walk? Do you think he would care if you donated a financial currency created by man that has no value other than the value we assign it? Religion is a tool created to manipulate man. Weak minded people need something to belong to... if you give them something to belong to, they will abide by your command.

There is no God..... and even if there is... he's not going to give a shit that i dont believe in your fairy tale about Jesus Christ....

[-EnVus-]

God exist and he gave us free will to do as we want as he did every living thing. The difference is God gave human kind a continence to also judge our actions by.
If we didn't get this gift we would be no better off then animals just killing,Eating and mating. You see these action do occur in humans at times and its cause they lack the continence or will to stop and understand. In some views self continence can also be compared to religion or a faith to believe what we do is wrong or wright. Example: If a man has no ends to what he can do or the way he thinks then he can kill with no remorse. The US Army has started recruiting in the past 50 years more these men and women to use as soldiers. If a soldier has no remorse or God to offend then they can kill at will and obey command.
Minuteman missile launch control men are only selected of those who have no faith for reliability concern.

[Benefit]

lmao...wow, just stop

[Benefit]

get with the program