Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith
Offline The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.
The Bigbang Doctrine
#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method. It is not observable, nor repeatable.
#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .
#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol
The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.
Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.
Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.
Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.
- Login to post comments
It only happens in your brain. I challenge you to show me one example where it has happened. The rest of your arguments about “cause” are just stupid and out of context. God made dogs but he does tell each dog where to run. They run freely.
Here is another dumb-ass assumption from you. Detectives can only use confirmed science in courts of law and it has to be free of ambiguity and circumstantial evidence. The BigBang is NOT a confirmed science nor it is free of ambiguity pointing to God. Remember, a Catholic priest invented your doctrine. Take it deep into your skull.
Dogs are agents. In my examples of causes -- the leaf blowing in the wind, the rain falling, crystals forming, fire burning, etc. -- you should notice that none of them were agents. The universe forms life from the bottom up; no agency required.
So, you admit it's possible to know something that you weren't there to see. There might be hope for you after all. And I don't care if a Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory, it's still true. You could have come up with the theory and if the data supported it, it would still be true.
Fine, here's a link to the wikipedia page on the Miller-Urey experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
There are links to the actual scholarly articles near the bottom of the page under "references" and "external links".
*sigh* Next time you think about the sun, remember that "alchemy" is what's keeping us all alive...
You do realize that you're arguing with someone that doesn't have the most fundamental understanding of science. I doubt that this person understands scientific method or evidence all together.
Again, a futile attempt. This person is confused from the OP on... I doubt that anything we say would make a dent in the bastion of intellectual dishonesty and arguments from complexity. Alas, it is but to educate and serve as a paradigm to the audience, if not to sway, else I wouldn't spare a single keystroke on this individual. Truly a lost cause.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Hey Ex,
I agree with you that SDA is fairy tale lol. SDA is a cult and nobody who is in the SDA religion, not one person will
ever ever go to heaven. Absolutely a matter of fact. Being SDA is kind of like being an atheist except you're owned by a dead woman who made many many false prophesies. I actually have most of her works.
Oh and ex, you ever notice how when i have the floor it is you atheists that are running away with your tail under your legs. This guy kind of sucks and is probably a member some cult or something.
Maybe Ellen will kiss your boo boo next time.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Wrong. That is a simple logical fallacy you've fallen prey to. Things observable WITHIN the universe are not applicable to the universe itself. And you call yourself rational. lol.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
^ Jean continues to delude himself, resulting in lulz for everyone with a functional brain.
Does he also forget to mention that he's the one who ran away with his tail between his legs?
No, he remembers. He's just projecting his failures onto us.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Je je je, the Miller-Urey flawed experiment. The fact that you posted this stupid experiment in this forum tells me that you don’t know what a system is, or what an organism is.
Allow me to quote from your link:
This jackass basically tried to simulate earth’s atmosphere during the beginning of earth. This is a BELIEVE. Was he there to know how the atmosphere looked like? No, he basically made up his own environment. Are you going to tell me that there was only, water, ammonia, and hydrogen on earth??? What about oxygen?? There was no oxygen!!! What a jackass!!!
Then he goes to apply electricity to simulate “lightning”. Ohh WOW. He is so sure there was lightning but he carefully excluded oxygen. Why? The answer is because oxygen destroys amino acids as soon as it is formed.
This was a careful manipulated experiment which does not reflect in any way the beginning of life. Can you create amino acids in an oxygen free environment? Yes. Was earth ever free of oxygen? No.
If you want to read more how this was debunked, go to this link:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html
Now, the question is: Did he create life out raw materials? NOOOOOO. Amino acids are NOT life. Just because every living organism is composed of amino acids and you managed to carefully create a few of them under very careful “intelligent” experimentation, doesn’t mean you created life, jackass!
Every known software on earth is composed of 1s and 0s. Any kid can create a bunch of 1s and 0s. Heck, they can create even more, 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. Now compile those 1s and 0s and see if you get windows out of it.
Inanimate mater CAN NOT create life, not in the past, not now, not in the future, not ever. Every life system has information embedded. What makes a system work is the information not the material by itself. If you don’t understand this, you should not be talking to me.
Jean Chauvin,
You think I’m a Seventh Day Adventist because of the picture I use. Stop fishing. I know why you hate Adventists. They refute your religion on accounts of the Sabbath. They worship on the true biblical Lord’s Day 7th day which is Saturday. They keep ALL ten commandments. Your hypocrite religion only obeys what is convenient while at the same time stealing tithe from them. You are a Sunday worshiper. Your doctrine comes from the Catholic Church, not from the Bible.
#1 People don't go to heaven when they die nor they go to hell.
#2 There is no hell. The word hell doesn't even appear in the original language of the Bible.
#3 Sunday is a roman pagan day of worship acquired by the Catholics from the romans.
You are just as ignorant as the rest of the pack.
People like you I eat for dinner every day. When you want to debate me in these topics, lets go at it. Heck, will have one of these atheists to be the judge. I'm sure they will have no bias towards one or the other.
For the first two billion years of earth's history, there was practically no oxygen. Gradually oxygen was produced by cyanobacteria, but most of it was absorbed by minerals. As time went on and the minerals and environment were saturated with oxygen, the atmosphere filled with oxygen. Plants have been a huge source of oxygen, too, and they weren't always around.
In case you're wondering, more progess has been made since Urey. Lots of organisms are extremophiles, they can live in extreme conditions. Some have been found in extremely hot hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the sea, some have been found in deeply freezing temperatures, some have been found in very dark places. Life is now known to be remarkably flexible, so the probability is increased for abiogenesis. And don't underestimate how important it is for amino acids to form -- they're the building blocks of proteins. Scientists are hot on the trail.
How humorous we all are.
Nightmare - I've asked you this before but you've not properly replied. You decry the hypotheses that are more or less supported by Urey Miller, Big Bang and I assume pretty much every other scientific attempt to explain the history of the universe post-bang and the subsequent development of complex life on this planet.
What is your explanation for our existence. Your material explanation? Don't just waffle on with vague platitudinous words that don't mean anything or abuse your protagonists. Where did all this come from? How did life occur? I assume you will proffer some hypotheses of creation? Testable evidence, please, or admit your own assertions are unsupported.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I wouldn't want to see that. I would feel like I did when I saw Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome when he knocked off Blaster's helmet and you saw he had a chromosomal abnormality.
I would be like Mel Gibson "Down Syndrome wasn't part of the deal!"
These people must be true savages to have shit like that going on I thought.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Your ignorance amuses us all. Rocks exposed to the atmosphere were there, then. Then they got buried and we dug them up, dated them, and tested them to SEE what atmosphere they formed in, because rocks form in different ways in different environments. But if you'd ever completed grade school you'd already know this....
Also, all life is nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions. What defines life from non life is how many and what reactions are taking place. Take a few reactions away and you don't have life anymore, just a few chemical reactions.
Life is inevitable because chemical reactions occur when conditions are favourable, and the conditions happen to be favourable for the reactions to sustain life.
You're your own worst nightmare.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
atheist nightmare,
yeah, i got it from the picture, i'm that good. And via your reply, the answer is yes lol. Why do the Mormons use it?
Now wait, you're quoting Ellen G. White like a cult member? the members of Jim Jone's church did the same.
Ellen G. White was a false prophet and is currently residing in hell, since she resides in hell, thus you will also.
Please discuss the investigative judgement, get ex minister to come in and play he will enjoy this. Yeah, Christ didn't coe back when White said He would thus she's a woman possessed by demons (Deut 18).
I debated the top SDA apologist who was the only "protestant" to have entered the Roman Vault. He's a character.
Well, why do you debate atheists? when being a SDA is even more satanic then the object of who you debate. lol. wow.
Respectfully,
Seventh Day Adventists Nightmare (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
How do you know this? Where you there? Or this is one of those other doctrines built on top of other doctrines? NOT OBSERVABLE, NO REPEATABLE, NOT SCIENCE.
Another doctrine? You guys can really make stories. Cyanobacteria are very complex organisms. You have to be very delusional to believe that they formed by themselves. Again, NOT SCIENCE!!
I challenge any person on earth, to create a cyanobacteria from scratch by just using raw elements. Anyone who attempts this will see that it is IMPOSIBLE with our current technology. Even more impossible is that they formed alone by pure chance.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
Are you going to tell me that this highly sophisticated organism feeds on WATER and yet there was NO OXYGEN? The devil is in the details. Stop believing bullshit. Just because these things can create oxygen from water, it does not mean that they started the oxygen. The amount of oxygen that these things produce is very small compared to the amount that plants produce.
What? Plants formed by themselves too? These systems are even more complex. Are you insane? I will give anyone the raw materials to create a plant from scratch. Create me a seed that has a capability of growing and then giving fruits and eventually giving me back another seed.
Open your eyes and don’t be stupid. This requires abundant intelligence, engineering and planning. Otherwise it will fail ALWAYS. God created all this things for specific tasks.
Stop believing such lies from the devil. Open your eyes, Satan is the father (inventor) of lies. Do you think it is coincidence that a Catholic Priest invented the BigBang?
Do you think it is a coincidence that a cristian (Darwin) invented evolution? Don’t be stupid. These are agents of Satan deceiving the world. It was already foretold in ancient times via the sure prophetic word of God. Reach the hand of God while there is time.
Dude, you are very wrong. Here is a paragraph from Wikipedia. Learn something:
On top of that, I will add: A life organism is anything that reproduces itself. This is in combination of the above paragraph. I think you are the one who needs to go complete grade school.
Any chemical reaction can happen by chance, but NONE of them can be orchestrated by chance to support itself and reproduce itself. This is a stupid theory. EXTREME FAITH NEEDED. Not observable, not repeatable, NOT SCIENCE.
Sure, allow me. I thought you were never going to ask.
Every living organism was created by God. God is the source of energy that sustains the whole universe.
God created everything that your eyes can see in nature. You are the ultimate evidence of God’s existence; just look at yourself in the mirror.
What is my testable evidence? Nature. Plain and simple. I’ll tell you how to test it. Here is a list on how to:
#1 Go out, grab a woman, and have sex with her.
#2 Do it multiple times until she gets pregnant.
#3 Repeat the process until you die.
#4 See if any of your kids is an alien or a monkey. If not, you may conclude that every person comes from another person.
#5 Have animals do the same thing. The result will be the same.
#6 Have insects do the same. The result will be the same.
#7 Have plants do the same. The result will be the same.
I have over six thousand years of recorded history in which people have reported the same thing. Nothing has changed and it never will.
Here is another test that you can test yourself without relying on stupid doctrines made up by people who have nothing to do but collect money from the government for creating bullshit:
#1 Ask your girl to let you analyze her vagina. You will discover that your penis fits very well. Actually, her vagina is made in such a way that your penis can perfectly fit; the curvature, how wet it gets, etc.
If evolution was true, then evolution has a brain somewhere and we need to find it. Allow me to explain. If evolution was true, then woman and men are constantly evolving. This means that the vagina of a woman has to evolve in such way that has to match the male. The same goes for men.
Now explain to me the following. How does evolution know how big is the male’s penis? How does evolution know how big your penis needs to be?
All mammals have their organs matching the size of their opposite sex. This is only accomplished by an outside intelligence. To believe that chance alone can do this, is to be INSANE.
Where is your proof, Nightmare? So far nothing coherent from you explaining the nature of the material universe using testable explanations based on material reality.
When you provide coherent evidence of your appeals to complexity (I don't understand how it works so I will just invent a supernatural explanation I also don't understand) we will all be thrilled to hear about it.
Until then you are foolishly demanding we provide empirical evidence of our hypotheses when your own hypothesis is not only devoid of support from empirical evidence but utterly lacks a mechanism to attain or comprehend it.
The fact material reality is outside the capacity of current human explanatory capacity does not give you carte blanche to invent a fictional explanation that externally encapsulates the entirety of all the things humans can't explain.
If you think you can do this, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your brain. You will eat no one here alive, that's a clarified certainty.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Nightmare has done it at last. He's convinced me with the scything power of his assertion light sabre. This post is just too beautiful to be true...
Thanks, Nightmare. This is the high point of my day.
P.S. Sorry Nightmare, I was writing that last post above for a while and did not see your unshakable proof until I had posted.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Look, evolution is a long process, Nightmare. It's even longer than my penis, which is very, very long indeed.
What happens with evolution is that over time, characteristics change in response to their environment and survive thanks to their ability to reproduce.
In the case of winkies and wee wees, if a man with a gigantic dork evolved he would be unable to penetrate his sweetheart's holiest of holies.
Unable to reproduce, the genetic blueprint for Donkey Boy's titanic tackle would die out in one generation.
Thankfully the female's vagina is designed to accommodate the head of a baby and thus, when this gruesome business is not going on, there's plenty of flex and variation in her equipment allowing a range of sizes to prove more or less satisfactory, depending on her sexual proclivity and general level of interest and his commitment to extensive foreplay.
The point is that any characteristic not suitable for reproduction leads to immediate genetic extinction. Only boy pink bits that work with girlie pink bits show longevity - pun intended...
You can apply the rule of natural selection to any biological characteristic. Long necks of giraffes or tortoises, woolly mammoths. Any quality that helps a creature survive and reproduce is passed on. Qualities that do not help die out.
Applied to bacteria and resistance to drugs, let's assume in a hospital only the bacteria resistant to penicillin survive. Over a certain number of generations there are no longer any bacteria alive that are not resistant to penicillin. Simple, ain't it?
To comprehend this you will need to let go of your 6000 year old Earth fantasy. The earth has been measured using radiometric dating to be about 4.6 billion years old. If you can show us, using some similarly reliable dating method, that another earlier date prevails, do feel free.
Just be aware that your fallacious appeals to complexity and incredulity do not count as a testable explanation in this matter.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Wow, your logic is so......fucking beyond retarded, it so beyond retarded that my mentally handicapped cousin is saying that your retarded with that statement. Just ignore all the scientific evidence and fall back with ZERO evidence for your god and just say DUUHHHH GOD DUN DIDIT (add the drool out of the side of your mouth)
Is this scientific evidence or a doctrine? You tend to confuse evidence with theory. I think you need to go back to the beginning of the forum and look at the example I gave about the scientific method.
#1 The rock = evidence
#2 That is was exposed = your doctrine
#3 That is was buried after being exposed = your doctrine
#4 We dug them up = Evidence that it was buried.
#5 We see what atmosphere they formed in = your doctrine.
#6 Rocks form in different ways. Have seen rocks while forming in different environments? = your doctrine
Evidence (2) vs Doctrine (4)
Total evidence: A rock was found buried. Dude, you have a lot of faith. You are a BELIEVER. The empirical doctrines of atheists. Lol
The only rocks that I have seen while being formed, they actually form very rapidly in magnitude of days. To say that x or y rock formed in x or y environment if you have never seen one form is deceptive.
To meditate: Let's say that there is a God, and also evolution, both coexist. There are two planet earths. One was made by God about 6 thousand years ago and the other one was made by evolution billions of years before. One scientist digs up a rock from the created planet. Another scientist digs an equal rock from the evolved planet. Will both rock show different dates? How will you know which one was created or which one evolved? How do you get rid of ambiguity?
All you have is circumstantial evidence. God created all things in a mature estate.
AtheistNightmare, you're going to have to do much, much better than this to destroy my "faith which has become an idoll ". Besides, I saw you deleted that particular threat from your OP, why did you do that?
This sounds logical but unfortunately this is no evidence for evolution. To the contrary, it supports intelligent design. The hood of my car only fits my car, therefore it evolved. All other hoods died out due to they could not ride with the car.
You can call this, circumstantial evidence. All living things on earth are capable of adaptation. If a bad mutation occurs, naturally, like you say, the specimen will die, but ONLY that one. Not all of them. You also say that it takes a long time for changes to occur. Well, this is a myth that you have to rely on since you cannot observe the phenomenon. It is just a lie.
The truth is that bad mutation can be fatal and eventually it fades out. This is observable. People have been borne with 6 fingers. This is an example of bad mutation but it is not fatal. Does this mean that every generation from now on will have six fingers? No, eventually it fades out. Goliath and his brothers had six fingers. Read it in the Bible. By now we should have millions of people with 6 fingers but the evidence shows the opposite.
One extra head, one extra finger, one extra toe, are just examples of bad mutations. But these bad mutations are not creative. They are just copies of something that already exists in the body. This is observable, repeatable, it is science.
On the other hand, “good mutation” only exists in your brain. Mutation cannot create a wing from scratch. A human can never develop wings. A fish can never develop legs. These are only doctrines from a stupid religion invented by a cristian possessed by Satan, Charles Darwin.
I challenge you to give me the best evidence you have showing that we evolved. Don’t confuse theory with evidence. You tend to mix them. Whatever you post, I will ask you to test it. I will see if your tiny little brain can handle that.
If Intelligent Design proponents come from creationists, why are there still creationists? Answer me that Atheist Nightmare and you have your answer
On a more serious note, the decoded genome is irrefutable evidence to support the theory of Evolution. Numerous lab tests on organisms that allow for short lifespan of generations have confirmed what it should be logically obvious once understood. That the theory of Evolution explains irrefutably the mechanism behind the diversity of life on earth, and also the fossil record.
The funny thing about the theory of Evolution is that it would only take one example that it is wrong, for it to be an unreliable fundamental component of our paradigm. You use the words scientific evidence and (sic) NO REPEATABLE (sic) without having the vaguest idea what that means.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It's pretty easy: Lenski's esperiment! Repeatable evolution on an argent dish.
Now go on, tell us why Lenski's experiment is not valid...
Do you realize that with you have have to start at basic kindergarden level stuff, I mean just the concept of scientific theory that absolute basic of understanding what scientific theory is (here is a hint, it doesn't mean a guess) Evolution is backed by evidence, can you give me actual evidence outside of the bible about your god? A theory has many parts to it, not just being able to be tested, but be able to make valid predictions, and guess what evolution has so much more evidence, I mean a mountain height of evidence and predictions that have come true and tests that have proven it to be true, so much more than your god concept. You have ZERO to back up god.
Even worse is that you demand so much of science and yet demand so little of god that only a fucking moron like you can believe in god and make such demands of science and when science doesn't meet up to YOUR supposed ignorant expectation state that science is wrong, and when there is ZERO evidence that your god exists you claim that god is true. Seriously only a fucking moron does what you do. Ignore reality and believe in fantasy.
However you can go do the research on evolution.
from trying to have you understand literally basic concepts
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
to doing your damn research which I doubt because your so damn fucking ignorant that it's unreal that you can even fucking breath on your own.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
more basic stuff, sorry it doesn't come any more basic you have to learn about science not just spout off what other ignorant preachers state.
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html
from universities in other countries
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/NZevidence.shtml
introduction to evolutionary evidence
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
to more topics from universities in regards to evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070101_libya
I mean seriously do you need me to educate you? Or how about you go back to school and actually learn something other than "god did it and i don't have to back up my words with actual evidence you just have to believe me" bullshit. However I say go try to learn what scientific theory really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and so that your dumb as shit brain can try to understand the difference between scientific theory (proven hypothesis with actual backed up evidence, observation or test) and the layman's term of theory (a guess) http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/
But please oh please stop being such a dumb shit and posting stuff that makes most people after reading your post more stupid, stop typing stupid moronic shit.
to give me the best evidence showing we were created. Don't confuse naked assertions about fit-for-purpose man made objects with evidence. You always mix them. Let's see if your tiny little brain can handle that...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm almost positive that is exactly what it is! However, there is NO WAY I'm going to verify this on a netbook/notebook
whatever the hell it's called.
Uncle Malin. His mushroom holds the key to Super Russia!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh I was looking forward to Round 2 the entire time!
edit2: Actually, since page 2 is 3 screens long and this IS a touchscreen I'm using to access the boards, 'yawn fest' is PRECISELY what this damned thread amounts to.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Hey OPIE,
You will be enjoying the torture and torments of hell right besides your girlfriend Ellen G. White.
Oh Wait, you don't.
believe in hell?
how convenient little man, how convenient.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You know, I actually think I prefer AtheistNightmare's baffling scientific ignorance to your claims that everyone who disagrees with you deserves eternal torture...
I believe in hell (well, not really) and it has a top-class whorehouse waiting just fer me!
(Who needs that "romantically involved" bullshit these days??)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
HelloJohnCalvinNutHugger,
ThreatsofHellfireandtorturearelikeaimingagunatourheadsthatcontainsnoammunition.Itmakesyoufeelbigandpowerfulbutwhenyoupullthetriggernothinghappens.
Respectfully,
ProzacDeathWish(insertfairytale)
Latincanuck, you talk too much and say very little. Again:
Give me your BEST piece of evidence showing that we evolved. I don’t want links, I don’t want books. I want YOU to lay out in this forum, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the BEST piece of evidence.
I just need ONE scientific evidence, NOT theory.
Can someone give this guy 2 fucking silver coins so we can cross the bridge already?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Just what I thought, you don’t have one. Don’t try to play that old game twisting this thing around. I already gave you my most solid evidence. Did you forget already? Do you suffer from Alzheimer?
Look at post #167, steps 1 to 7. See if you litter brain can handle that. Please refute my SCIENTIC evidence. All you have is a pile of doctrines. Behold the empirical doctrines of atheists!!!!
Dude, get out of here with your unbiblical doctrines made up by corrupt deceivers. Your hell only exists in your brain, not the bible. Go home and read a well translated bible.
Because of your corrupt leaders that have used the bible to manipulate people is the reason why we are here. We also wasted about 1500 years of science development due to your leader’s fraudulent doctrines.
Wow!!! The bacteria “evolved” the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. This is your evidence for evolution? I call this adaptation. All living organisms created by God have the ability of adaptation. This is NOT debated. I think you are missing the point.
An E. Coli bacteria will NEVER evolve into another organism, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. It will ALWAYS be a bacteria.
e+/e- . The end.
I see a lurker.
Great responses folks. I was going to respond but I can tell our theist friend isn't interested in facts, logic, and answers.
Atheistsnightmare is a good example of The theory of inherent dishonesty in theism.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Not sure about E Coli, but IIRC roughly spherical "coccus" bacteria might have the capacity to eventually evolve Eukaryote-esque structural and chemical characteristics, and eventually... internal organelles. It's simply a question of there being the evolutionary niche being unfilled for such a drastic transition to take place.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The fusion of two chromosomes into one (Chromosome 2 in humans). Separated the chromosomes show the exact base pairs as in chimpanzees. Unfused humans would have the exact number of chromosomes as other ape species.
Humans, like apes, cannot create their own asorbic acid as practically every mammalian species on Earth can. The reason being is apes and humans have a defective gene that codes for asorbic acid production.
Every way you look at DNA it proves common descent beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile creationists still insist the world is flat because the Bible says the Earth is flat (unless you failed at geometry and don't realize that circles are flat and spheres aren't, or try some lame excuse that somehow the Hebrews had no words for round objects).
Sapient, however... is proof of "Spontaneous Combustion: When the hell did this guy come online?"
I was going to toy with this imbecile theist a while longer. I hope you haven't spoiled my fun.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The fact is there is a whole lot of nothing in the universe and that nothing has energy. What creationists believe solely exists is all the visible matter in the universe and ignores anti-matter, dark matter and all that nothing which cannot currently be observed. The sum of the visible matter, the anti-matter and dark matter is still not enough to account for the size of the universe.
Now what is observed is that the universe is expanding and continues to expand at an accelerated rate. Therefore that observation shows that there are factors contributing to the speeding up of the expansion. Therefore concluding that the "nothing" out there is simply an inert space devoid of any properties is inaccurate, so your conclusion that something cannot be derived from that nothing is false, since something is currently being observed from nothingness.
Creationists claim that all existence came from a single moment when god willed everything into existence. This is demonstrably false. Common elements such as hydrogen, helium, lithium came from the initial expansion. Heavier elements, largely what makes up the Earth, such as iron, gold, etc. came from the collapse of stars through supernova (which we did observe the beginning of, supernova 1987a, albeit it was at such a distance it happened 168,000 light years away). Therefore that's observable evidence that all of matter didn't exist at this god's moment of creation.
So we can conclude two things. Something does come from nothing and god didn't create everything at one time as the Bible claims. Looks like the creationists are zero for 2.
I meant to add that the other reason I didn't feel the need to respond is that everyone else has said most of what I would say. Please do keep the responses coming, it'll allow me to focus on tasks that can actually be completed.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Glad to read it, Sap.
"Viva la Rationality!"
Isn't Dark Matter a less-than-scientific 'cheat' to explain (via faulty human physicists) the lack of visible energy present in the Universe?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)