Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Little Billy on May 10, 2017, 01:16:55 AM
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
So what you are saying is that all human knowledge was present at 120 years ago, and last 120 years haven't increase humans knowledge even a bit. Even in the scale of getbig that is quite stupid thing to say..
-
What if there's a third possibility, and that is that your precious Dr George Wald is wrong...?
-
You want proof of evolution? Don't clean out your fridge for 6 months.
-
Life finds a way...
(https://i.redd.it/yn51s4za3dwy.png)
-
:D
-
:D
Nowadays he'd probably announce it on instagram.
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
(http://liccourtsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/data-laughing.gif)
-
Why would he not want to believe in a Creator? It doesn't automatically mean that the Creator is also a judge. Or that the Creator has any involvement whatsoever with his creation. We could just be his little fun experiment and now he's gone.
-
So little Billy. Ever finish the big FUCK YOU Tattoo you got?
-
Has any atheist, blinded by the light of my lucid logic, renounced his atheism yet?
-
Has any atheist, blinded by the light of my lucid logic, renounced his atheism yet?
Fuck off, gimmick.
-
:)
-
Fuck off, gimmick.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
-
Proof of a higher power -
.
-
How about creation by a superior species that needn't be worshipped as a "god"?
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
So true
Everyone knows that Brahma is the Creator God
-
:D
.
-
I don't know how or why, so many men just "take it" .
Why do so many men allow a woman to pressure them into doing things they don't want?
From having kids to taking jobs they hate, I've seen plenty of men just going along with her. WTF?
At my wife's Christmas office party I met a real pathetic character.
He was a CPA with a decent income and worked out.
After a few drinks he confessed he hated his marriage and his 12 yr old son was a spoiled brat.
In fact, he last had sex with his wife 7 years ago and they slept in separate rooms.
Why he stayed married was a real mystery to me.
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
(https://boulevardbrutal.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/tenacious-d-in-the-pick-of-destiny_devil-a68f6.jpg)
-
It's stupidity....The idea that mankind started from apes and evolved into the level that we are discussing this on computers is preposterous...There had to be someone/something directing this....Einstein came to the same conclusion.....
-
It's stupidity....The idea that mankind started from apes and evolved into the level that we are discussing this on computers is preposterous...There had to be someone/something directing this....Einstein came to the same conclusion.....
We only THINK it's on computers. It's only in our mind.
We're all still on the Savannah throwing feces at eachother
-
Whatever gets you to the light is alright.
-
:D
-
Religion and believing in some folklore is utter stupidity. Complete utter stupidity.
-
George Wald utterly demolished atheism.
-
George Wald utterly demolished atheism.
Wald present an opinion, and therefore he is god for you? What Wald say was that there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). What he didn't say that it was by creation, that is your own opinion about the matter, and there isn't any scientific evidence about that. What comes to evolution, there is plenty of evidence, which you guys deny with your IQ, which is hardly over 80 points. What that means is the fact, that you have just about same IQ than average cuckoo clock has, and you still can outwit millions of scientist with it ;D
-
the funny thing is that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible ideas.
if you believe in god, god started the whole thing, made earth and heavens and the universe, then by evolution species advanced to this point, and all of it -- INCLUDING the evolutionary process -- was part of his master plan.
if you don't believe in god, start that off at the big bang, then the formation of our planet, then evolution, and get to this point.
tah-dah, billy boy you've been blown out the water
-
the funny thing is that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible ideas.
if you believe in god, god started the whole thing, made earth and heavens and the universe, then by evolution species advanced to this point, and all of it -- INCLUDING the evolutionary process -- was part of his master plan.
if you don't believe in god, start that off at the big bang, then the formation of our planet, then evolution, and get to this point.
tah-dah, billy boy you've been blown out the water
The Bible clearly says that god created Adam and Eve and everything we see around us as is. Evolution is not possible according to the Bible. Now, if you believe in another magical sky daddy who created bacteria and single cell organisms, and let them evolve, then yes that's compatible. But when people mention creationism in the western world, they're usually talking about the Bible.
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
That quote is wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
-
the funny thing is that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible ideas.
if you believe in god, god started the whole thing, made earth and heavens and the universe, then by evolution species advanced to this point, and all of it -- INCLUDING the evolutionary process -- was part of his master plan.
if you don't believe in god, start that off at the big bang, then the formation of our planet, then evolution, and get to this point.
tah-dah, billy boy you've been blown out the water
Of course evolution and creationism are utterly incompatible - the fact of divine creation shows that evolution is pure bs. God did it all in six days six thousand years ago.
-
Of course evolution and creationism are utterly incompatible - the fact of divine creation shows that evolution is pure bs. God did it all in six days six thousand years ago.
how about you just believe whatever you want and let everyone else do the same thing
or you can post this stuff on the religion board
-
Of course evolution and creationism are utterly incompatible - the fact of divine creation shows that evolution is pure bs. God did it all in six days six thousand years ago.
Informative stuff, thanks.
-
Wald present an opinion, and therefore he is god for you? What Wald say was that there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). What he didn't say that it was by creation, that is your own opinion about the matter, and there isn't any scientific evidence about that. What comes to evolution, there is plenty of evidence, which you guys deny with your IQ, which is hardly over 80 points. What that means is the fact, that you have just about same IQ than average cuckoo clock has, and you still can outwit millions of scientist with it ;D
Wald presented the facts. Since evolution has been debunked, the only scientifically viable option, and hence the truth, is that God did it.
-
So what you are saying is that all human knowledge was present at 120 years ago, and last 120 years haven't increase humans knowledge even a bit. Even in the scale of getbig that is quite stupid thing to say..
You miss the point. Abiogenesis was roundly debunked over a century ago, and atheists like you yet cling to it. You are barking up the wrong tree.
-
The Bible clearly says that god created Adam and Eve and everything we see around us as is. Evolution is not possible according to the Bible. Now, if you believe in another magical sky daddy who created bacteria and single cell organisms, and let them evolve, then yes that's compatible. But when people mention creationism in the western world, they're usually talking about the Bible.
yah that's the magical fairy-tale story, however you've got christians, probably, who still believe in a god and a higher power, but realize that mankind coming up with the *exact* way it actually happened, all tied up in a neat little bow like that only 6,000 years ago is pure bullshit, so i think they're the ones who are close to reconciling evolution and creationism as i explained in the quote you replied to
-
yah that's the magical fairy-tale story, however you've got christians, probably, who still believe in a god and a higher power, but realize that mankind coming up with the *exact* way it actually happened, all tied up in a neat little bow like that only 6,000 years ago is pure bullshit, so i think they're the ones who are close to reconciling evolution and creationism as i explained in the quote you replied to
You do realize that there are many proofs of a young Earth, don't you? Reality is not a fairy tale just because you are alienated from it.
-
You do realize that there are many proofs of a young Earth, don't you? Reality is not a fairy tale just because you are alienated from it.
Sex and gender are the same thing. Creating a difference between the two is just a way to enable those that are mentally ill.
Homosexuaity is perfectly natural (yet still a defect from a reproduction/propagation-of-the-species standpoint) because it only refers to desire. Nobody can tell someone who they can and can't be attracted to.
Transgenderism, and especially non binary genderism however, is a mental illness that society has enabled and supported due to an extreme fear of being politically incorrect.
-
Wald presented the facts. Since evolution has been debunked, the only scientifically viable option, and hence the truth, is that God did it.
Facts comes always with evidence, and claims about evolution been debunked is just bullshit made up by the idiots who wear tin foil hats. Your mistake is talk about evolution like it is some historical happening, while it is ongoing event, doing it's work as we speak. For example: There is new studies about the behaviour of the chimpanzees deep in the jungle. There is a large group of chimps which uses human methods at the battles of the territory. They have hierarchy among them just like in army, and they do decisions as a group. There is also bit older study about another group of chimps, and these little buggers shows symptoms of religious behaviour. By the study they choose some object, large rock of tree, and bring gifts to it, sit around it and spend time by it. In other words, chimps of the modern times has evolve to adopt these things, even they do not have any knowledge about the humans. Few years ahead we could see first church going chimps singing hymns, and this is just how evolution proves itself day by day ;D
-
Facts comes always with evidence, and claims about evolution been debunked is just bullshit made up by the idiots who wear tin foil hats. Your mistake is talk about evolution like it is some historical happening, while it is ongoing event, doing it's work as we speak. For example: There is new studies about the behaviour of the chimpanzees deep in the jungle. There is a large group of chimps which uses human methods at the battles of the territory. They have hierarchy among them just like in army, and they do decisions as a group. There is also bit older study about another group of chimps, and these little buggers shows symptoms of religious behaviour. By the study they choose some object, large rock of tree, and bring gifts to it, sit around it and spend time by it. In other words, chimps of the modern times has evolve to adopt these things, even they do not have any knowledge about the humans. Few years ahead we could see first church going chimps singing hymns, and this is just how evolution proves itself day by day ;D
How could any evolution have occurred if monkeys begat only monkeys and only humans begat humans? Zero evolutionary change multiplied by any number of generations, no matter how large, equals precisely zero (evolution).
-
How could any evolution have occurred if monkeys begat only monkeys and only humans begat humans? Zero evolutionary change multiplied by any number of generations, no matter how large, equals precisely zero (evolution).
you're not talking sense. it's not a human boy popping out of a monkey's vagina one day. it's a slow, gradual process, over hundreds of thousands of years.
Also please respond to my tranny post.
-
you're not talking sense. it's not a human boy popping out of a monkey's vagina one day. it's a slow, gradual process, over hundreds of thousands of years.
Also please respond to my tranny post.
I bet you popped out of a monkey's pussy, Gloria.
-
I bet you popped out of a monkey's pussy, Gloria.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Sorry brah.
Guess that disproves the "no evolution" theory either way!
-
Of course evolution and creationism are utterly incompatible - the fact of divine creation shows that evolution is pure bs. God did it all in six days six thousand years ago.
You misquoted Wald, and since you didn't bother reading my link here is a portion below. And in no way did he believe in a 6,000 yr old earth. In the 50's the earth was believed to be 2 billion years, now that figure is near 5 billion, only getting worse for you. ;)
What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions [Louis Pasteur and others]. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.
-
Don't understand you fighting with each other..
Evolution is the HOW but NOT the WHY...
Something can't come from nothing....
It had to always have existed as the Universe is infinite.
Big bang is the how....
Creation is the why...
-
Wald presented the facts. Since evolution has been debunked, the only scientifically viable option, and hence the truth, is that God did it.
:)
-
Don't understand you fighting with each other..
Evolution is the HOW but NOT the WHY...
Something can't come from nothing....
It had to always have existed as the Universe is infinite.
Big bang is the how....
Creation is the why...
Take your common sense and ability to understand multiple view points and go to a board where it is accepted. How dare you propose that a change in allelic frequency over time doesn't totally negate that the universe was created by a god?
-
Both Atheism AND religion are bullshit because both assume mankind has intellectually evolved enough to explain the Universe. Its like saying that when you get to a certain point in an IQ test where you can no longer intellectually understand the questions. Its not because the questions are God or lack of God.
Tough pill to swallow...but we may not be the final, most intelligent life form
Concepts like beginning and ending of time could possibly be comprehended with sufficient intellect which humans do not have. We only have the fervent need to explain how everything works....even if we simply don't know yet.
-
How could any evolution have occurred if monkeys begat only monkeys and only humans begat humans? Zero evolutionary change multiplied by any number of generations, no matter how large, equals precisely zero (evolution).
That is utterly stupid comment, if you need to know what utterly stupid means. Point at the matter is that these chimps learn new things and because of that, they survive better than apes with lower IQ, and they rise higher level of the food chain. Their offspring will have even higher IQ and better changes to survive by that. Next thing you know is that those hairy buggers sit nex to you at the church. It may take few thousand years, but there is lot of time in this universe. If you don't get it, look around? Need some evidence about evolution? How about same sex marriages? Didn't believe that is possible 20 years ago? Moronism which make Trump a president of USA? That's dark side of the evolution, because while most of the nations IQ is rising, some of the nations it is going down. All these are little bits of evolution as we see it at present time. Need more proof?
-
Humans did not evolve from monkeys... monkeys are a relative of the "monkey-like" creature humans evolved from which no longer exists.
This is why humans are humans and monkeys are still monkeys
-
Humans did not evolve from monkeys... monkeys are a relative of the "monkey-like" creature humans evolved from which no longer exists.
This is why humans are humans and monkeys are still monkeys
So explain why there is fossiles of our ancestors just about at every step between ape and homo sapiens? If you study skeleton by skeleton you can see who comes first and how the next generation has evolved. For example: In Europe we have castles which has been build at middle ages and if you go to visit one, you see that doorways are quite low. Why? Because people were at least 8" shorter at that time, and by industrial revolution and changes in the food and lifestyle new generations grow to be taller. Even now kids tend to grow few percent taller than their parents, and why? Evolution goes on.
-
George Wald utterly demolished atheism.
he just invokes God of gaps theory.same old nonsense...Oh God isn,t God a shit.
-
So explain why there is fossiles of our ancestors just about at every step between ape and homo sapiens? If you study skeleton by skeleton you can see who comes first and how the next generation has evolved. For example: In Europe we have castles which has been build at middle ages and if you go to visit one, you see that doorways are quite low. Why? Because people were at least 8" shorter at that time, and by industrial revolution and changes in the food and lifestyle new generations grow to be taller. Even now kids tend to grow few percent taller than their parents, and why? Evolution goes on.
Yes.. man evolved... however he evolved NOT from monkeys... but from a different mammal which is why monkeys still exist.
-
All very well but where did these monkeys come from?
-
All very well but where did these monkeys come from?
I mean literally the answer to all such nonsensical questions is in the theory of evolution.
Unless you're just trolling
-
This all sounds a bit chicken/egg, Old Sport.
-
Yes.. man evolved... however he evolved NOT from monkeys... but from a different mammal which is why monkeys still exist.
Bit of semantics here - monkeys are still man's predecessor; it's just that the eventually-human branch evolved from manlike ape-to-apelike man first. The other monkeys - the still monkeys - most likely held fast in a monkey-friendly environment, thereby remaining simian. We're still related, though.
Point being, a predecessor mustn't go extinct for the more evolved species to emerge. Hell, we were fish long before we aped, and wormy sea-things before that; yet both still exist in one capacity or another.
-
This all sounds a bit chicken/egg, Old Sport.
If you're talking about the origin of existence, ie, the big bang, that can be pretty easily reconciled with the idea of a higher power, just by saying "yeah God did it".
...and then God created evolution to get all of us to the point we're at today.
OR you can attribute it to random entropy of the universe, whatever, the point is, such semantics don't really matter and believing in evolution does in no way preclude you from believing in some higher entity.
people like OP are just silly, clinging onto the ideas of the earth spontaneously being formed 6,000 years ago just because some group of people got together centuries ago and wrote a book about it. Like, yeah man, they definitely have proper evidence for that.
::)
-
Yes.. man evolved... however he evolved NOT from monkeys... but from a different mammal which is why monkeys still exist.
And as always, we have to take your word for it? That is the difference between beliefs and facts: You can prove facts. Your mistake is in the idea that homo sapiens somehow stop to be an ape. Just look your fellow citizens when lights goes out and looting starts. What you see is a prominent type of behavior which comes straight from the spinal cord ;D
-
If you're talking about the origin of existence, ie, the big bang, that can be pretty easily reconciled with the idea of a higher power, just by saying "yeah God did it".
...and then God created evolution to get all of us to the point we're at today.
OR you can attribute it to random entropy of the universe, whatever, the point is, such semantics don't really matter and believing in evolution does in no way preclude you from believing in some higher entity.
people like OP are just silly, clinging onto the ideas of the earth spontaneously being formed 6,000 years ago just because some group of people got together centuries ago and wrote a book about it. Like, yeah man, they definitely have proper evidence for that.
::)
If God did it then evolution did not happen since evolution is the notion that it all developed by chance. God created the Earth since design can only arise from a designer, and we know that He did it six millennia ago as science attests the Biblical account in numerous ways.
-
If God did it then evolution did not happen since evolution is the notion that it all developed by chance. God created the Earth since design can only arise from a designer, and we know that He did it six millennia ago as science attests the Biblical account in numerous ways.
you're really confused.
evolution is not the notion that it all developed by chance.
this tells me you're arguing against something that's not actually there.
and please show me what science confirms the earth coming into being 6,000 years ago.
are dinosaur bones all a fraud, too?
-
you're really confused.
evolution is not the notion that it all developed by chance.
this tells me you're arguing against something that's not actually there.
and please show me what science confirms the earth coming into being 6,000 years ago.
are dinosaur bones all a fraud, too?
Correct. The exact opposite, in fact.
-
I only want to know what Zarah Elise evolved from
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/688c1437da02f9f6feacd38764cb51b4/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo3_1280.jpg)(http://68.media.tumblr.com/f7ef0480ddf449ba5ca2de053da55e00/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo2_1280.jpg)(http://68.media.tumblr.com/2df0b4ee1500a188e6891473f873f903/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo1_1280.jpg)
-
I only want to know what Zarah Elise evolved from
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/688c1437da02f9f6feacd38764cb51b4/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo3_1280.jpg)(http://68.media.tumblr.com/f7ef0480ddf449ba5ca2de053da55e00/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo2_1280.jpg)(http://68.media.tumblr.com/2df0b4ee1500a188e6891473f873f903/tumblr_oq08dbnaBg1tnaufeo1_1280.jpg)
If I could bury my nose in her sweaty asshole and lap up her pussy juices, I'd believe in god.
-
There is a reason most intelligent people are atheists.
-
Hairless dude looks like an old wrestler
Still the alpha in that clique
-
Top Poodle, that is precisely what evolution is. Abiogenesis is random, mutations are random, and so-called Natural Selection is random. Every evolutionary circumstance is random. Why do you think every atheist claims that evolution is fact? Since evolution is purely random, there is no space for any God therein.
-
Top Poodle, that is precisely what evolution is. Abiogenesis is random, mutations are random, and so-called Natural Selection is random. Every evolutionary circumstance is random. Why do you think every atheist claims that evolution is fact? Since evolution is purely random, there is no space for any God therein.
Bill,
No. SO very no.
Perhaps we should revisit the process - but first, listen to this:
Now, read this:
-
If I could bury my nose in her sweaty asshole and lap up her pussy juices, I'd believe in god.
Resembles an obese kid.
-
Bill,
No. SO very no.
So very yes. If no designer is involved then evolution is entirely random, totally unplanned and unguided.
-
So very yes. If no designer is involved then evolution is entirely random, totally unplanned and unguided.
Ok, so that's settled.
How do we now go about figuring out who or what designed everything?
-
So very yes. If no designer is involved then evolution is entirely random, totally unplanned and unguided.
by this reasoning, water running down the banks of a river is also entirely random and unguided.
...yet the riverbanks guide it.
???
-
Since evolution is purely random, there is no space for any God therein.
That's not even logically feasible.
If you believe in god, you can say he started everything, started the chain reaction that brought about evolution and brought us to where we are now.
What is so hard to reconcile there?
-
Top Poodle, that is precisely what evolution is. Abiogenesis is random, mutations are random, and so-called Natural Selection is random. Every evolutionary circumstance is random. Why do you think every atheist claims that evolution is fact? Since evolution is purely random, there is no space for any God therein.
Evolution is random only for the idiots who doesn't understand the concept of it. For example, we know that intelligence is inheritable feature, so there is clear reason why children of technological societies are smarter than children from undeveloped societies. Why it is inheritable feature? Because of evolution, so that the species develops better survival capabilities. It is quite simple and not random at all.
-
^^ billy is arguing against something that isn't there.
He thinks evolution means X. Evolution actually means Y. He discredits everybody who accepts the empirically proven theory because he assumes it is X, whereas in reality, it's fucking Y.
X and Y are not equal
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/84/e3/0c/84e30c25dca10d6e31f63306c992ce95.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wG6RTJeAf0U/hqdefault.jpg)
Natty fella, doesn't even lift.
Delts overpowering arms and chest
-
Religion and believing in some folklore is utter stupidity. Complete utter stupidity.
This ^^
A childrens story book with talking snakes,immaculate conceptions, magic man in the sky ::)
-
This ^^
A childrens story book with talking snakes,immaculate conceptions, magic man in the sky ::)
Reality is not stupid simply because you lack the brains to comprehend it.
-
Evolution is random only for the idiots who doesn't understand the concept of it. For example, we know that intelligence is inheritable feature, so there is clear reason why children of technological societies are smarter than children from undeveloped societies. Why it is inheritable feature? Because of evolution, so that the species develops better survival capabilities. It is quite simple and not random at all.
There is no natural mechanism for species developing better survival capabilities since randomness does not accomplish wonders; you are living in a dream world. Creatures' ability to adapt was created by God and did not randomly evolve. Children of technological societies are smarter obviously because they benefit from better education. The inheritance of traits demonstrates that creatures reproduce only their own kind, which makes 'monkeys to men' evolution impossible. Sorry.
-
^^ billy is arguing against something that isn't there.
He thinks evolution means X. Evolution actually means Y. He discredits everybody who accepts the empirically proven theory because he assumes it is X, whereas in reality, it's fucking Y.
X and Y are not equal
You yet do not understand that the entire idea of evolution is that it is wholly random. Evolution is bullshit because the empirical evidence reveals that creatures ever reproduce their own kind. Nil evolutionary change multiplied by any number of successive generations equates to exactly zero evolution. Your fathers were humans, not monkeys. Science and mathematics combine to burst your evolutionary bubble.
-
"Lit-tle BilLEE's ...
Sweeet William now."
-
You yet do not understand that the entire idea of evolution is that it is wholly random. Evolution is bullshit because the empirical evidence reveals that creatures ever reproduce their own kind. Nil evolutionary change multiplied by any number of successive generations equates to exactly zero evolution. Your fathers were humans, not monkeys. Science and mathematics combine to burst your evolutionary bubble.
see guys?
he's arguing Y.
nobody believes in Y.
lmao what a dolt.
-
You yet do not understand that the entire idea of evolution is that it is wholly random. Evolution is bullshit because the empirical evidence reveals that creatures ever reproduce their own kind. Nil evolutionary change multiplied by any number of successive generations equates to exactly zero evolution. Your fathers were humans, not monkeys. Science and mathematics combine to burst your evolutionary bubblebutt.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/0674cd4aa7284d878f6d10371ac17bf4/tumblr_oly3a9xL7R1r31x9ko1_1280.jpg)
-
see guys?
he's arguing Y.
nobody believes in Y.
lmao what a dolt.
What fools believe is irrelevant; I merely supply the facts. You are out of your league, son.
-
http://i.imgur.com/b4g0lg3.gif (http://i.imgur.com/b4g0lg3.gif)
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a209/spekaboxx/junior_dos_santos_UFC_FOX_funny.gif)
http://i.imgur.com/cVsLIDT.gif (http://i.imgur.com/cVsLIDT.gif)
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/YellowishRewardingChimpanzee-size_restricted.gif)
-
Someone please explain why evolutionists constantly spew Stupid.
-
Zahra Elise
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-cover-mixed-magazine.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-01.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-08.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-30.jpg)
-
Someone please explain why evolutionists constantly spew Stupid.
Yes, total stupid spewers. You've established that evolution is nonsense, but you have yet to address this:
How do we now go about figuring out who or what designed everything?
Imagine you already have a creator in mind - because, like everyone else, you chose a god first, then worked your way backward - but it's now on you to provide evidence. Without spewing stupid, of course.
-
Yes, total stupid spewers. You've established that evolution is nonsense, but you have yet to address this:
Imagine you already have a creator in mind - because, like everyone else, you chose a god first, then worked your way backward - but it's now on you to provide evidence. Without spewing stupid, of course.
The Creator is obviously God. God's miraculous presence has been witnessed in the lives of many. Additionally, Scripture is amply attested by history, science, and archaeology.
-
The Creator is obviously God. God's miraculous presence has been witnessed in the lives of many. Additionally, Scripture is amply attested by history, science, and archaeology.
troll confirmed 100%
-
troll confirmed 100%
Reality doth speak.
'In Hawaii a young man brought to Ruth and me his
grandmother, who was about eighty and blind. She
was from French speaking Switzerland, and her
mother tongue was French. Although I was not
conscious of having any great faith, Ruth and I began
to pray for her. Then, speaking in English, I
commanded the spirit of blindness to leave the
woman. After a few moments, the woman turned to
me and said in French, "le vous vois" ("I can see
you"). I was both amazed and delighted!'
-Derek Prince
-
The Creator is obviously God. God's miraculous presence has been witnessed in the lives of many. Additionally, Scripture is amply attested by history, science, and archaeology.
Sweet, we've narrowed it down to "God," a word designated for nearly 3,000 magical beings man has worshipped over time. Then Scripture with a big S, which often denotes the New Testament - so, Christianity.
Jesus, then.
The God you inherited from your country/culture, from your parents. The one that just so happens to make the most sense, right? "Amply attested by history, science, and archaeology," you say. Really, dude? Seriously, thought you had more. Started a thread, all those posts, then the lazy default to pop religion.
And we're all just supposed to assume you meant Christ - because, of course. That's how much thought you put into it.
-
The Ugly, you are sorely mistaken. God is not a God of any culture but the true God; the Bible is pure fact.
"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."
- Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
-
Sweet, we've narrowed it down to "God," a word designated for nearly 3,000 magical beings man has worshipped over time. Then Scripture with a big S, which often denotes the New Testament - so, Christianity.
Jesus, then.
The God you inherited from your country/culture, from your parents. The one that just so happens to make the most sense, right? "Amply attested by history, science, and archaeology," you say. Really, dude? Seriously, thought you had more. Started a thread, all those posts, then the lazy default to pop religion.
And we're all just supposed to assume you meant Christ - because, of course. That's how much thought you put into it.
Dude, you're arguing with a guy who think he's annihilated the theory of evolution by pointing out that humans don't pop out of monkey vaginas as a whole.
-
Dude, you're arguing with a guy who think he's annihilated the theory of evolution by pointing out that humans don't pop out of monkey vaginas as a whole.
I annihilated the theory of evolution in two ways. First, randomness does not beget design, and second, monkeys and fish do not beget men. You have absolutely no argument against these universal realities, which is why you are compelled to fall back on nonsense.
-
I annihilated the theory of evolution in two ways. First, randomness does not beget design, and second, monkeys and fish do not beget men. You have absolutely no argument against these universal realities, which is why you are compelled to fall back on nonsense.
I like your style.
Question:
1. Do you know what "beget" means?
2. What is my nonsense?
-
Billy, do me a favor.
Open up Paint, and mark up this image by crossing out the things you don't agree with:
(http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg)
http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg
(link for high quality)
-
Explain antibiotic resistance.
-
Billy, do me a favor.
Open up Paint, and mark up this image by crossing out the things you don't agree with:
(http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg)
http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg
(link for high quality)
I do not agree with the entire chart. The fact that creatures ever reproduce their own species renders any transmutation impossible. Do you understand me? The whole tree of life is bogus due to genetic laws of inheritance.
-
I do not agree with the entire chart. The fact that creatures ever reproduce their own species renders any transmutation impossible. Do you understand me? The whole tree of life is bogus due to genetic laws of inheritance.
No, I swear to god, I don't understand you. Part of me thinks you're a superb troll, another part thinks you're a gifted idiot, and no part takes you seriously.
If your son is shorter than you, his son shorter than him, his son shorter than him, so on and so forth, and that trait keeps getting passed down, people are shrinking, ten thousand years from now what will your descendants look like?
No other conflation going on.
-
Zahra Elise
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-cover-mixed-magazine.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-01.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-08.jpg)
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-30.jpg)
Despite the boy-do and the fact that I could probably fist her, shove my dick in, and then jerk myself off inside her with the hand that is inside her, she continues to impress me.
-
Despite the boy-do and the fact that I could probably fist her, shove my dick in, and then jerk myself off inside her with the hand that is inside her, she continues to impress me.
Are you implying that her vag is as stretched out as Lil Billys theories about evolution? :D
(http://www.mixedmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/zahra-elise-thong-mixed-magazine-36.jpg)
-
Are you implying that her vag is as stretched out as Lil Billys theories about evolution? :D
Sure would be fun finding out.
Would still rope myself to the doorknob tho. Safety first.
-
Explain antibiotic resistance.
The bacteria remain bacteria; there is no evolution. While less resistant strains are eliminated by the medicine, the resistant strains that are already present multiply. So all that is going on is a change in constitution due to the antibiotic.
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all
-
The bacteria remain bacteria; there is no evolution. While less resistant strains are eliminated by the medicine, the resistant strains that are already present multiply. So all that is going on is a change in constitution due to the antibiotic.
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all
Mutations, not even once?
"If in a population of 1000 bacteria you have one individual who possesses a mutation for antibiotic resistance, and you don't take antibiotics, then there's no advantage to that mutation. The mutation won't be selected for, so it won't become more common. Furthermore, muller's ratchet tells us that genes are deleted in asexual populations, because genes have a cost to produce and maintain, so losing the weight of neutral genes is actually advantageous. Antibiotic resistance could be selected against if antibiotics are absent from the environment."
-
No, I swear to god, I don't understand you. Part of me thinks you're a superb troll, another part thinks you're a gifted idiot, and no part takes you seriously.
If your son is shorter than you, his son shorter than him, his son shorter than him, so on and so forth, and that trait keeps getting passed down, people are shrinking, ten thousand years from now what will your descendants look like?
No other conflation going on.
Not every change equates to evolution, which relates to transmutations and development. People begetting people hence does not qualify as evolution. Monkey populations gradually becoming men does, but genetic rules preclude such an occurrence. The theory of evolution posits that your ancestors were fish and reptiles - do you know why science says this is impossible?
-
Not every change equates to evolution, which relates to transmutations and development. People begetting people hence does not qualify as evolution. Monkey populations gradually becoming men does, but genetic rules preclude such an occurrence. The theory of evolution posits that your ancestors were fish and reptiles - do you know why science says this is impossible?
Tell me, I'm trembling with excitement.
-
Tell me, I'm trembling with excitement.
The answer is in the very last statement before the question. Creatures only reproduce their own kind; your fathers were therefore exclusively human.
-
The bacteria remain bacteria; there is no evolution. While less resistant strains are eliminated by the medicine, the resistant strains that are already present multiply. So all that is going on is a change in constitution due to the antibiotic.
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all
And exactly how you can tell that bacteria of present time can't be new breed of dinosaur at 5 billion years from now? You see, there was quite few living things on this planet ~5 billion years ago, and look at it now?
-
Not every change equates to evolution, which relates to transmutations and development. People begetting people hence does not qualify as evolution. Monkey populations gradually becoming men does, but genetic rules preclude such an occurrence. The theory of evolution posits that your ancestors were fish and reptiles - do you know why science says this is impossible?
What part of science, exactly? Of course you have a link?
-
What part of science, exactly? Of course you have a link?
He's very convinced in his stance, but it's based on flawed conjecture.
-
What part of science, exactly? Of course you have a link?
I'd assume he says the part where you can't witness a human give birth to a fish in real time.
;D
-
What part of science, exactly? Of course you have a link?
All of science. Run a Google search on monkey reproduction or human reproduction. Monkeys beget only monkeys, and only humans beget humans.
-
All of science. Run a Google search on monkey reproduction or human reproduction. Monkeys beget only monkeys, and only humans beget humans.
Ahh, see, I was right!
-
All of science. Run a Google search on monkey reproduction or human reproduction. Monkeys beget only monkeys, and only humans beget humans.
The same google search tells me evolution is real.
what do
-
The same google search tells me evolution is real.
what do
It also tells you that Harry Potter is real. Learn to discern fact from fiction.
-
It also tells you that Harry Potter is real. Learn to discern fact from fiction.
...it doesn't tell me harry potter is real.
-
All of science. Run a Google search on monkey reproduction or human reproduction. Monkeys beget only monkeys, and only humans beget humans.
And as always, we have to take your word for it? That is the difference between beliefs and facts: You can prove facts. Your mistake is in the idea that homo sapiens somehow stop to be an ape. Just look your fellow citizens when lights goes out and looting starts. What you see is a prominent type of behavior which comes straight from the spinal cord ;D
-
I realized finally that religion is make-believe. Now how can I coexist with my wife who believes it all?
-
in my opinion muscle buff you are ready for the ultimate test
tell her its her god and all his power versus you and your no god.
then beat the shit out of her
if god turns up and kicks your arse- he exists and the religious win
if not its all bullshit
-
I realized finally that religion is make-believe. Now how can I coexist with my wife who believes it all?
just dont bring it up
-
in my opinion muscle buff you are ready for the ultimate test
tell her its her god and all his power versus you and your no god.
then beat the shit out of her
if god turns up and kicks your arse- he exists and the religious win
if not its all bullshit
Doesn't work like that. Religion never admits defeat. The always frame a defeat as a victory in disguize
-
just dont bring it up
It's kind of hard to ignore as true believers let their beliefs influence pretty much every life choice they make
-
just dont bring it up
so he's trying to draw the correlation that because mathematics is invented by man/humans that it's the same thing as god being made up by humans/man? Because something is "mind dependent" then it can all be true just if we made it up? Since man made math up as well :D very simplistic conclusion there lol
Difference here is mathematics can be proven so it's not really methaphysical.
"Mathematics is an abstract language describing reality's structure"
the reality of mathematics can be proven on a daily basis. The computer you type on now it's system language is based and built on mathematics. The money in your bank account it's counted for in a mathematical system.
God is not proven it's just conceptual thought people have.
Conceptual methaphysical vs Proven theory.
I mean I say that santa clause is real and that he will come flying with raindeers, come down the chimney and hand me the presents I've been wanting. It doesn't make it reality. If I say I still believe it adults will just think I'm etiher joking or I'm severly retarded to the level of a 5-6 year old(or probably lower). The thing with God is for me the same thing.
-
so he's trying to draw the correlation that because mathematics is invented by man/humans that it's the same thing as god being made up by humans/man? Because something is "mind dependent" then it can all be true just if we made it up? Since man made math up as well :D very simplistic conclusion there lol
Difference here is mathematics can be proven so it's not really methaphysical.the reality of mathematics can be proven on a daily basis. The computer you type on now it's system language is based and built on mathematics. The money in your bank account it's counted for in a mathematical system.
God is not proven it's just conceptual thought people have.
Conceptual methaphysical vs Proven theory.
I mean I say that santa clause is real and that he will come flying with raindeers, come down the chimney and hand me the presents I've been wanting. It doesn't make it reality. If I say I still believe it adults will just think I'm etiher joking or I'm severly retarded to the level of a 5-6 year old(or probably lower). The thing with God is for me the same thing.
That guy in the video who does all the frowning with his forehead is not going to win any prizes with his theories. He was able to trick the fatty into thinking he is too clever to question
-
so he's trying to draw the correlation that because mathematics is invented by man/humans that it's the same thing as god being made up by humans/man? Because something is "mind dependent" then it can all be true just if we made it up? Since man made math up as well :D very simplistic conclusion there lol
Difference here is mathematics can be proven so it's not really methaphysical.the reality of mathematics can be proven on a daily basis. The computer you type on now it's system language is based and built on mathematics. The money in your bank account it's counted for in a mathematical system.
God is not proven it's just conceptual thought people have.
Conceptual methaphysical vs Proven theory.
I mean I say that santa clause is real and that he will come flying with raindeers, come down the chimney and hand me the presents I've been wanting. It doesn't make it reality. If I say I still believe it adults will just think I'm etiher joking or I'm severly retarded to the level of a 5-6 year old(or probably lower). The thing with God is for me the same thing.
we discovered mathematics, we didnt make it up
A bit like gravity, gravity exists absent the human mind.
-
I am pretty sure it's all a big nothing, however I also get really irritated by people who pretend like only dumb simpletons are believers. My dad is one of those arrogant bastards who mindlessly repeats slogans like "religion is opium for the masses" and he says it in a way that you can tell he feels very proud and superior. Makes me rage somehow I guess just at the arrogance of that statement. There are world class chemists, biologists, geneticists and so on and so forth in the current era who believe it all. And of course many of history's most brilliant people like Newton were believers. Which of course doesn't mean that any of the stuff is real, but it shows that the arrogance is inappropriate. Just imho
-
we discovered mathematics, we didnt make it up
A bit like gravity, gravity exists absent the human mind.
It was Andrews choice of word. Anyways that is 'kind of true'. The systems used, that we have today is man-made. It would likely look completly different if an alien specie did it, math equations and base-number systems etc.
For example we use the decimal system. Just based on that we have 10 fingers. Different civilazations through times has used other base systems. Like the Mayans they used 20, based on that we have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
-
I am pretty sure it's all a big nothing, however I also get really irritated by people who pretend like only dumb simpletons are believers. My dad is one of those arrogant bastards who mindlessly repeats slogans like "religion is opium for the masses" and he says it in a way that you can tell he feels very proud and superior. Makes me rage somehow I guess just at the arrogance of that statement. There are world class chemists, biologists, geneticists and so on and so forth in the current era who believe it all. And of course many of history's most brilliant people like Newton were believers. Which of course doesn't mean that any of the stuff is real, but it shows that the arrogance is inappropriate. Just imho
And then you of course have all these different conceptions of what God actually is.
In my simplistic mind you kind of can't discuss religious topics using pure logic or rationalism or whatever you want to call it. It's a different language almost.
The classic "Spinoza's God". So did Einstein believe in God or not?
"Believing in Spinoza's God means seeing God as synonymous with Nature itself—the one, infinite, all-encompassing substance and the lawful, harmonious structure of the universe, rather than a personal, intervening deity who answers prayers. It's a deep appreciation for the rational order, beauty, and interconnectedness of existence, viewing natural laws as divine expressions, a concept famously embraced by Albert Einstein."
-
I am pretty sure it's all a big nothing, however I also get really irritated by people who pretend like only dumb simpletons are believers. My dad is one of those arrogant bastards who mindlessly repeats slogans like "religion is opium for the masses" and he says it in a way that you can tell he feels very proud and superior. Makes me rage somehow I guess just at the arrogance of that statement. There are world class chemists, biologists, geneticists and so on and so forth in the current era who believe it all. And of course many of history's most brilliant people like Newton were believers. Which of course doesn't mean that any of the stuff is real, but it shows that the arrogance is inappropriate. Just imho
Good point.
-
So did Einstein believe in God or not?
"Believing in Spinoza's God means seeing God as synonymous with Nature itself—the one, infinite, all-encompassing substance and the lawful, harmonious structure of the universe, rather than a personal, intervening deity who answers prayers. It's a deep appreciation for the rational order, beauty, and interconnectedness of existence, viewing natural laws as divine expressions, a concept famously embraced by Albert Einstein."
Quantum field theory might shed some light on this. In QFT, every fundamental particle is basically a little ripple in its corresponding field that fills all of space, and the smallest possible excitations of those fields show up to us as particles.
A field = something that assigns a value to every point in space.
If anyone’s curious, it might be worth first asking what life actually is. Erwin Schrödinger has this great book called What Is Life? where he takes the idea that "biology is basically applied physics" and uses key concepts from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to break it down.
https://herba.msu.ru/shipunov/school/univ_110/papers/schroedinger1944_what_is_life.pdf
A remarkable read
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5PHxq0W/Screenshot-20251208-171654.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zx49G9L/Screenshot-20251208-171710.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cx8L6Rjq/Screenshot-20251208-171724.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3Yv4VGz/Screenshot-20251208-171748.jpg)
-
This best describes the creed I live by...In any case I believe it takes more effort to be an atheist, than an agnostic or a believer.
-
the meaning of life
"Enjoy the ride"
-
This best describes the creed I live by...In any case I believe it takes more effort to be an atheist, than an agnostic or a believer.
Great quote/slogan, but not more than that. If you break it down it seems like a gross oversimplification.
Let's say it's all real: most Christians will go to hell, they don't even come close to living up to the standards.
Let's say it's all fake: your entire life was a lie, all that time spent in church, studying and debating make-believe. All those opportunities missed.
-
Great quote/slogan, but not more than that. If you break it down it seems like a gross oversimplification.
Let's say it's all real: most Christians will go to hell, they don't even come close to living up to the standards.
Let's say it's all fake: your entire life was a lie, all that time spent in church, studying and debating make-believe. All those opportunities missed.
Catholics certainly.
-
Catholics certainly.
Such a retarded thing to think.
-
i am an atheist
I dont believe in god
there are 2,000 gods
the only difference between me and a muslim/ jew/ christian/ sikh etc is i believe in one less god than they do.
ricky gervais said that- it sums it up to me
-
Catholics certainly.
Not all, but lets say 99.9% of them for sure.
-
i am an atheist
I dont believe in god
there are 2,000 gods
the only difference between me and a muslim/ jew/ christian/ sikh etc is i believe in one less god than they do.
ricky gervais said that- it sums it up to me
He did not come up with that at all
-
Such a retarded thing to think.
Praying to their little carvings of countless dead people in their paganised ways.
From a Christian perspective there is no hope for them.
-
i said he said it
i didnt say
ricky gervais came up with this
Stephen F Roberts did
but i heard gervais say it
-
Not all, but lets say 99.9% of them for sure.
You have no idea so how can you be so sure? You're the same gimmick "Nobodyinparticular".
-
Not all, but lets say 99.99% of them for sure.
Fixed.
And this is still generous.
-
Praying to their little carvings of countless dead people in their paganised ways.
From a Christian perspective there is no hope for them.
You do not have a Christian perspective at all.
-
Fixed.
And this is still generous.
Yes. It's probably about 100% minus a handful of individuals who have through exceptional merit obtained pardon for being Catholic
-
You do not have a Christian perspective at all.
Tell that to the ones praying to and worshipping 'venerating' (::)) idols.
-
Tell that to the ones praying to and 'venerating' ( ::)) idols.
The idea is that the particular saint is closer to God and therefore Jesus, the prayers are for intercession not to replace the source of faith. Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross were mystics of an elite level who knew the Divine intimately and would laugh at your childish condemnation.
-
Great quote/slogan, but not more than that. If you break it down it seems like a gross oversimplification.
Let's say it's all real: most Christians will go to hell, they don't even come close to living up to the standards.
Let's say it's all fake: your entire life was a lie, all that time spent in church, studying and debating make-believe. All those opportunities missed.
be a catholic, they go to church on Sundays and take communion and they think that absolves them from the sins of the week
Be a kunt as much as you like but go to church on Sunday and you will be fine
-
The idea is that the particular saint is closer to God and therefore Jesus, the prayers are for intercession not to replace the source of faith. Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Aliva, John of the Cross were mystics of an elite level who knew the Divine intimately and would laugh at your childish condemnation.
You are describing literal idol worship.
-
You are describing literal pagan worship.
Not at all. Many Catholics pray straight to Jesus. Either way you have not gone very deep I can tell.
-
Not at all. Many Catholics pray straight to Jesus. Either way you have not gone very deep I can tell.
Almost all pray to statues of dead 'saints'.
-
Not at all. Many Catholics pray straight to Jesus. Either way you have not gone very deep I can tell.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=645675.0;attach=761318;image)
-
Almost all pray to statues of dead 'saints'.
Not all Catholics do there is no rule about it. You are stuck on something of a very man made origin ie (who has the one true method of worshipping God) this is man made nonsense not God made.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=645675.0;attach=761318;image)
Scary.
-
Not all Catholics do there is no rule about it. You are stuck on something of a very man made origin ie (who has the one true method of worshipping God) this is man made nonsense not God made.
Don't worship or serve idols of any kind, because I, the LORD, am your God.
Hope this helps.
-
20 Essential Truths of the New Testament
No. 1 - The Purposes of Holy Scripture is for the knowledge of salvation: Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11;
2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:21
No. 2 - The Holy Scriptures were inspired by God to teach us all truth: Mark 12:24; John 16:13, 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:19
No. 3 - The Spirit of God teaches us personally through the study of the Scriptures: Matt. 4:4; John 20:30; 2 Cor. 4:3; Heb. 4:12
No. 4 - Man in sin cannot understand the Bible: John 8:47; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16
No. 5 - We must be under the influence of the Holy Spirit: Luke 24:45; Rom 8:5; 1 Cor 2:9; 1 Cor 2:15; Eph 1:16; 1 John 2:20
No. 6 - Religious traditions are false doctrines: Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:7; Gal 1:8; Col 2:8,20; 1 Timothy 1:3, 6:3; Rev 22:18
No. 7 - God, the one Father and Creator, is ONE with His only Son, Jesus Christ, in a single Spirit who gives life: Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; John 14:26, John 16:13; John 16:27; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 4:4; Tit 3:4; 1Jn 5:6
No. 8 - Jesus Christ is God from all eternity, Word of God, true God and true man:
Jn 1:1, 1:9, 8:58, 10:30; Col 1:14; 2:8; 1Tim 3:16; Heb 1:5; 1Jn 2:22, 4:15, 5:11, 1Jn 5:20; Rev 1:8
No. 9 - God is the ONLY One who must receive, in the name of Jesus Christ, our worship and prayers: Mt 4:10, 6:9; Jn 14:13; Jn 16:23; Jas 1:5; 1 John 3:22
No. 10 - All men are born in a state of sin and are condemned to eternal death: John 8:21, 15:5;
Rom 2:1, 3:10, 5:12, 6:23, 7:5; 1 Cor 1:19, 15:21; Eph 2:1, 4:17
No. 11 - All sin leads to death, without distinction between venial and mortal sins: Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 3:10, 5:19; Jas 2:10; 1 John 3:4 Rev 21:8
No. 12 - Jesus Christ, by dying in our place, made atonement for our sins, and delivers us from the curse of death: Rom 5:6; 2 Cor 5:18; Gal 3:13 Col 2:10; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24
No. 13 - It is by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ that our souls are purified: Rom 5:1, 5:9, 8:1, 8:29, 8:32-37;
2 Cor 5:1; Eph 1:6; Phil 1:23; Col 1:22, 2:13; Heb 7:25, 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:6, 7:14
No. 14 - Only Jesus Christ is Savior: nothing else saves us before God, neither gold, nor silver, nor virgins, nor saints, nor angels, nor religious practices: John 10:9, 15:4; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Pet 1:18
No. 15 - The only mediator between God and men is Jesus Christ: the only high priest, the only intercessor, the only counselor, the only leader, and the only shepherd: John 14:6, John 14:13; Rom 8:33; Eph 2:8, 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:24, 9:24; 1 John 2:1
No. 16 - Salvation is free, through faith in Jesus Christ: so whoever believes and obeys the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and saved. John 1:12, 3:16, 3:36, 20:31; Acts 10:43, 16:30; Rom 1:17, 3:23, Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11; Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:4; 1 John 5:10
No. 17 To attain salvation, man must confess his sins and ask God for forgiveness: Matthew 12:36;
Luke 11:2, 18:13; Acts 2:38, 8:22; Rom. 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 1:18, 1 John 2:1-2
No. 18 - The doctrine of salvation by works is unbiblical. Salvation cannot be bought. It is a gift from God: Matthew 19:25; Luke 17:10; Rom. 3:19, 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 3:10; Gal. 5:4; Eph. 2:8
No. 19 - True faith naturally generates good works through the Holy Spirit: Rom. 6:5; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8; Tit 2:13; Heb 11:6; Jas 2:14; 1 Jn 2:4/by obedience: Gal 5:16, 5:22, Eph 4:24, 5:8; Jas 1:16
No. 20 Jesus will return for the elect: Jn 12:26, 14:3, 14:18
1 Th 4:14
AND EVERYTHING WILL BE JUDGED: MT 12:36, 16:27, RM 2:5, 14:10; 1 Co 4:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Re 20:12-15
-
But Catholics are not worshipping saints when they pray to them.
Also some man wrote those words pretending to be hearing God speak.
-
20 Essential Truths of the New Testament
No. 1 - The Purposes of Holy Scripture is for the knowledge of salvation: Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11;
2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:21
No. 2 - The Holy Scriptures were inspired by God to teach us all truth: Mark 12:24; John 16:13, 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:19
No. 3 - The Spirit of God teaches us personally through the study of the Scriptures: Matt. 4:4; John 20:30; 2 Cor. 4:3; Heb. 4:12
No. 4 - Man in sin cannot understand the Bible: John 8:47; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16
No. 5 - We must be under the influence of the Holy Spirit: Luke 24:45; Rom 8:5; 1 Cor 2:9; 1 Cor 2:15; Eph 1:16; 1 John 2:20
No. 6 - Religious traditions are false doctrines: Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:7; Gal 1:8; Col 2:8,20; 1 Timothy 1:3, 6:3; Rev 22:18
No. 7 - God, the one Father and Creator, is ONE with His only Son, Jesus Christ, in a single Spirit who gives life: Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; John 14:26, John 16:13; John 16:27; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 4:4; Tit 3:4; 1Jn 5:6
No. 8 - Jesus Christ is God from all eternity, Word of God, true God and true man:
Jn 1:1, 1:9, 8:58, 10:30; Col 1:14; 2:8; 1Tim 3:16; Heb 1:5; 1Jn 2:22, 4:15, 5:11, 1Jn 5:20; Rev 1:8
No. 9 - God is the ONLY One who must receive, in the name of Jesus Christ, our worship and prayers: Mt 4:10, 6:9; Jn 14:13; Jn 16:23; Jas 1:5; 1 John 3:22
No. 10 - All men are born in a state of sin and are condemned to eternal death: John 8:21, 15:5;
Rom 2:1, 3:10, 5:12, 6:23, 7:5; 1 Cor 1:19, 15:21; Eph 2:1, 4:17
No. 11 - All sin leads to death, without distinction between venial and mortal sins: Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 3:10, 5:19; Jas 2:10; 1 John 3:4 Rev 21:8
No. 12 - Jesus Christ, by dying in our place, made atonement for our sins, and delivers us from the curse of death: Rom 5:6; 2 Cor 5:18; Gal 3:13 Col 2:10; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24
No. 13 - It is by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ that our souls are purified: Rom 5:1, 5:9, 8:1, 8:29, 8:32-37;
2 Cor 5:1; Eph 1:6; Phil 1:23; Col 1:22, 2:13; Heb 7:25, 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:6, 7:14
No. 14 - Only Jesus Christ is Savior: nothing else saves us before God, neither gold, nor silver, nor virgins, nor saints, nor angels, nor religious practices: John 10:9, 15:4; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Pet 1:18
No. 15 - The only mediator between God and men is Jesus Christ: the only high priest, the only intercessor, the only counselor, the only leader, and the only shepherd: John 14:6, John 14:13; Rom 8:33; Eph 2:8, 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:24, 9:24; 1 John 2:1
No. 16 - Salvation is free, through faith in Jesus Christ: so whoever believes and obeys the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and saved. John 1:12, 3:16, 3:36, 20:31; Acts 10:43, 16:30; Rom 1:17, 3:23, Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11; Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:4; 1 John 5:10
No. 17 To attain salvation, man must confess his sins and ask God for forgiveness: Matthew 12:36;
Luke 11:2, 18:13; Acts 2:38, 8:22; Rom. 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 1:18, 1 John 2:1-2
No. 18 - The doctrine of salvation by works is unbiblical. Salvation cannot be bought. It is a gift from God: Matthew 19:25; Luke 17:10; Rom. 3:19, 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 3:10; Gal. 5:4; Eph. 2:8
No. 19 - True faith naturally generates good works through the Holy Spirit: Rom. 6:5; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8; Tit 2:13; Heb 11:6; Jas 2:14; 1 Jn 2:4/by obedience: Gal 5:16, 5:22, Eph 4:24, 5:8; Jas 1:16
No. 20 Jesus will return for the elect: Jn 12:26, 14:3, 14:18
1 Th 4:14
AND EVERYTHING WILL BE JUDGED: MT 12:36, 16:27, RM 2:5, 14:10; 1 Co 4:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Re 20:12-15
Do you really expect Getbiggers to read all that? I thought you had tucked off.
-
Do you really expect Getbiggers to read all that? I thought you had tucked off.
I don't expect an illiterate like yourself to read and certainly not understand this, no.
-
Meathead being outsmarted of peace.
-
I don't expect an illiterate like yourself to read and certainly not understand this, no.
Unwieldy can't find his peeny,
Beneath his mammoth potato keg.
-
Meathead being outsmarted of peace.
Posting a wall of text does not make one smart cock buffer.
-
Unwieldy can't find his peeny,
Beneath his mammoth potato keg.
Potatoes...something with which you should be quite familiar, Irishman ;)
Just kidding. I like you, Ro. No homo :)
-
Potatoes are delicious no homo.
-
Catholics BTFO :D
-
20 Essential Truths of the New Testament
No. 1 - The Purposes of Holy Scripture is for the knowledge of salvation: Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11;
2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:21
No. 2 - The Holy Scriptures were inspired by God to teach us all truth: Mark 12:24; John 16:13, 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:19
No. 3 - The Spirit of God teaches us personally through the study of the Scriptures: Matt. 4:4; John 20:30; 2 Cor. 4:3; Heb. 4:12
No. 4 - Man in sin cannot understand the Bible: John 8:47; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16
No. 5 - We must be under the influence of the Holy Spirit: Luke 24:45; Rom 8:5; 1 Cor 2:9; 1 Cor 2:15; Eph 1:16; 1 John 2:20
No. 6 - Religious traditions are false doctrines: Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:7; Gal 1:8; Col 2:8,20; 1 Timothy 1:3, 6:3; Rev 22:18
No. 7 - God, the one Father and Creator, is ONE with His only Son, Jesus Christ, in a single Spirit who gives life: Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; John 14:26, John 16:13; John 16:27; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 4:4; Tit 3:4; 1Jn 5:6
No. 8 - Jesus Christ is God from all eternity, Word of God, true God and true man:
Jn 1:1, 1:9, 8:58, 10:30; Col 1:14; 2:8; 1Tim 3:16; Heb 1:5; 1Jn 2:22, 4:15, 5:11, 1Jn 5:20; Rev 1:8
No. 9 - God is the ONLY One who must receive, in the name of Jesus Christ, our worship and prayers: Mt 4:10, 6:9; Jn 14:13; Jn 16:23; Jas 1:5; 1 John 3:22
No. 10 - All men are born in a state of sin and are condemned to eternal death: John 8:21, 15:5;
Rom 2:1, 3:10, 5:12, 6:23, 7:5; 1 Cor 1:19, 15:21; Eph 2:1, 4:17
No. 11 - All sin leads to death, without distinction between venial and mortal sins: Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 3:10, 5:19; Jas 2:10; 1 John 3:4 Rev 21:8
No. 12 - Jesus Christ, by dying in our place, made atonement for our sins, and delivers us from the curse of death: Rom 5:6; 2 Cor 5:18; Gal 3:13 Col 2:10; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24
No. 13 - It is by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ that our souls are purified: Rom 5:1, 5:9, 8:1, 8:29, 8:32-37;
2 Cor 5:1; Eph 1:6; Phil 1:23; Col 1:22, 2:13; Heb 7:25, 9:26; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:6, 7:14
No. 14 - Only Jesus Christ is Savior: nothing else saves us before God, neither gold, nor silver, nor virgins, nor saints, nor angels, nor religious practices: John 10:9, 15:4; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Pet 1:18
No. 15 - The only mediator between God and men is Jesus Christ: the only high priest, the only intercessor, the only counselor, the only leader, and the only shepherd: John 14:6, John 14:13; Rom 8:33; Eph 2:8, 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:24, 9:24; 1 John 2:1
No. 16 - Salvation is free, through faith in Jesus Christ: so whoever believes and obeys the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and saved. John 1:12, 3:16, 3:36, 20:31; Acts 10:43, 16:30; Rom 1:17, 3:23, Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11; Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:4; 1 John 5:10
No. 17 To attain salvation, man must confess his sins and ask God for forgiveness: Matthew 12:36;
Luke 11:2, 18:13; Acts 2:38, 8:22; Rom. 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 1:18, 1 John 2:1-2
No. 18 - The doctrine of salvation by works is unbiblical. Salvation cannot be bought. It is a gift from God: Matthew 19:25; Luke 17:10; Rom. 3:19, 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 3:10; Gal. 5:4; Eph. 2:8
No. 19 - True faith naturally generates good works through the Holy Spirit: Rom. 6:5; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8; Tit 2:13; Heb 11:6; Jas 2:14; 1 Jn 2:4/by obedience: Gal 5:16, 5:22, Eph 4:24, 5:8; Jas 1:16
No. 20 Jesus will return for the elect: Jn 12:26, 14:3, 14:18
1 Th 4:14
AND EVERYTHING WILL BE JUDGED: MT 12:36, 16:27, RM 2:5, 14:10; 1 Co 4:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Re 20:12-15
The Bible confirms the truth of the Bible. ::)
-
The Bible confirms the truth of the Bible. ::)
The point is that Catholicism goes against the religious texts of the Christian religion.
-
The point is that Catholicism goes against the religious texts of the Christian religion.
True, but I was speaking of those Bible believers overall.
-
Life finds a way...
(https://i.redd.it/yn51s4za3dwy.png)
Life will always find a way if you have a Universe like ours — one with mass, energy, and the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force.
But let’s push the question further. Suppose you start with nothing. How do you get from absolute nothingness to a functioning Universe? I’m genuinely curious what the atheists here think. If the answer is “it just spontaneously began,” then how is that fundamentally different from a Creator willing it into existence? Both require something appearing from nothing.
-
Life will always find a way if you have a Universe like ours — one with mass, energy, and the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force.
But let’s push the question further. Suppose you start with nothing. How do you get from absolute nothingness to a functioning Universe? I’m genuinely curious what the atheists here think. If the answer is “it just spontaneously began,” then how is that fundamentally different from a Creator willing it into existence? Both require something appearing from nothing.
A lot of people don't believe in the Abrahamic religions but aren't atheist either. New Agers are one group.
-
The point is that Catholicism goes against the religious texts of the Christian religion.
I verified every reference in that long list above (20 truths) and it all checks out. How can catholicism continue to exist? Their own holy books refute the fundamentals of their religion...
-
A lot of people don't believe in the Abrahamic religions but aren't atheist either. New Agers are one group.
Okay. Atheists often make a lot of assumptions — specifically about the underlying properties of the Universe. They take the existing framework as a given. But if you start with nothing, you can’t just assume the Universe will conveniently come with E = mc², gravity, hydrogen, helium, the strong and weak nuclear forces, or the precise conditions needed for star formation.
If the starting point is truly nothing, then where do these laws and constants come from? How do you “get” a Universe in which hydrogen clouds can collapse under gravity and ignite nuclear fusion to form stars? You can’t assume any of these attributes will simply pop into existence without an explanation.
-
Being an atheist is dumb
-
Being an atheist is dumb
But being a catholic is dumber: believe all kinds of shit opposite to what your holy books say.
-
Being a fat protestant is dumbest of all.
-
Okay. Atheists often make a lot of assumptions — specifically about the underlying properties of the Universe. They take the existing framework as a given. But if you start with nothing, you can’t just assume the Universe will conveniently come with E = mc², gravity, hydrogen, helium, the strong and weak nuclear forces, or the precise conditions needed for star formation.
If the starting point is truly nothing, then where do these laws and constants come from? How do you “get” a Universe in which hydrogen clouds can collapse under gravity and ignite nuclear fusion to form stars? You can’t assume any of these attributes will simply pop into existence without an explanation.
I agree.
-
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Completely false. There might be many possibilities but something supernatural is not one of them.
-
Completely false. There might be many possibilities but something supernatural is not one of them.
man was created by beings from other worlds.
-
man was created by beings from other worlds.
No evidence for that so false.
-
No evidence for that so false.
do some research ...
-
No evidence for that so false.
a lack of evidence isnt a conclusion..
-
Go to church and get right with God, go to a nondenominational church or Baptist church, glory to God
-
a lack of evidence isnt a conclusion..
Stop the bullshit. No evidence = we conclude there are no aliens or anything supernatural until we do have hard evidence. So far nil. Of course the naive will believe almost anything.
-
Stop the bullshit. No evidence = we conclude there are no aliens or anything supernatural until we do have hard evidence. So far nil. Of course the naive will believe almost anything.
You’re saying “no evidence = we conclude there’s no supernatural cause, no aliens, no anything.” But that logic cuts both ways. There is also no evidence that the Universe can arise from true nothing by purely natural processes. Not “a vacuum,” not “quantum fields,” not “energy fluctuations” — those aren’t nothing. Those are somethings.
If your position is that the Universe emerged naturally, you’re still assuming an unexplained starting point. That’s not evidence-based; it’s a philosophical preference just like believing in a creator is a philosophical preference.
So if you reject the supernatural due to lack of evidence, you also have to reject “natural origins from nothing” for the same reason. Otherwise it’s not science you’re defending, it’s your personal worldview.
-
Go to church and get right with God, go to a nondenominational church or Baptist church, glory to God
There is no evidence for God
-
There is no evidence for God
“No evidence for God”? The entire Universe is evidence. Claiming there’s no evidence is like walking out of a forest, seeing a perfectly built house, and insisting no one built it.
And it’s a bold claim to say “no evidence” when we still can’t explain how you get anything — laws of physics, energy, matter — from absolute nothing. If you can’t even explain the existence of the stage, you don’t get to declare there’s no evidence for the playwright.
-
There is no evidence for God
True. On the other hand, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The rest of this post isn't at you MuscleBuff. I'm just posting random thoughts on the topic to anyone who likes walls of text.
I'm inclined to see things the way Obsidian has been posting. At the fundamental level in our universe, we still have too many unexplained things to posit that we can be sure there is no god. I'm equally inclined to roll my eyes at those who assert there MUST be a god, as those who assert there absolutely is NO god. Only fools are certain (I'm not calling you or anyone a fool here...merely just throwing out pleasantries).
The fundamental wave equation for particles only describes what we observe, but an equation that describes observations at an average level of probabilities is itself not "fundamentally true"; it merely provides outcomes that match what we can "see".
We do not know the underlying nature of the fundamental fields from which the particle theory of quantum mechanics emerges. We fully admit that some of the key forces in our universe (dark energy) remain completely hidden to us. Dark matter shapes our galaxies, and remains hidden to us so we "fudge around it" and say "there's stuff we can't explain".
The JWT continues to capture images of galaxies that have redshifted so much that it strains the understanding of the Big Bang.
With so much yet still to "know", it seems premature to say that we can close the book on the existence of a god(s).
Figure this; the "gating" events of evolution of life on earth might have come down, fundamentally, to the development of eukaryotic cells. How finite an occurrence, that happened when it did? That one prokaryote ate another and instead of digesting it, became symbiotic with it? So random...and possible in an infinite universe. But can we be sure there wasn't a helping hand?
The Fermi Paradox gives me the ability to sleep at night. At its root, it wonders "in an infinite universe with near infinite galaxies and star systems and likelihood for potential habitable planets, where the fuck are all the aliens?". I like to think that if they're out there, and they came about when the universe was "younger" than it is now, then any contact they make with us will be hundreds of millions of years in the making and would have passed us by whilst we climbed out of the primordial ooze. Today, that same signal would be from a species so far advanced, they'd be indistinguishable from Gods, as far as we're concerned. The old "Prometheus" story from Hollywood, if you will.
If there are advanced species, and I believe they're likely out there, we are likely unable to understand them, and would likely experience them as gods if we could understand them. Just think; show something as banal as an iphone today to a man from the 1400's, and he'd say it was sorcery or maybe call you a god. And that's only 600 years or so. What would a species do with a million year head start, and how would we experience them? Or flip the example on its head; imagine you had a spacecraft and could travel to a distant star in a galaxy, found a planet, and saw that there were small nematodes and mosses on the planet. If those things had anything resembling a consciousness, wouldn't it be fair to say you would be seen as a "god" to those beings, if they had the ability to "experience your presence" at all?
-
Stop the bullshit. No evidence = we conclude there are no aliens or anything supernatural until we do have hard evidence. So far nil. Of course the naive will believe almost anything.
Thats not a logical skeptics viewpoint
Just because there isnt any evidence of Aliens doesnt mean there are none.
Evidence proves positive, no evidence isnt proof of a definite negative.
On the balance of probabilities there are no aliens based on the lack of evidence but its not a definite
-
“No evidence for God”? The entire Universe is evidence. Claiming there’s no evidence is like walking out of a forest, seeing a perfectly built house, and insisting no one built it.
And it’s a bold claim to say “no evidence” when we still can’t explain how you get anything — laws of physics, energy, matter — from absolute nothing. If you can’t even explain the existence of the stage, you don’t get to declare there’s no evidence for the playwright.
1. There is no such thing as a perfectly built house, get real
2. Nature / "the universe" is orders of magnitude less perfect than the engineered imperfect products built by men
-
1. There is no such thing as a perfectly built house, get real
2. Nature / "the universe" is orders of magnitude less perfect than the engineered imperfect products built by men
Whether a house is “perfect” or not doesn’t change the fact that it had a builder. Perfection was never the point — causation is.
And comparing the Universe to human engineering misses the scale entirely. Humans design within a Universe they didn’t create. You can’t use human imperfections to dismiss the origin of the system that makes human engineering possible in the first place.
-
https://wng.org/sift/elon-musk-says-he-believes-god-is-the-creator-1765378565
Elon Musk says he believes God is the creator
Elon Musk said he believes in God during a podcast episode released Tuesday evening. God is the creator, he said in an interview with Katie Miller, who is married to President Donald Trump’s top policy adviser, Stephen Miller. When the podcast host asked if Musk believed in God, he replied that he believed that this universe came from something. The tech billionaire said that people have different labels for what created the universe.
Later on in the episode, Musk said he thinks humanity is good overall. He then shifted to the question of how humans were formed. If humans and the universe did start out as a hydrogen gas cloud, then a person’s atoms could have been part of stars at different times, he said. Musk spoke on a variety of subjects, from artificial intelligence to immigration policies to Minnesota’s Rep. Ilhan Omar, during the interview.
-
Whether a house is “perfect” or not doesn’t change the fact that it had a builder. Perfection was never the point — causation is.
And comparing the Universe to human engineering misses the scale entirely. Humans design within a Universe they didn’t create. You can’t use human imperfections to dismiss the origin of the system that makes human engineering possible in the first place.
You are now arguing your previous post was nonsense, I see. Moving the goal post, the standard playbook
-
How to be a Christian apologist for dummies
-Build your entire identity around the Bible
-Ignore the fact nearly every sentence in the Bible is provably wrong
-Point out that the origin of the universe is not yet fully understood, therefore the God of your Bible full of proven lies did it
-Enjoy your flawless victory
-
You are now arguing your previous post was nonsense, I see. Moving the goal post, the standard playbook
You’re nitpicking a single adjective instead of addressing the argument.
“Perfectly built” in the analogy obviously means purposeful, structured, and built by design, not mathematically flawless. No one thinks human houses are literally perfect — yet we all agree they have builders.
Your entire response hinges on pretending I meant “perfect” in an absolute sense so you can dodge the actual point:
A house doesn’t need to be perfect to prove it was built, and the Universe doesn’t need to be perfect to require a cause.
If your argument depends on taking a metaphor literally, then you’re arguing with phrasing — not with the logic.
-
How to be a Christian apologist for dummies
-Build your entire identity around the Bible
-Ignore the fact nearly every sentence in the Bible is provably wrong
-Point out that the origin of the universe is not yet fully understood, therefore the God of your Bible full of proven lies did it
-Enjoy your flawless victory
Here’s your homework assignment:
You start with absolute nothing. Now give me a Universe.
No space, no time, no laws of physics, no matter, no energy. Nothing.
You have 10 years. Good luck.
-
You’re nitpicking a single adjective instead of addressing the argument.
“Perfectly built” in the analogy obviously means purposeful, structured, and built by design, not mathematically flawless. No one thinks human houses are literally perfect — yet we all agree they have builders.
Your entire response hinges on pretending I meant “perfect” in an absolute sense so you can dodge the actual point:
A house doesn’t need to be perfect to prove it was built, and the Universe doesn’t need to be perfect to require a cause.
If your argument depends on taking a metaphor literally, then you’re arguing with phrasing — not with the logic.
Why bring up a house in the first place, I don't get it. It's like the watch metaphor. If I found a watch or a house, yeah no fucking shit I would assume it was made by watch maker or house builder. Why? Because you know, I can actually see people making houses and watches with my eyes
-
Here’s your homework assignment:
You start with absolute nothing. Now give me a Universe.
No space, no time, no laws of physics, no matter, no energy. Nothing.
You have 10 years. Good luck.
See, my quick guide in action. Enjoy your flawless victory.
-
Why bring up a house in the first place, I don't get it. It's like the watch metaphor. If I found a watch or a house, yeah no fucking shit I would assume it was made by watch maker or house builder. Why? Because you know, I can actually see people making houses and watches with my eyes
So your argument is basically: “I’ve never seen a Universe being created, therefore it didn’t have a creator.”
By that logic you’d have to deny the Big Bang too. The Universe is ~13 billion years old, you’re not even 50 or 60 - right? And Universes don’t grow on trees where you can watch one form on your lunch break.
We only infer the Big Bang because of evidence, not because anyone saw it happen.
Same principle here:
You don’t need to personally witness a cause to acknowledge that something had one.
If “I didn’t see it happen” is your standard, then you’d have to throw out 99% of science and all of cosmology along with it.
-
So your argument is basically: “I’ve never seen a Universe being created, therefore it didn’t have a creator.”
By that logic you’d have to deny the Big Bang too. The Universe is ~13 billion years old, you’re not even 50 or 60 - right? And Universes don’t grow on trees where you can watch one form on your lunch break.
We only infer the Big Bang because of evidence, not because anyone saw it happen.
Same principle here:
You don’t need to personally witness a cause to acknowledge that something had one.
If “I didn’t see it happen” is your standard, then you’d have to throw out 99% of science and all of cosmology along with it.
No my argument is that whatever God created the universe would be so different from the God of the Bible (as nearly all of its contents have been debunked) that it may as well be an abstract force that might as well be called nature or "the force"
-
No my argument is that whatever God created the universe would be so different from the God of the Bible (as nearly all of its contents have been debunked) that it may as well be an abstract force that might as well be called nature or "the force"
I agree with that. I’m in the same camp as Elon Musk — there’s a Creator, but religions have just put different labels on it. I don’t get caught up in the various traditions or rituals, and I don’t see the Creator as a personal God.
-
Many primitive religions have creation myths that line up better with God of the gaps magical cosmos creator theory than the absurd and extensively debunked Judeo Chrstian faith.
For instance:
Mbûngi (also called mwasi and mpampa) was symbolized as a circle of emptiness. The creator god Nzambi, along with his female counterpart called Nzambici, is believed to have created a spark of fire, called kalûnga, and summoned it inside of mbûngi. Kalûnga grew and became a great force of energy inside of mbûngi, creating a mass of fusion. When the mass grew too hot, the heated force caused the mass to break apart and hurl projectiles outside of mbûngi. Those projectiles became individual masses that scattered about, and when the fires cooled, planets were created. This was the process Nzambi used to create the universe, with the Sun, stars, planets, etc. Nzambi Ampungu then became Kalûnga, the god of fire and change.[3][4
So if you are going to be a God of the gaps apologist, don't be a Christian one and find religions that at least vaguely align with scientific understanding
-
I agree with that. I’m in the same camp as Elon Musk — there’s a Creator, but religions have just put different labels on it. I don’t get caught up in the various traditions or rituals, and I don’t see the Creator as a personal God.
Well yes, at that point the difference between theists and atheists becomes abstract. If not a personal being, who is to say your "creator" is not the sum of innate forces moving the universe, pretty much the same as what atheists believe without mystical angles
So why do "sophisticated" scientific apologists still peddle Christianity?
The answer is as always: cold hard dollars
Ain't nobody buying your books and following you if you aren't promising eternal life to the paupers. Sad but fact of life.
-
In logic a false premise can lead to both true and false conclusions. We use words that we have no idea what they stand for. Clearly bullshit will follow false premises.This is demonstrated in this thread. Science advances without any appeal to the supernatural. Throw all religions in the philosophical garbage can and leave them there!
-
Well yes, at that point the difference between theists and atheists becomes abstract. If not a personal being, who is to say your "creator" is not the sum of innate forces moving the universe, pretty much the same as what atheists believe without mystical angles
So why do "sophisticated" scientific apologists still peddle Christianity?
The answer is as always: cold hard dollars
Ain't nobody buying your books and following you if you aren't promising eternal life to the paupers. Sad but fact of life.
I’m not saying the Bible is a science textbook or that Genesis is meant to be read as literal gospel. But it is interesting that thousands of years ago, people described a creation sequence that broadly mirrors the scientific picture we now accept.
If you read each “day” as a stage, the alignment looks like this:
Day 1 – “Let there be light.”
The universe becomes filled with light (Big Bang → transparent cosmos).
A long era passes while galaxies, stars, and eventually the Sun form.
Day 2 – Separation of waters (oceans below / atmosphere above).
Early Earth cools, forms a dense atmosphere, and then oceans.
Day 3 – Land appears; vegetation begins.
Continents rise; early photosynthetic life develops long before animals.
Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and stars become visible.
They already existed, but Earth’s atmosphere only becomes clear later.
Day 5 – Sea life → flying creatures.
Life begins in the oceans; flying creatures evolve much later.
Day 6 – Land animals → humans.
Animals dominate the land first; humans arrive last.
Not proof of anything by itself, but the sequence is remarkably similar. It’s just one of those interesting places where ancient imagery and modern science line up better than most people think.
-
In logic a false premise can lead to both true and false conclusions. We use words that we have no idea what they stand for. Clearly bullshit will follow false premises.This is demonstrated in this thread. Science advances without any appeal to the supernatural. Throw all religions in the philosophical garbage can and leave them there!
Science is great at describing what happens after a universe exists. It doesn’t tell us why there’s a universe in the first place, or how you get laws, energy, space, and time from a state with none of those things.
People often say, “There’s no evidence for a creator.” Fair enough — but the same applies to the idea that a universe can appear from absolute nothing. Not a quantum vacuum, not a field, not a fluctuation. Literal nothing. There’s no evidence for that either.
So we’re really looking at two philosophical starting points:
- A creative cause behind the universe, or
- A universe that appears from nothing with no cause at all.
Both are assumptions. Neither side has empirical data about the actual origin point.
And the “no evidence” line doesn’t really settle anything. The universe itself is the one thing we do have. Treating its existence as a non-issue is like walking past a functioning engine and insisting it assembled itself because you didn’t see the mechanic.
Nobody has to sign up for religion, but pretending the origin question has been answered — or doesn’t matter — just sidesteps the biggest unknown we’ve got.
-
I’m not saying the Bible is a science textbook or that Genesis is meant to be read as literal gospel. But it is interesting that thousands of years ago, people described a creation sequence that broadly mirrors the scientific picture we now accept.
If you read each “day” as a stage, the alignment looks like this:
Day 1 – “Let there be light.”
The universe becomes filled with light (Big Bang → transparent cosmos).
A long era passes while galaxies, stars, and eventually the Sun form.
Day 2 – Separation of waters (oceans below / atmosphere above).
Early Earth cools, forms a dense atmosphere, and then oceans.
Day 3 – Land appears; vegetation begins.
Continents rise; early photosynthetic life develops long before animals.
Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and stars become visible.
They already existed, but Earth’s atmosphere only becomes clear later.
Day 5 – Sea life → flying creatures.
Life begins in the oceans; flying creatures evolve much later.
Day 6 – Land animals → humans.
Animals dominate the land first; humans arrive last.
Not proof of anything by itself, but the sequence is remarkably similar. It’s just one of those interesting places where ancient imagery and modern science line up better than most people think.
You didn't really address my points but ok. They got some things right because people thousands of years ago were a lot smarter than you seem to credit them
-
I agree with that. I’m in the same camp as Elon Musk — there’s a Creator, but religions have just put different labels on it. I don’t get caught up in the various traditions or rituals, and I don’t see the Creator as a personal God.
The creator could also be evil.
-
So true
Everyone knows that Brahma is the Creator God
What in the fuck is that? Is he half fishing and half flipping through all the channels on tv? Bizarre
-
Happy feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe...