Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Ron Harrigan on March 10, 2015, 12:00:10 PM
-
Atheism falsified once and for all. Sorry you were duped, all ye atheist stooges.
"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
-
REJECTION OF EVOLUTION (ALONG WITH ATHEISM)
BTW the MAIN REASON people reject evolution is because
#1 there is NO proof for it
#2 it's recognized as a hoax
#3 anyone who really knows science knows that evolution has NOTHING to do with science
#4 99.99% of all evolutionists rely on logical fallacies, intimidation and insults as the main parts of their scientific arguments
#5 it's perfectly obvious that evolutionists are liars; they deny design, something that is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
#6 the fossil record disproves evolution; it shows animals suddenly appeared full formed and never changed.
#7 in the entire existence of mankind there is not one reported case of a new animal appearing
-
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION
There are several reasons for this.
1. The scientists cannot even agree on what it is.
2. There is no evidence for its ever having happened.
3. All the fossil evidence supports a creation event. Now tell me something, does a little contradiction to your dogmatically held unscientific beliefs cause your day to go sour?
The empirical evidence shows that evolution of chemicals turning into single-celled creatures who eventually turned into humans NEVER happened. So here they are stuck with a dozen theories about something that never even happened. HAR HAR HAR Gould is one of many who tell us, "a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed".
"When objectively evaluated, the scientific evidence shows conclusively that evolution (of molecules to protozoa to fish to people) did not happen. The fact is that embryological and anatomical studies (for example, ear bones, bird lung, mammalian diaphragm, chimpanzee genitalia) show unequivocally that evolution is impossible." - Dr Vij Sodera
There is no theory of evolution only theories of evolution as in various "speculative hypotheses". The evolutionist Simon Conway Morris said the only thing the evolution scientists agree on is that it happened after that there is no agreement, when it comes to the speculative hypothesis of neo-Darwinism then that hypothesis is not acceptable to all evolutionists just like the speculative hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is not acceptable to all evolutionists, For example, Coyne calls it bunk.
Goldschmidt laughed back at his evolution buddies who laughed that his theory of "Hopeful Monsters" had no evidence, because neither did theirs. So here they all are laughing at creationists while believing a hoax for which there is NO evidence and never happened. Not one of these evotard dumbasses knows what the theory of evolution is. Not one of them believes it the same way. They continually contradict each other. Some believe it's random and some don't.
Some believe in natural selection and mutations. Some only believe in mutations while others believe only in natural selection. Others combine it with genetic drift (a form of magic where a whole population changes at once). When you ask them which theory of evolution they believe in they get flustered and refuse to talk about it. Not one of them will admit that Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are two different theories.
They all believe in hoaxes that have been debunked. Don't believe me? Ask them. They still believe in Haeckel's embryos. And in the Peppered Moth Hoax, Lucy, the Java Man, the Peking Man, the Neanderthal Man and will defend them to the death even though they have all been debunked. Next, dinosaurs turning into birds is a myth that has been disproven for 10 years (it was idiotic in the 1st place and any idiot could see it was bullshit), but they will argue their asses off defending it.
What's funny is they then deny that evolution theorizes that one species will turn into another. Foxlake said "Were a horse to be born from another species, that would disprove evolution," but that's exactly what Punctuated Equilibrium claims. She will then defend the hypothesis of some wolf-like land animal turning into a whale. Folks these people are insane. But you can all relax now because we have successfully disproven that there is a scientific theory of evolution.
PWNED
-
Atheism falsified once and for all. Sorry you were duped, all ye atheist stooges.
"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
Hi Mcway,
You love that spontaneous generation non-sense don't you?
-
I've debated this evolution nonsense with the morons of this board many times over the years. It's crazy how people that are so learned in some areas are so stupid (yes, stupid) in others. This is what happens when you blindly trust a system. Evolution....HAHAHAHAHAH AHA. Fucking morons. As I've stated many times before.
SHOW ME THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!
SHOW ME PROOF OF EVOLUTION....NOT MUTATIONS. Mutations are non beneficial. Adaptation is not evolution. Define evolution when referring to how we "evolved" from slime, then show me this in nature. It's always the same bullshit. "Well Wiggs, this takes millions or billions of years" Get the fuck outta here with that shit. To this day none of the morons have showed one shred of proof to support this asinine theory.
Why are there still apes? Why are there still a large variety of animals and living creatures if we all evolved from the same thing. It's because evolution is utter bullshit.
THE BIBLE IS RIGHT...FACT!
Oh and before he chimes in...Shut up Adam. ::)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/4QqVM2k.jpg)
-
NEWSFLASH: RICHARD DAWKINS UNWITTINGLY DEBUNKS EVOLUTION!
On Sept. 29, 2009, Richard Dawkins was a guest on CBC's The Hour.
The host, George Stroumboulopoulos, asked Dawkins: "What is one single thing that you can say that definitively proves that evolution is a fact?"
Dawkins's response: "Comparing the genes molecularly across all animals and plants. It falls on a precise hierarchical pattern, which is obviously best interpreted as a family tree, and this becomes possible--becomes quantitatively possible--because all living creatures have the same genetic code, which means you have literally reams and reams of textual information, just like a book, in every cell of every body, of every creature, and every plant in the world."
So...a pattern of highly organized textual information, comparable to books, that were written by authors, is evidence there wasn't any intelligent design involved? Facepalm.
Henry M. Morris wrote: "A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry."
"Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution."
EVOLUTION PWNED
-
BTW, thanks for the thread Ron. 8)
-
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY:
"All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94
"The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." -- Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st edition reprint. Avenel Books
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils). In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed." -- Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Mentioned in one of his regular columns in Natural History Magazine (1977) and also in The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
"different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time" Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."
Bowler, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea', 1984, p. 187
DID YOU GET ALL OF THAT, FOLKS? I WILL SUMMARIZE HERE BELOW:
ALL OF THE CREATURES ON EARTH
1. Suddenly appeared
2. Exploded everywhere
3. Fully formed
4. No transitions
5. No gradualism
6. No previous ancestry
7. No sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type
CREATION PROVEN
Of course you atheists have no argument but you lor are going to stick to your pseudoscience bullshit anyway. Watch Dawkins lie his ass off about monkeys turning into humans.
HERE ARE THE FACTS AS APPROVED BY EVOLUTION SCIENTISTS
All of the animals:
1. Suddenly appeared
2. Exploded everywhere
3. Were fully formed
4. No transitions
5. No gradualism
6. No change (stasis)
7. No sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type
THE PROOF: "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates." -*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December, 1975, p. 673.
This is backed by Gould, Patterson, Eldredge, etc. etc.
-
oh my there are some daft members on GB.
despite the overwhelming evidence of fossils , and not a single piece of evidence for "god", the god believers still arent satisfied that something complex and proven (evolution) was going on, and continues to go on.
the uncountable examples of evolutionary development are conveniently ignored. virus' to vaccines, insects to insecticide, localised specialisations in isolated species...
over and over again, scores of smart people objectively study phenomenon and come up with the same findings, yet religion hasnt survived a single analysis. religion has anecdotes and ancient stories that are interpreted to suit. evolution has something that can be observed, and still stacks up.
so the creationists grasp at any straw they can. doesnt the bible state people riding on camels or something?- hundreds of years before they were domesticated?
lol.
-
ATTENTION FOLKS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Posted by Gil Dodgen under Intelligent Design:
For me, despite 43 years of indoctrination in atheistic materialism and Darwinian orthodoxy, it was a very simple logical exercise to conclude that living systems are the product of intelligent design.
The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation.
The notion that random errors, whether filtered by natural selection or not, can produce such technology, is a transparently absurd proposition.
It's really just that simple.
The great Arthur Eddington once said that, philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of nature was repugnant (referring to the Big Bang). It might have been philosophically repugnant, but it was true.
Only those who find the notion that living systems are designed to be philosophically repugnant can deny the evidence.
I also found the evidence to be philosophically repugnant, but I considered the denial of obvious truth to be even more philosophically repugnant, so I changed my philosophy.
HAR HAR HAR HAR Gil just pwned evolution and evolutionists. Good for you, Gil
-
BTW, thanks for the thread Ron. 8)
Evolution: THE ETIOLOGY OF MENTAL ILLNESS Hardcover – January 8, 2015
by John Jacobs, MD.
7 reasons why evolution is mental illness
I would like to propose that evolutionist beliefs be placed in the DSM as a category of mental illness for the following reasons:
(1) Hallucinations - the person sees evolution occurring although the record shows that there is no evolution.
(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the magical transitionals do exist and will eventually be found if enough searches are undertaken.
(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the quest for evolution remains fruitless, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the same behaviour, each time expecting different results.
(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient pagan naturalist mythology being accepted as historical fact.
(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their fantastical conception of reality is "anti-science".
(6) Emotional abuse - blackballing, name-calling and other types of emotional "abuse" which can scar the psyche for life.
(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their evolutionist delusions, even to the extent of using violence.
-
These dumbfucks deny evolution because they want to deny God. They know that if there is no evolution, then there is God. And if there is a God, then there are rules and regulations on how we're supposed to live. Which means you can't do what you want to do and think there are no consequences. Those rules and regulations come in the form of the Bible. FACT!
-
(https://yoknyamdabale.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blackjesusmontagecbarzoniartcom100557751.jpg)
-
REJECTION OF EVOLUTION (ALONG WITH ATHEISM)
BTW the MAIN REASON people reject evolution is because
#1 there is NO proof for it - There's no proof of 'god'
#2 it's recognized as a hoax So is 'god'
#3 anyone who really knows science knows that evolution has NOTHING to do with science Everyone who knows religion knows there's no evidence of your fairy tales
#4 99.99% of all evolutionists rely on logical fallacies, intimidation and insults as the main parts of their scientific arguments 100% of religious nuts rely on blind faith
#5 it's perfectly obvious that evolutionists are liars; they deny design, something that is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer It's perfectly obvious that religious weirdos are simpleminded and will believe anything you tell them as long as the word 'god' appears in the sentence
#6 the fossil record disproves evolution; it shows animals suddenly appeared full formed and never changed. You think dinosaurs dropped from thin air into existence?
#7 in the entire existence of mankind there is not one reported case of a new animal appearing In the entire existence of mankind there's NEVER been any evidence of 'god'. Just fairy tales passed from one delusional generation to the next
FACT!
FACT I say!!
-
EVOLUTION- FACT OR BELIEF?
by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
What do some scientists, who are experts in their field of research, think of evolution?
(1) LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIFE, NOT NON-LIFE.
(Announcer - Peter Wilders)
Spontaneous generation was disproved by the scientific method despite scientists objections.
Viking Lander I & II showed that there isn't life on Mars.
There is no concrete proof that life evolved.
(2) THE FOSSILS DO NOT PROVE EVOLUTION.
(Interviewed Scientist - Dr Roberto Fondi - Palaeontologist).
Many eminent scientists don't believe that evolution occurred.
Life beginning with single cells hasn't been proved.
All groups appear suddenly without ancestors.
Possible transition fossils are rare and questionable. They should be abundant.
Real fossil transitions do not exist.
The evolution of humans from Australopithecus should not be accepted.
(3) MOLECULAR BIOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION.
(Interviewed Scientist - Dr Guiseppe Sermonti - Microbiologist/Geneticist).
Mutation & natural selection have not been shown to cause evolution.
Present organisms are assumed to has come from similar extinct creatures.
Organisms have always been complex.
A single cell is already complex (eg bacteria).
Biochemical evolution has never taken place.
No evidence that humans evolved from primitive animals.
(4) GEOLOGY DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION.
(Interviewed Scientist - Guy Berthault - Sedimentologist).
Fossil trees 12m tall are found vertical in layers of rock.
Underwater sediment can form in thick banks.
Parts of banks are the same age.
Mount St Helens formed 200m of sediment in a few hours.
Mount St Helens formed a canyon 60m wide & 30m deep.
Sedimentary rocks don't take millions of years to form.
Joints represent drying cracks, not new deposits.
Sediment only hardens 300m below the sea bed.
Strata do not give an indication of rock age.
Strata can't be used to date rocks or fossils.
(5) RADIOMETRIC DATING DOES NOT ACCURATELY DATE ROCKS.
(Interviewed Scientist - Dr Edward Bourdreaux - Physical Organic Chemist).
Rocks & stone fossils don't contain Carbon-14.
Uranium dating is only theoretical as it is based on 3 assumptions.
Radio-dating by other elements is no more reliable.
Radio-dates of rocks from modern volcanoes are totally inaccurate.
Moon dust thickness does not agree with the radio-dated age of moon rocks.
Big Bang is an evolutionary hypothesis.
(6) GENETICS DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION.
(Interviewed Scientist - Dr Maciej Giertych - Geneticist).
Evolution's 'evidence' is not supported by science..
The belief in mutations and natural selection causes scientists to image evolution..
No beneficial mutations have been observed..
The variety within a species comes from the mixing of genes during reproduction..
Changes come from the selection of genes, not the formation of new genes.
Evolution can only be proved by the formation of new genes..
Genetic information requires an intelligence, not random chance.
Molecular biology shows that DNA must have been in existence from the beginning.
The Overall Conclusions.
(1) Evolution is a philosophy, not a science.
(2) Evolution is not even an acceptable hypothesis.
(3) Life could be measured in thousands of years, if evolution is ignored.
(4) Evolution is a fairytale for adults.
PWNED
-
1) The Bible : The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22)
Science Then : The earth is a flat disk
Science Now : The Earth is a sphere
2) The Bible: Innumerable stars
(Jeremiah 33:22 )
Science Then : 1100 stars
Science Now : Innumerable Stars
3) The Bible: Air has weight
(Job 28:25)
Science Then : Air is weightless
Science Now: Air has weight
4) The Bible : Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41)
Science Then : All stars were the same
Science Now: Each star is different
5) The Bible : Light moves
(Job 38:19-20)
Science Then : Light was fixed in place
Science Now : Light Moves
6) Free Float Of Earth In Space
(Job 26:7)
Scientists Then : Earth sat on a large animal (hahaha sorry atheists make the best comedians)
Science Now : Free float of earth in space
7) The Bible : Winds Blow In Cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Science Then : Winds blew straight
Science Now : Winds blow in cyclones
8) The Bible : Ocean Floor contains deep valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
Science Then : The ocean floor was flat
Science Now : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
9) The Bible : Blood is the source of life and health
(Leviticus 17:11)
Science Then : Sick people must be bled
Science Now: Blood is the source of life and health
10) Creation Made Of Invisible Elements
Hebrews 11:3
Science Then: Mostly ignorant on the subject
Science Now Creation made of invisible elements
Can you people see how many times science has been wrong over and over again??? LOL Probably not because you atheists are blind hahahahah So I'll list a one more just for every atheist on this post.
11) The Bible: Ocean Contains springs
(Job 38:16)
Science Then : Ocean fed only by rivers and rain
Science now : Ocean Contains springs
All I know is one more is coming LOL
The Bible: There is a God
Atheists Then : There is no God
Atheists Soon : There is a God But wait it's too late!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
Kill em Ron. I'm going to lunch. 8)
-
No Evidence of Evolution: Letter to Editor of Christchurch Press
Philip Maxwell's letter to the Editor of February 19 said that my assertion that there is no fossil evidence for evolution is completely untrue. I challenged him to provide even one universally recognized bona fide case of evolution from one species to another.
Mr. Maxwell became somewhat insulting by claiming that those who subscribe to the 'bizarre world-view' of creationism are not scientists at all or have degrees from obscure Bible colleges. I suggest Mr. Maxwell is ill-informed. Let's look the comments of just a few and note their qualifications:
Charles Darwin: “Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: “Not one change of species into another is on record…. We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another.” Darwin, Charles, My life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 210.
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated: “There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation.” Meldau, Fred John, Witness Against Evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver, Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73.
No Evidence of Evolution: Letter to Editor of Christchurch Press
Philip Maxwell's letter to the Editor of February 19 said that my assertion that there is no fossil evidence for evolution is completely untrue. I challenged him to provide even one universally recognized bona fide case of evolution from one species to another.
Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University, said, “The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195.
Sir William Dawson, Canada’s great geologist, said of evolution: “It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof.” Dawson, Sir William, Story of Earth and Man, page 317.
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner, said, “Everyone who reflects believes in God.” Millikan, Robert A., The Commentator, June 1937. In an address to the American Chemical Society, he said: “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do.”
Dr. George Wald, a Nobel prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he said he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, “The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation….” Wald, George, “Innovation and Biology,” Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 195 8, page 100.
Dr. Werner Von Braun, who masterminded the V2 rocket of Germany in World War II and the space program of the United States for two decades, said in a speech at Taylor University: “The idea of an orderly universe is inconceivable without God — the grandeur of the cosmos confirms the certainty of creation. One can’t be exposed to the law and order of the universe without becoming aware of a divine intent.” Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, page 55.
Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., professor of zoology, University of California, said, “Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof .. yet it has been universally accepted. There may be wide diversification within the species … but the gap (between species) cannot be bridged …. Sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally.” .” Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, pages 55-56.
Dr. Warren Weaver, formerly chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, “Every new discovery of science is a further ‘revelation’ of the order which God has built into His universe.” Weaver, Warren, Look Magazine, April 5, 1955, page 30.
Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, is not a creationist. He notes that biochemistry unlocked the secrets of the cell when Watson and Crick discovered the double-helical shape of DNA. Behe demonstrates, using the examples of vision, blood-clotting, cellular transport, and more, the biochemical world comprises an arsenal of chemical machines, made up of finely calibrated, interdependent parts. With the knowledge now available about the complexity of the cell, Behe concludes Darwinian evolution is impossible.
-
Jeez,
After all that 'god' is still a c,unt and still don't exist :-X
-
Not only is it slightly incorrect, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, show me the half bird half human peanut butter? where is that.
-
Not only is it slightly incorrect, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, show me the half bird half human peanut butter? where is that.
Show me evidence of your fairy. Any evidence. Anything will do.
-
Show me evidence of your fairy. Any evidence. Anything will do.
You aren't all that bright are you. I could go in several directions here, let's try insult.
There is no evidence of evolution moron, why are there still monkeys?
-
You aren't all that bright are you. I could go in several directions here, let's try insult.
There is no evidence of evolution moron, why are there still monkeys?
because a branch evolved and another didnt? Why two similar branch of evolution couldnt coexist ?
Most dinosaurs evolved to become birds, while other reptilian branches of evolution like crocodiles and snakes stayed similar -althought they decreased in size over time- and coexisted until now.
-
Not only is it slightly incorrect, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, show me the half bird half human peanut butter? where is that.
Prototype of evolutionist argument:
[Insert comic book representation of how science works]
[insert red herring]
Creationism says [insert strawman]
We actually observe [evolutionist misrepresentation of the facts]
Therefore [insert non sequitur]
Insert [dishonest allegation of creationist quote-mining]
And so the only conceivable explanation is [argument from atheist ignorance]
Q. E. D.
-
You aren't all that bright are you. I could go in several directions here, let's try insult.
There is no evidence of evolution moron, why are there still monkeys?
Quit your little sideshows child. Show me the evidence. Anything will do.
Oh and you should have said 'You just don't get it do you' :-X
-
Today's Creation Moment
The Light-Emitting Swallowtail
Genesis 1:3
"And God said, 'Let there be light;' and there was light." Though tiny, the scales of the swallowtail butterfly's wing are similar in design to light-emitting diodes. We say similar because the design is closer to a specialized light-emitting diode that puts out six times as much light as a standard LED.
The blue-green wing of the swallowtail is covered with millions of tiny scales. Each microscopic scale has three layers. The top layer is made up of thousands of hollow cylinders shaped in a honeycomb pattern. There is fluorescent pigment within the sides of those cells. The second layer adds the blue-green color to entering light, and the bottom layer reflects it back out. As the light enters, the top layer focuses and reflects all the blue-green light that enters it. The second layer turns any other color entering light – including ultraviolet light – blue-green, and the bottom layer reflects it back out.
The efficiency of the delicate structure has been compared to LEDs that have two-dimensional photonic crystals that put out six times as much light as a regular LED. As one scientist put it, they had no idea that the design would be so "precise" and "refined."
Of course it's precise and refined, showing an understanding of light! It was designed by the same Creator Who created light in the first place.
Prayer:
Thank You, Father, for creating light with its beauty and especially for the beauty of the light of the Gospel. Amen.
-
You know you're more than welcome to present your "facts"(bs) at the universities??!! There you can openly debate with biologist, physicists, etc..
Instead you want to shove your "facts"(BS) into getbiggers mouth like schmoes shove their cocks in your throat with a No-pullout technique!
However I would like to see you instead solve DARPA's math challenges with your Bible, Q'uran or Talmud..
-
Wiggs and Harrigan, the demented dream team...
-
Still waiting for actual evidence that 'god' exists. There's glory in this for you as it'll be the first time in history it'll happen :-[
He's a c,unt and I'm waiting for the lighting to strike me down :D
-
Wiggs and Harrigan, the demented dream team...
where would you experience on DMT come in to this equation ^^^ Did it convince you of a spiritual cause?
-
Just because X is false, it doesn't mean Y is true.
In other words, even if Evolution was proven 100% false (X), it doesn't prove a God exists (Y is true).
All it means is that evolution is false and there may be another reason to explain the biodiversity of life, which may or may not be a God.
Until you can prove a God exists, your assertion is still not true, no matter how wrong evolution is.
Science does not work based on the notion that if one theory is false, it automatically proves another theory/idea is correct.
-
CREATION/EVOLUTION
The majority of the information in this paper was collected by a registered Mechanical Engineer by the name of Bill Morgan. Bill is a lover of science, and the “learning about science”. He has studied the Creation vs. Evolution debate for several years and has released this material to provide a clear, easy to understand case for Creation. This case for Creation will be built using science. Whether you are a Christian, an agnostic, or a convinced atheist, you should check out the enclosed information on this very important topic. Every one has a right to believe whatever they want. However, it is a shame that many people dismiss belief in God as 'unscientific,' or 'superstitious' without ever hearing its case. This information has been presented in many classroom settings and the common response is: "Why haven't we heard this information before?"
Many people will say that this information has NOT been heard before because it is unscientific and has no place in science education. Others will say it has never been heard because the schools and media are biased against the conclusions that are drawn by presenting Creation Science. You should decide for yourself! Let’s begin with some basic guidelines:
Do not believe a word you are about to read until you listen to what is said, think about it, and test it. Then decide for yourself if you believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because someone told you to believe it, you have NOT been educated, you have been indoctrinated. But if a case is presented to you, and you test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been educated. Rarely is someone encouraged to test the Theory of Evolution and dig into its details. But you are now being encouraged to test the Creation model presented in the following pages. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution has to offer, and then you decide what to believe. You may discover that the common sense analysis of scientific data convincingly supports Creation. Unfortunately too many people have reached a conclusion on this subject based on emotion or peer pressure, and not the scientific data.
DEFINITIONS
Creation Model: What we observe today is the result of intelligent design, intelligent planning and purpose. A designer and planner used means beyond the natural laws of science (supernatural). Matter, energy and life originated at a point in time and originated from a supernatural source. Plants and animals are offspring of parents of the same kind, they do not have a single common ancestor. Plants and animals were created instantly. Humans were created instantly as humans (male and female). Humans are not related to apes or other animals.
Evolution Model: What we observe today is the result of chance events and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer behind anything in the Universe. Everything originated by way of natural processes subject to the natural laws of science over billions or years. The idea of supernatural intervention is rejected. Plants and animals are offspring from a single common ancestor. (Note: a few evolutionists say God used Evolution. “Evolutionist” in this paper, implies those who deny God's existence. However for Theistic evolutionists, this paper intends to demonstrate that if God did use evolution to create, there is no scientific evidence that He did).
WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR CREATION?
HERE ARE THE TOP TEN REASONS THE CREATION MODEL IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE THAN THE EVOLUTION MODEL.
1. DESIGN
2. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
4. BIOGENESIS
5. LIVING ANIMALS
6. DEAD ANIMALS (FOSSILS)
7. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
8. CAUSE AND EFFECT
9. EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
10. LIFE, THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN MATERIAL
1.) DESIGN
QUESTION: IS THE UNIVERSE DESIGNED?
Simple observation should reveal that the Universe is clearly the result of intelligent design, plan, and purpose. The Universe is incredibly orderly and complex. This is not the result of chance or natural events, it is the result of an intelligent designer. Consider the microscopic world of the atom with the precise mass ratio of the electron to the proton, or consider the large domain of our solar system with the precise masses and orbits of the planets. Consider photosynthesis, human reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, eyes, etc. The conclusion that these complex systems are the result of an intelligent designer requires much less faith than the idea it arose by time and chance. Think about the “units of life” that come in pairs like eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. – they are exactly alike, but yet they are exactly reversed – an incredible design feature – and the concept reproduces like a carbon copy.
We are not aware of any evolutionist literature that offers an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK! How could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half the population evolve male systems, and the other half evolve female systems that work together so precisely and in such incredible complexity to produce a baby? And the baby is not capable of producing offspring until many years later when it is suitably able to care for them – what an incredible design concept!
Mt. Rushmore, as you probably know, consists of the facial images of four ex-Presidents on the side of a mountain. Suppose a tour guide told his tour group that those faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as glaciers, lightning and erosion." What would the tour group think? How long would the tour guide keep his job? He'd be fired by lunch time and his tour group would think he was insane. Those images obviously required planning, design, and an artist.
Suppose an anatomy teacher at your school taught that human faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as mutations, natural selection, etc." How long would this anatomy professor keep his job? Actually he would feel very secure in his job and might even be promoted to Dean. The anatomy professor who teaches that the human body appears to be the result of an intelligent design, is the one that potentially would be fired.
Look at your computer. Suppose we tried to convince you that a glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory, and a silicon factory all exploded, started on fire and mixed together. The result of this explosion, chemical reaction and time was your computer. You would never believe it. Your intellect and logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce something as functional and orderly as a computer.
Don't let anyone convince you that your body is the end product of an explosion, the mixing of chemicals and time. Your body is infinitely more complex than your computer. That is because it was made by a very intelligent designer!
2.) THE FIRST LAW of THERMODYNAMICS
QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?
Ask the atheists to explain how they think the Universe originated. Did all the energy and matter in the Universe create itself by natural processes? The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Atheist beliefs contradict this basic law of science. Creationists recognize that energy and matter had a supernatural origin. This position does require faith, but it is in conjunction with the First Law and thus requires less faith than the atheist's position that it created itself from nothing.
Imagine that you could create a very special box. This box is sealed so that nothing can enter it from the outside, and there is nothing inside the box to begin with. If we came back to that box in 20 billion years, would there be anything inside of it? The First Law of Thermodynamics recognizes there will be nothing inside the box. Matter and energy do not appear from nothing. An atheist may say that since this entire Universe came from self created matter and self created energy, it is possible an entire Universe may exist in that box.
3.) THE SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS
QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BECOME SO ORDERLY? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BECOME CHARGED WITH SO MUCH USEFUL ENERGY?
Question for an atheist.-..did all the energy and matter in the Universe increase in complexity and order on its own? The Second Law states that in a closed system (like the Universe, the earth is not a closed system) over time, energy will become less available, systems will become more disordered and entropy will increase. This Law explains that the Universe is running out of available energy (energy that can do work, like the sun, coal, gasoline, etc.) The heat produced by burning gasoline is energy...but it cannot do any work until it is harnessed. To believe the Universe originated as a compact bundle of matter that expanded (Big Bang), and self created an orderly, energy filled Universe, severely violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Creationists believe a supernatural entity, working outside the natural laws of science gave order and available energy to the Creation. This requires faith, but much less faith than the belief that order and abundant energy appeared by chance.
4.) BIOGENESIS
QUESTION: HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
Remember some of your Biology classes? Early in the semester the teacher taught you that spontaneous generation was impossible (Spontaneous generation was a belief that life originated from nonliving things). People used to believe that bacteria could originate from broth, that rats could originate from garbage and maggots could originate from rotting meat. Over 130 years ago, Louis Pasteur conducted experiments that demonstrated the folly of spontaneous generation.
Later in the semester your teacher taught you evolution. Here is a quote from a current Biology text book: “Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from inanimate material today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different when the earth was only a few billion years old. In that ancient environment, the origin of life was evidently possible and it is likely that at least the early stages of biological inception were inevitable.” Campbell, Nell; Biology, 1987, page 504. Do you see what this author did? He admitted spontaneous generation is impossible today, but he puts his faith in the belief that the early earth had some unknown different conditions in order for life to originate from inanimate material.
Statements similar to the one in Nell Campbell's text are very intellectually dishonest. Any person seeking scientific explanations to difficult questions should not accept an explanation that clearly violates a law of science in order to uphold a personal bias. Mr. Campbell knows Biogenesis presents a very significant stumbling block to his pro-evolution faith, since scientific (observed) knowledge tells us that life does not arise from dead matter. When his text brings him to explaining life's origin, what does he tell the students? He starts by telling them the truth, that life does not arise from dead things today, but billions of years ago life arising from dead things was "evidently possible" and "inevitable."
Decide for yourself, but it appears that Nell Campbell, when confronted with a scientific law that contradicts his world view (perhaps atheistic), would rather violate the scientific law than acknowledge that supernatural intervention is a possible explanation for the origin of life. What Mr. Campbell wrote is not education, it is not science, it is Nell Campbell's biased unscientific opinion. You are encouraged, to decide for yourself.
The “origin of life” question is covered in detail in Dr. Mark Eastman's book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space". Many people think life was once created in a test tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's. This is known as the Miner-Urey experiment (which is covered in detail in Eastman's book). Here is what actually occurred. They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it. and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers? The samples had to be isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross ignorance or a lie to say they created true life in this experiment. Life requires many things. Long amino acid chains make proteins, chains in the proper order and shape. Millers experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced, and never has a cell membrane been produced.
The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the exact arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.
Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn’t tell you his desire) he will fire you.
What are the odds that you will arrange the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds that the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one functional protein in you (the human body). The odds are 20 to the 400th power. This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, (that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros)! You have better odds of winning the California Super Lotto every week for 11 years, than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins. The model that reflects a brilliant designer (like God) making meaningful and useful proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes.
-
Atheism falsified once and for all. Sorry you were duped, all ye atheist stooges.
"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
he left out other options like panspermia or that we (the human species) was the product of genetic engineering by another species not from this planet (has to be considered as an option, especially given the many cultures that creation stories of that narrative)
Now, if we are going to assume an Act of God then that still leaves literally hundreds of creation myths and that's only from very recent human history.
I'm guessing the good doctor is just going to ignore all that and refer to his favorite book of jewish fairy tales for his favorite god
-
Just because X is false, it doesn't mean Y is true.
In other words, even if Evolution was proven 100% false (X), it doesn't prove a God exists (Y is true).
All it means is that evolution is false and there may be another reason to explain the biodiversity of life, which may or may not be a God.
Until you can prove a God exists, your assertion is still not true, no matter how wrong evolution is.
They can't. But demented people can post long obscure mutterings (opinions) from someone that made it to the media, or it's own media, whatever. And that's passed off as FACT apparently. Really, I'm being serious now for once. Who in their right fucking minds fall for these things? ???
-
5.) LIVING ANIMALS
QUESTION: IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN LIVING ANIMALS?
The Creation Model predicts animals will reproduce after their own kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all plants and animals came from a common ancestor. What is observed every day with living animals? Your parents were human, your grandparents were human, etc. That is what is observed and recorded. Dogs make dogs, hogs make hogs, frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make rats (especially in New York), and bats make bats. Every birth since recorded time has supported the creation model. The foundation for science is observation. What is observed? The Creation model is what is observed, animals producing their own kind.
6.) DEAD ANIMALS (Fossils)
QUESTION: DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Creation Model Prediction: The fossils will be as easy to classify as living forms of plants and animals. There will be variation within forms, but no transitional evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. The characteristics of the fossils will be stasis (stay the same) and sudden appearance will prevail (no transitional forms).
Evolution Model Prediction: The fossils will show the stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type. Fossils should show the in-between characteristics of presumed common ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale becoming a feather, etc.). They should show the stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type. A series of links would be expected to be seen in a multitude of fossils. In reality, you should find more “links” than actual species, given the time required to make the transitions.
CHALLENGE:
The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the conclusions fit the data. Recently, from a piece of one shin bone, "scientists" told us what this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived, where he lived, and how long ago he lived. Decide for yourself if you think that a single piece of shin bone can objectively tell you that much information, or is it someone's imagination that takes an extremely small amount of data (one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a "missing link." (Remember, there is great variety within a species. A pro-football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they are both human.)
7.) THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH THEORY DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
It is true that there are a couple of different Creation theories circulating today. Some people think God used evolution to create. Some believe in two creations, (the Gap Theory). Both of these ideas are new, unbiblical and unscientific (they do not comply with observable evidence). The literal account of Genesis is thousands of years old and has not changed for thousands of years. It is also true that just because many theories may exist to explain something, does not mean that every explanation is false.
The general point of the Theory of Evolution is that life originated as single celled organisms and over time became all the living things we see today. Up to this point all evolutionists seem to agree. The science end of that conclusion is the mechanism. It is with the science end that the evolutionists disagree vehemently with each other. Teachers never told us that the "scientists" disagreed on the mechanism of evolution. We have always been lead to believe that the "scientists" agreed on how evolution occurred.
However, the students and the public are never informed about these conflicts. It is similar to a family fight being kept private. However, the ramifications are so important, it is imperative that all students should be properly informed. Students should ask their instructor "Which Theory of Evolution are you teaching?"
Remember, the “science of Evolution is the mechanism”. Mechanism #1 was Darwin's, also know as Darwinian Evolution or Gradualism, (think of "slow" evolution). Darwin proposed that animals evolved into other animals by small, gradual steps. There are two problems with this, no living evidence and no fossil evidence (as previously discussed). And why are all the species so distinct today with no in-between “specimens” of some unknown future species currently in the development stage?
Many evolutionists recognize this acute problem. One of them is Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at Harvard, and perhaps the most prominent evolutionist in the United States. Dr. Gould and others are faced with one of three choices to make regarding the empirical evidence:
1) Hold onto Gradualism, despite the lack of evidence to support it.
2) Accept the Genesis account, that an intelligent designer instantly created plants and animals and these plants and animals would reproduce after their own kind.
3) Reject Gradualism and come up with a new theory.
What do you think they chose? If you guessed #3, you are correct. A new theory therefore arose. This Theory is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big long scary phrase that means the changes happened too fast to be observed. If you inquire into this, be ready to be "comforted" by the response: “You must understand...’fast’ in Evolutionary terms can be millions (or even billions) of years." But don't lose focus. Whether these "fast" changes occurred over one million or four billion years, they were still unobserved, and are nowhere to be found in the fossil record. The foundation of science is observation. The “punctual equilibrium” camp admit there is no observational evidence to support their belief. Their presupposed conclusion drives them to gloss over observational evidence. They will not allow anything, including evidence, to falsify their belief that the Theory of Evolution is truth.
A third theory of Evolution is that God used Evolution to create. These people have the same science problems the atheists have...no observational evidence. They have even more problems if their God is the God of the Bible. There are no verses to support their belief. They typically will say Genesis is not literal, and will try to explain that the original Hebrew supports this. Unfortunately for them, the original Hebrews took it literally and so did hundreds of generations of Hebrew scholars after them. These people should not be so quick to twist a clear message by interpreting what it says in Hebrew, when the Hebrew experts would disagree with them. It appears that peer pressure resulted in their conclusions more than an in-depth study of the Hebrew language.
8.) CAUSE AND EFFECT
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE, OR FOR YOU?
Cause and effect is the most basic scientific principle. It is fundamental to all branches of science as well as philosophy. Cause and effect is the principle that an event which is observed, can be traced to an event that preceded it. For example, an observed event (an effect) could be a house, the cause is a place to live. An observed event could be a painting, the cause is beauty or expression. Creationists trace the entire Universe to a "First Cause," God. Atheists say there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe.
Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists accept the principle of cause and effect EXCEPT when it comes to origins? An Evolutionary Scientist would argue that there was a cause for a chair, but not for a human being.
9.) EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION and SURVIVAL of THE FITTEST
QUESTION: EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ARE FACTS, DO THESE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Extinction does NOT support the Theory of Evolution – extinction destroys evolution. It is the path creation would predict. For the “Theory of Evolution” model to have validity, it must attempt to demonstrate that natural process produces new animals, and does NOT eliminate existing animals. The Creation model has validity when natural processes do not produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not falsify the Creation model. What do we observe? Many animal kinds becoming extinct, and no new animal kinds emerging.
Lets look at the two models again and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one “animal” (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species! Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.
Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural selection makes good traits dominant but does not produce new animal kinds. Natural selection does not produce new species, families, orders, or classes of plants and animals. Imagine someone having 10 children in smoggy Los Angeles. Suppose eight of the kids have lungs that cannot filter the smog effectively, and they do not reach an age where they can reproduce, but two kids do have stronger lungs that allows them to reach reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited in future generations. But that gene pool is still in human beings. Natural selection emphasizes the superior genetic characteristics in a population, but it does not produce new animal kinds.
Survival of the fittest is a simplistic term that everyone should admit is correct. The term is simply an equation or a definition. For example, it is equal to saying "bachelors are single men." If you are a single man, you are a bachelor. If you are a bachelor you are a single man. Regarding "survival of the fittest," if an animal is surviving, that means it is fit for its environment. If an animal is fit for its environment that means it will survive. If a plane load of circus animals is forced to land in Alaska in the winter, the lions, elephants, zebras and giraffes will soon be history. But the penguins and polar bears will easily survive. That is an example of survival of the fittest. However, for validity to be given to the Theory of Evolution, the lions would not die, but would immediately (over millions of years) begin producing new kinds of animals, that can survive a harsh Alaskan winter. The problem is, if you are unfit, you die, and you can't evolve when you are dead.
How can an organism with a life expectancy of a few days, weeks, months, or even years, survive for billions of years while it finally develops a reproductive system, only to discover that it now needs a partner with which to mate (oops, now we must wait another billion years for the right partner to come along). In just a mere thousand years, “it” would have died and re-incarnated (or something), dozens or hundreds of times and the billions of years has barely begun!
10.) LIFE? THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN MATERIAL
QUESTION: DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Lets compare life to a computer. Computers must have proper hardware (monitors, disk drives, keyboards) and proper software (information) in order to operate. Likewise life at the cellular level requires "hardware" (amino acids and nucleic acids) and "software" (amino acids in the proper sequence to make proteins, and nucleic acids in the right sequence to make DNA). Much could be written about the incredible complexity of proteins and DNA and how unsatisfactory "chance and time" are in explaining these origins.
THINK! For the computer example, even if you had the proper hardware and the proper software, would you have a functional computer? No, because you need a source of power (life) for the system to operate. Now lets look at life.
Suppose there was a dead dog lying next to a living dog. How would someone who believed only in the material world (Materialists deny the existence of anything metaphysical) explain what the difference is between the dead dog and the living dog? The unfortunate dead dog has all the proper materials. It has the proper hardware (DNA, proteins, organs, bones, etc.), and it has the proper software (its DNA and amino acids are properly sequenced). But the dog is dead. Why? Creationists maintain there is more to life than chemicals, energy and biology. There is a metaphysical or spiritual side to life similar to the power source of computers.
TWO "TRICKS" EVOLUTIONISTS USE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY APPEAR TO BE SOUND
Again, please be reminded – you must decide for yourself when you read the following. However, if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory of Evolution will lose a lot of its perceived validity.
TRICK #1
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took "millions of years." How did fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years." Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence, and biological answers. Instead, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time.
But is their "time" explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession that the processes they profess to believe in are thought to occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: Either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution). Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex.
Remember the fairy tales we heard as children like - “a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed the frog, and it instantly turned into a prince”. In Biology, they informed us that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because "millions of years" turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly, believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it "science".
TRICK #2
When someone asks you if you believe in evolution, do not answer yes, and do not answer no. Instead ask them "What do you mean when you say evolution?" Become aware of how the word "evolution" is used. What does the word "evolution" mean? It simply means change. Does change happen? Absolutely. If you changed your socks within the past month you could say you evolved. But does that degree of change support the Theory of Evolution? Lets explore that thought.
In item #9 of the above list, we showed that natural selection and survival of the fittest are a true phenomena. Change happens within species all the time. But for the Theory of Evolution to have merit there must be evidence for new species, families, orders, classes and phyla. For example, teachers will often say that evidence for evolution is the fact that people are taller today than they were 500 years ago. Is that evolution? Well it is change, but does it support the Theory of Evolution? No, because they were people then and they are people now, no species change. Or a teacher will say that England had many light colored moths and few dark moths when England was unpolluted (due to camouflage advantages). After England became polluted, the population of the dark moths increased and the light moths decreased. Is that evolution? Well, it is a change in the population density, but it does not support the Theory of Evolution because there was no species change. You started with light moths and dark moths, and you ended up with light colored moths and dark moths. If you mention this to an evolutionist they will go to trick #1 and say over millions of years that new kinds of animals will emerge.
Creationists often say they believe in micro-evolution (change within a species) but not macro-evolution (one species becoming a new species). Creationists may also say they believe in horizontal evolution (change within a species) but not vertical evolution (new species emerging). And indeed these are observable changes.
In Closing
As you ponder these thought provoking issues, keep your focus on consistency and reality. Try to think through a billion years and calculate how many life and death cycles would result in that period of time with just a single species if evolution was even remotely possible. To help equate the enormous expanse of a billion years, think of how long a billion seconds is (about 32 years = 1 billion seconds). Remember, all the body “systems” of all living things rely on all the other body systems in order to function and survive (i.e. a heart cannot exist without a lung, etc.). Neither will these “systems” function or survive if they are only partially developed – they all have SHORT time periods within which to fully develop in sync, and in parallel, according to their respective design. Add to this the incredibly complex DNA code, the hundreds of pairs of exact opposite body parts, the absolute need for “matching” reproductive organisms, and the list goes on. Now introduce this same random-chance design concept into our modern world of manufacturing and decide which works – (i.e. cars evolving or cars being designed and built to specs!) Isn’t it strange that the evolutionist thinks that everything we see and touch requires a designer/creator, except all the “living things”!
-
Just because X is false, it doesn't mean Y is true.
In other words, even if Evolution was proven 100% false (X), it doesn't prove a God exists (Y is true).
All it means is that evolution is false and there may be another reason to explain the biodiversity of life, which may or may not be a God.
Until you can prove a God exists, your assertion is still not true, no matter how wrong evolution is.
Science does not work based on the notion that if one theory is false, it automatically proves another theory/idea is correct.
x2
-
Just because X is false, it doesn't mean Y is true.
In other words, even if Evolution was proven 100% false (X), it doesn't prove a God exists (Y is true).
All it means is that evolution is false and there may be another reason to explain the biodiversity of life, which may or may not be a God.
Until you can prove a God exists, your assertion is still not true, no matter how wrong evolution is.
Science does not work based on the notion that if one theory is false, it automatically proves another theory/idea is correct.
Once more. Occam's Razor proves creation by the supernatural. All logic brings evolution down to only two options: 1. All things were created and designed by God. 2. All things were not created by God. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing else is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
And don't even try the old false dichotomy bullshit because there are ONLY TWO OPTIONS
THE TWO OPTIONS
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation." -- Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." -- Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." -- Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University
"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
NEED MORE?
SCHOOLED BY A CREATIONIST HAR HAR HAR HAR
-
MAJOR POINTS
* Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief unbacked by science and supported only by radical atheism.
* They point to museum plaster statues of so-called early man and this is their dogma.
* Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
* They cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution.
* Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to its very core.
* For them evolution is a dogma. All they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible".
* The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record's support of a Creation paradigm.
* The evolution scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution.
* Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
* They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional.
-
where would you experience on DMT come in to this equation ^^^ Did it convince you of a spiritual cause?
Nothing simplistic like these retards are prattling on about. The realm was more real than this reality. More like a force of incredible intelligence, but not in a sense of being a separate entity, like these religious nuts try and force down your throat. Utterly beyond compare and definitely nothing to do with organised religion.
-
you ll end in a retirement home, in a loony bin, in prison or in an accident just like everyone else anyway so why do you care ron.
-
Once more. Occam's Razor proves creation by the supernatural. All logic brings evolution down to only two options: 1. All things were created and designed by God. 2. All things were not created by God. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing else is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
And don't even try the old false dichotomy bullshit because there are ONLY TWO OPTIONS
THE TWO OPTIONS
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation." -- Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." -- Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." -- Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University
"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
NEED MORE?
SCHOOLED BY A CREATIONIST HAR HAR HAR HAR
So the law of science, as seen in point number 1 does prove that God created everything?
So let's see the evidence then
Haha, if you're going to post bullshit, at least hide it better :D
-
The problem you have here is that some people's brains function better than other people's brains, because some people have evolved way more than others.
To grow your brain, please read: THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS, IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, by Julian Jaynes
-
Nothing simplistic like these retards are prattling on about. The realm was more real than this reality. More like a force of incredible intelligence, but not in a sense of being a separate entity, like these religious nuts try and force down your throat. Utterly beyond compare and definitely nothing to do with organised religion.
8)
-
Just because X is false, it doesn't mean Y is true.
In other words, even if Evolution was proven 100% false (X), it doesn't prove a God exists (Y is true).
All it means is that evolution is false and there may be another reason to explain the biodiversity of life, which may or may not be a God.
Until you can prove a God exists, your assertion is still not true, no matter how wrong evolution is.
Science does not work based on the notion that if one theory is false, it automatically proves another theory/idea is correct.
Life comes from life chief. Life doesn't come from non-life. It's as simple as that. Even for those that believe in "aliens" (Fallen Angels) who created them? There is an ultimate form of life. He is called God although that's not his name that's another thread. Everything that exists doesn't just spontaneously just pop into existence. Unless there is God behind it. And it even took him a week to create the heavens and earth.
-
"THE HISTORY OF MOST FOSSIL SPECIES INCLUDES TWO FEATURES PARTICULARLY INCONSISTENT WITH GRADUALISM: 1. STASIS. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." 2. "SUDDEN APPEARANCE. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" (Gould, Stephen J., "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
GOULD PWNS EVOLUTION and PROVES CREATION
Creation ==
1. Sudden appearance
2. All at once
3. Fully formed
4. Stasis (never changed)
NONE of that fits evolution. It fits perfectly for proving creation.
"a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed.""
READ THAT LAST STATEMENT.
Clear proof that evolution NEVER HAPPENED
Endorsed by Gould.
Btw if you evolutionists start yelling quotemine, I will know you are liars.
“In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
—Eugene V. Koonin, Evolutionist
Evolutionists like Koonin can only try and shoehorn the evidence for creation into their evolution faith but it is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
-
you ll end in a retirement home, in a loony bin, in prison or in an accident just like everyone else anyway so why do you care ron.
How did you end up snapping out of your religious funk? Tell the Insane here so they can get better too.
-
Evolution is a very minor issue in the real Science of Genetics. The only proven part is the micro-evolution, which is then a euphemism for Mendelian Genetics ruled by LAWS of Inherited Traits and therefore Genetics has LAWS and Math to support its Science and then Darwinian Evolution has to this day failed to provide any mathematical logic in the sense of a workable algorithm to explain the Theory of Evolution as Random Mutations by Natural Selection over eons of time. That belief, that Natural Selection can do all the work of designing, is a fallacy.
Say a wing is developing in theory for a million years so then Natural Selection, which would say the population with the ability to fly away from the predators are then selected as best suited, etc. HOWEVER, all those eons of interim growth of the wings, when the wings do not function, then are not logically available to Natural Selection so there is no algorithm to describe Evolution as a mathematical expression that makes any sense. It just does not work but it sounds great if you need a substitute for God.
Natural Selection, in proper English, is an oxymoron. The verb 'select' implies a choice being made by a life form that can think sufficiently to make a selection based on a placebo of necessity or desire. Thus in Evolution, where the implication is the absence of any sort of God or intelligent issue, the idea of Selection is molested and used to mock the idea of God, by saying a non-living entity can randomly evolve, being equal to intelligent notions, if there is sufficient time. Time does not create worlds; the Universe was created and time was an accessory to the fact, not the Fact itself. Time merely means a change in distance between the material events, not the cause of events. Time creates nothing and time cannot make an implausible belief like Evolution sound true, based on some magical theories about what time could prove.
Random Mutations by Natural Selection is akin to putting all the parts to a computer in a five-gallon paint pail and then putting that five gallon pail or can on the paint shaker machine at the hardware store. Let the paint shaker shake the can of computer parts for any amount of time, say a million years of shaking the can on the paint shaker. You can stop the shaker and open the can and the parts fall out unassembled. You can try and try and try and wait for one lucky cycle of shaking the can of parts but it never will begin to assemble. There has to be a conservator of information, some sort of priori design with memory of past events to accumulate the meaning of random events, and order a design by selection over all past events that came closest to working. That means there needs some sort of guidance to the behavior, to alter the chaotic mass into some order. That means there has to be some sort of God or the Universe could not exist.
Darwinian Evolution is ultimately a fairytale. Nothing gains design by random mutations, nothing, only that an original design declines with age and disease. Darwinian Evolution is a fable that only serves Atheist worldviews. It makes a pretense that humanity can by random events get to be higher creatures in time, a sign of materialistic hopes. But alas, that is all tragically false.
No man on Earth can here and now demonstrate the mechanism of Evolution to accomplish a fact. They cannot turn rocks into organic matter to eat as an alternative food supply. They cannot move a bacteria to be advanced in behavior as a plant or insect. They cannot move a one celled Amoeba to be complex as multi-celled creatures. They cannot solve the failure of the foal of the horse and donkey, the Mule, to be fertile instead of impotent. They cannot do Evolution. They can talk until they persuade you to be a believer in Atheism. That is the most they can do with Evolution Theory. They predicted that Mars would show evidence of Methodological Naturalism in the least to show some precursors of organic compounds but the rocks have no METHANE thus it is a Sterile Environment where Evolution does not exist. But they cannot admit their predictions based on Evolution were Falsified. They insist to look forever rather than to admit that LIFE is a special case that requires a God to guide its arrangements.
-
Life comes from life chief. Life doesn't come from non-life. It's as simple as that. Even for those that believe in "aliens" (Fallen Angels) who created them? There is an ultimate form of life. He is called God although that's not his name that's another thread. Everything that exists doesn't just spontaneously just pop into existence. Unless there is God behind it. And it even took him a week to create the heavens and earth.
It still doesn't prove that a God with a white beard in the sky, who sends people to heaven and hell, created everything.
Again, proving evolution false does not mean the god of the bible created man.
It may be a God, but there is no proof its the God of the bible. However, there is no proof that this was all done by a God at all
Unless you can prove that directly, its all a hypothesis and I will reject your God.
-
Brother Harrigan, I think you might need a googlectomy. :-\
-
It still doesn't prove that a God with a white beard in the sky, who sends people to heaven and hell, created everything.
Again, proving evolution false does not mean the god of the bible created man.
It may be a God, but there is no proof its the God of the bible. However, there is no proof that this was all done by a God at all
Unless you can prove that directly, its all a hypothesis and I will reject your God.
Today's Creation Moment
Disproving the Doubters
Joshua 10:10 "And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah." Modern criticism of the Bible began in the late 1700s and has continued to this day. The usual claim, often from Bible scholars, has been that the Bible is nothing more than error-filled human writings. Before serious excavation work had begun in the mid-1800s, scholars felt free to consider lack of evidence as proof that people, cities, and even whole nations mentioned in the Bible never existed. It didn't seem to matter to them that they had never even bothered to look for the evidence.
Soon, biblical archaeology started finding the evidences. And with each discovery, the critics' pronouncements about errors in the Bible began to crumble. One example is the biblical record of Joshua's leadership of Israel in occupying the promised land. Joshua 10:10-11 reports how Joshua defeated Hazor, burning the city to the ground. All this had been dismissed by the doubters, but then archaeologists found the ruins of Hazor. The ruins clearly showed destruction by an intense fire. The fire had been so hot that adobe had been baked lobster red, stones had been changed by the heat of the fire, and the ashes of the city were five feet deep!
Every claim that there is error in the Bible has been based upon lack of knowledge. Let's face it, no matter what the subject, including history, God has more knowledge than we do!
Prayer:
Dear heavenly Father, I thank You for Your Word which has been preserved for our instruction today. Guide me by Your Holy Spirit to make good use of Your Word in my daily life. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
-
Atheism falsified once and for all. Sorry you were duped, all ye atheist stooges.
"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
What Pasteur disproved was the spontaneous generation of microbes on biological substrate (broths). His experiments were very different from those that produced aminoacids from what was considered the "primordial atmosphere": water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen.
-
Even if you debunk evolution.. And prove there is a creator.. That does not mean that it is the " god" in the bible.. In other words people want to believe that there is a heaven.. But they are basing that on the god in the bible of which we have no proof.. There may very well be a creator is sorts but, that does not mean we die and we goto eternal salvation ect ect.. It may mean we just die.. Period.. And the only reason people want to cling to this issue is to believe there is something after death..
-
It still doesn't prove that a God with a white beard in the sky, who sends people to heaven and hell, created everything.
Again, proving evolution false does not mean the god of the bible created man.
It may be a God, but there is no proof its the God of the bible. However, there is no proof that this was all done by a God at all
Unless you can prove that directly, its all a hypothesis and I will reject your God.
Today's Creation Moment
Hazor's Biblical History Confirmed
1 Kings 9:15 "And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the LORD, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer."
Secular archaeologists usually assume that the historical statements found in Scripture are overstatements or simply incorrect. It was with this attitude that archaeologists approached the ruins of Hazor to see if they could tell whether Solomon actually did add to the wall of Hazor and build other structures there, as the Bible says. Hazor was an important city on the primary military and trade routes between Israel and Phoenicia, Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Hazor had been destroyed by Joshua when Israel took possession of the Promised Land. Over the following centuries, the site began to be inhabited by Israelites. By Solomon's time, the city reached a size of about 10 acres and was home to between 800 and 1,000 people. Archaeologists found that sometime during the reign of Solomon, the city wall was expanded, doubling the size. Other buildings also were added at this time. Excavations show that at Solomon's time the city was prosperous. The city's six chambered gate is typical of the gates Israel built at this time. Gates of the same design also exist at Megiddo and Gezer, two other cities named as being fortified by Solomon, according to the same verse that mentions the fortification of Hazor!
Again, the Bible has been vindicated as presenting accurate history. We can be equally sure that the Bible's account of creation is accurate because the Bible is God's Word.
Prayer:
Dear Father, I thank You that Your Word is trustworthy in all things, for it tells me of my salvation in Jesus Christ. Amen.
-
It still doesn't prove that a God with a white beard in the sky, who sends people to heaven and hell, created everything.
Again, proving evolution false does not mean the god of the bible created man.
It may be a God, but there is no proof its the God of the bible. However, there is no proof that this was all done by a God at all
Unless you can prove that directly, its all a hypothesis and I will reject your God.
That's your choice, when you reject God, you reject life.
John 12:48
He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Psalms 50:22
Now consider this, you who forget God, Or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Luke 12:9
but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
-
Even if you debunk evolution.. And prove there is a creator.. That does not mean that it is the " god" in the bible.. In other words people want to believe that there is a heaven.. But they are basing that on the god in the bible of which we have no proof.. There may very well be a creator is sorts but, that does not mean we die and we goto eternal salvation ect ect.. It may mean we just die.. Period.. And the only reason people want to cling to this issue is to believe there is something after death..
Today's Creation Moment
The Bible: Convincing History
Joshua 11:11 "And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire."
The Bible tells us that in conquering Canaan, Joshua destroyed the city of Hazor, which was the chief city in the area. Bible critics are usually skeptical of the claims made by the Bible, especially when it comes to Israel's conquest of Canaan. Excavations at Hazor began in 1955 and have gone on sporadically ever since. Archaeologists wanted to know when Hazor was destroyed and who it was that destroyed it. Doubting that Israel could have caused the destruction, some suggested Hazor was destroyed by the Philistines, by another Canaanite city, or the Egyptians.
New excavations during the 1990s revealed some interesting answers. The city was clearly destroyed by fire, as attested by the remaining ashes of the city, which are 3 feet deep in some places. This is consistent with Scripture's account. Because of the large amount of olive oil stored in large jars in the palace, the fire was especially bad there, reaching temperatures estimated at over two thousand degrees Fahrenheit. In addition, statues and idols were smashed, which is what the Israelites typically did in obedience to God. The idols destroyed were gods worshiped by the Philistines, Canaanites and Egyptians, making them unlikely as the destroyers. The pattern of destruction is the same as described by Scripture, leaving the only conclusion, say those closest to the excavations, that only Israel could have done this! It's good to see that even those who doubt the truth of Scripture can be convinced of its truth by history itself.
Prayer:
I thank You, Lord, that I can be sure of the Bible's promise of salvation. Amen.
-
Yeah, cause that retard was around the universe billions of years ago and basically knows everything ::)
-
Even if you debunk evolution.. And prove there is a creator.. That does not mean that it is the " god" in the bible.
I've been told by some that Christ could stand before them and perform miracles and they would still refuse to believe in the God of the bible.....that their worldview does not allow for God regardless of the proof.
This is why in discussion you gotta learn when to cut bait.
For believers I say do what you can to present others the gospel, answers the questions you are able to and just show love.
No replies are necessary to my post.
-
Today's Creation Moment
How Old Does the Bible Say the Earth Is?
Genesis 5:3-5
“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” We have all heard or read about a scientist from some university declaring that a certain rock or fossil is millions of years old. But what do these pronouncements do to the Bible’s history that begins with creation? Has modern science proven that the Bible’s history is inaccurate?
Nowhere in the Bible do we find an exact statement that says precisely how many years old the Earth is. However, the Bible is filled with statements that, if added together, can give us a fairly accurate age for the Earth. You see, in ancient times people did not receive pretty picture calendars from the local bank. Their calendars were much different from ours today – but they were very accurate. These calendars are recorded in the Bible.
Many people find little use for the lists in Scripture that say so and so begat so and so, who begat so and so when he was 70 years old. But these are not lists. They are the ancient calendars, preserved for us today in the Bible by God. Even the Chinese preserve their calendar by genealogies. If we chain all the “begats” together and add up the results, we find that the Earth cannot be much more than 6,000 years old. Even if there might be a few gaps between some of the “begats” (which seems unlikely), the Earth still cannot be much more than 7,000 years old.
There are actually more scientific dating methods that support this young age for the Earth than support the most ancient ages. The Bible’s history stands unchallenged by modern science!
Prayer:
Dear Father, I thank You that Your Word is trustworthy. Forgive me when I begin to think that our modern age has more truth than previous ages, and especially more than Your Word. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
-
Today's Creation Moment
Amazing Water
Job 37:10
“By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.” According to evolutionary theory, all matter and energy were the result of a huge explosion called the “Big Bang.” The laws that matter and energy must follow are also the result of that same great explosion. As a further result of these beliefs, evolutionists are convinced that things behave the way they do quite accidentally.
The first question that comes to mind is: How could an accident have produced the seemingly careful designs we see in the way certain important materials behave? Consider water, for example. Water is essential to life. Water, which is the basis of our blood, carries dissolved food to the deepest cells in our bodies along with oxygen so that our cells can live. Water dissolves the wastes and behaves in just the right way so that other organs can remove those wastes from our bodies. Is it an accident that only water, the very same material basic to the materials of life, also can do all these other unique jobs?
Water also refuses to act like most other materials. For example, we all know that when any material is turned from a liquid to a solid, it becomes more dense and therefore heavier. But when water freezes into ice, it doesn’t do this; it gets lighter. If it got heavier, ice would sink in our northern lakes when it formed, and they would quickly freeze solid, killing all life in them.
The unique properties of water are only a few of the millions of so called accidents that had to happen “just so” – in harmony with millions of other details – in order to make life possible. All by itself, simple water testifies to a wise Creator.
Prayer:
Dear Father, I thank You for the wonderful way in which You have designed blood to work. But most especially do I thank You that Your Son, Jesus Christ, shed His blood on the cross for the forgiveness of my sins. Let me never take that wonderful blessing for granted in any word, deed or thought. In His Name. Amen.
-
Atheism falsified once and for all. Sorry you were duped, all ye atheist stooges.
"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
ROFL, getting pwned by a homeschooler
-
because a branch evolved and another didnt? Why two similar branch of evolution couldnt coexist ?
Most dinosaurs evolved to become birds, while other reptilian branches of evolution like crocodiles and snakes stayed similar -althought they decreased in size over time- and coexisted until now.
Dont feed the troll
-
Quit your little sideshows child. Show me the evidence. Anything will do.
Oh and you should have said 'You just don't get it do you' :-X
I tried to tell you, I am trolling my friend, I am on your side.
-
I've been told by some that Christ could stand before them and perform miracles and they would still refuse to believe in the God of the bible.....that their worldview does not allow for God regardless of the proof.
This is why in discussion you gotta learn when to cut bait.
For believers I say do what you can to present others the gospel, answers the questions you are able to and just show love.
No replies are necessary to my post.
lol yeah, in case they would destroy your fairy tales a bit more.
-
Life comes from life chief. Life doesn't come from non-life. It's as simple as that. Even for those that believe in "aliens" (Fallen Angels) who created them? There is an ultimate form of life. He is called God although that's not his name that's another thread. Everything that exists doesn't just spontaneously just pop into existence. Unless there is God behind it. And it even took him a week to create the heavens and earth.
No, actually life comes from "nothing" ie an interaction between water and heat/light. There s life under see where there s water and sources of heat, and life at the surface of water because of ...water interacting with the sun light. This is where "life comes from".
-
No, actually life comes from "nothing" ie an interaction between water and heat/light. There s life under see where there s water and sources of heat, and life at the surface of water because of ...water interacting with the sun light. This is where "life comes from".
You have no credibility, you don't know what you believe.
-
I've been told by some that Christ could stand before them and perform miracles and they would still refuse to believe in the God of the bible.....that their worldview does not allow for God regardless of the proof.
This is why in discussion you gotta learn when to cut bait.
For believers I say do what you can to present others the gospel, answers the questions you are able to and just show love.
No replies are necessary to my post.
Yes, because our senses are not always reliable and may deceive us.
Its the same way that you can ask 10 people to report on the same event, and you have 10 different versions of the same exact event. Our senses are not always accurate. Thus, seeing or sensing a miracle in no way indicates that God is real.
-
That's your choice, when you reject God, you reject life.
John 12:48
He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Psalms 50:22
Now consider this, you who forget God, Or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Luke 12:9
but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
Actually, I embrace life and I am quite happy and content. I love helping people out, and showing love and compassion toward others.
You can tell me since I reject God, I am rejecting life. I will counteract that and say because I reject God, I have embraced life.
You see what happens: You say one thing, and I say another thing. And around and around we go. Either way, its going to get us nowhere.
Believe what you want about me and my life. Makes no difference to me :) :)
Cheers.
-
Everything that exists doesn't just spontaneously just pop into existence. Unless there is God behind it.
So there is another God behind God ??? ,
-
So there is another God behind God ??? ,
Theists will give the typical response: There is only One God and that God has always been here. He is eternal. :-\
-
Theists will give the typical response: There is only One God and that God has always been here. He is eternal. :-\
But Wiggs said that ''everything that exists doesn't just spontaneously just pop into existence'' , either god was created by another god or god doesn't exist.
-
I embraced agnosticism to avoid these stupid debates about god. Who cares? Exist or do not exist, I only give a fuck about my proper existence and my fellow existence. What it will add to us, to know? If you fill your head with mystery of god, know you are a dumbass.
-
(https://lovrajkishork.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/god-loves-some-of-you-money.jpg)
-
I tried to tell you, I am trolling my friend, I am on your side.
I knew 5min after you posted. Wasn't directing that post at you. Your posting history tells me you're not given to childlike wonderings about an invisible creature creating everything .
-
............ winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
666 'greetings' :D
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/eb/eb9819ab87b98a2e302d50aa08b6f07135ac45bf52636846081427bf82e385f7.jpg)
-
Why are there still apes?
& U a still African , :'( :'( :'(
8)
-
BTW, thanks for the thread Ron. 8)
But Wiggzy U a proponent of fucked up Mayan calendar 2012 :D
-
Not this fucking bullshit again, for fucks sake. Go suck a pepsi can sized schlong Ron Harryington you dumb son of a bitch, people like you are holding humanity back you dirty girl.
-
ROFL, getting pwned by a homeschooler
Reality tends to get in the way, doesn't it?
-
Reality tends to get in the way, doesn't it?
369 wins ;D
-
Kill em Ron. I'm going to lunch. 8)
:o real Bible lingo ::)
-
:o real Bible lingo ::)
Spreading the love of the gospel. :D
-
Not this fucking bullshit again, for fucks sake. Go suck a pepsi can sized schlong Ron Harryington you dumb son of a bitch, people like you are holding humanity back you dirty girl.
Yet more nonsense. In deep denial. Utterly deluded. Incapable of rational thought. Total nutcase. It is hard to imagine that you could make a stronger case against atheism if you tried. How is it possible for you to be so completely out of touch with reality? Some individuals are so deficient in intelligence that we must infer that their skulls are empty cavities.
-
Yet more nonsense. In deep denial. Utterly deluded. Incapable of rational thought. Total nutcase. It is hard to imagine that you could make a stronger case against atheism if you tried. How is it possible for you to be so completely out of touch with reality? Some individuals are so deficient in intelligence that we must infer that their skulls are empty cavities.
"Reality."
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/15767532.jpg)
-
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
–Albert Einstein
Today's Creation Moment
James Clerk Maxwell
1 Corinthians 2:5
“That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Albert Einstein said that James Clerk Maxwell made greater contributions to physics than anyone except Isaac Newton.
Maxwell developed complex theoretical and mathematical explanations for all the forces in the universe except gravity and nuclear forces. He also made scientific contributions in the fields of thermodynamics and mathematics. In other words, Maxwell was a scientist of gigantic proportions who remains greatly respected today.
By today’s standards, Maxwell would be called a “fundamentalist.” Maxwell lived at the same time as Charles Darwin and was very aware of evolutionary theory. He felt strongly that evolution was anti scientific and wrote a powerful and important refutation of evolutionary writings. He also offered a very careful mathematical refutation of the theory that the solar system had evolved from a cloud of dust and gas.
The great scientist Maxwell believed that Jesus Christ is the Savior that God has provided to deliver humanity from the results of sin – including eternal death. A writing of his, found after his death, states that the motivation for his work was that God had created all things just as Genesis says. And since God has created humans in His image, scientific study is a fit activity for one’s lifework.
Prayer:
Heavenly Father, I pray today for the work of those in science who are convinced that You are indeed the Creator as described in Genesis. Though they are opposed by men, bless their work and move more of our Christian young people to follow in their footsteps. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
-
"Reality."
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/15767532.jpg)
Face it, son. Science says your beliefs are bullshit. No matter how much you whine and cry about it.
-
I think this Harrigan fellow is desperately trying to appear like he has had a good formal education. But it is obvious he hasn't. His arguments are infantile and devoid of logic.
-
THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED
1. "a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" -Gould, Stephen J.
2. "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism." (I.E., NO GRADUALISM)
3."There is no gradualism in the fossil record...Punctuated equilibrium was invented to describe the discontinuity."" - Evolutionist/Biologist Lyn Marguilis.
4. "our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them." -Gould, Stephen J.
5. Next scientist says the same thing: "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear "suddenly" in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time." -- Professor Enoch, University of Madras
NOTICE? He said "the facts"
6. Niles Eldredge, Gould's partner, concurs with Gould that "most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."
7. The late Dr. George Gaylord Simpson admitted, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature" (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In his 2000 article in Natural History,
8. Next is Patterson. Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson's recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them."
9. PROOF: "Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." -Patterson
BUT THAT'S OK. YOU CAN REFUSE TO READ AND REFUSE TO BE ENLIGHTENED BUT IT'S CALLED WILFUL IGNORANCE.
-
Even if evolution is incredibly fallible...
The next logical answer is not intelligent design and there is no proof to suggest that either.
-
I think this Harrigan fellow is desperately trying to appear like he has had a good formal education. But it is obvious he hasn't. His arguments are infantile and devoid of logic.
Ron Harrigan
(http://www.troll.me/images/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world/i-dont-always-copypaste-but-when-i-do-i-do-it-right-thumb.jpg)
-
THE UTTER IGNORANCE OF EVOLUTIONISTS:
YOUR CHALLENGE: In the so-called evolutionary process, what exactly 'evolves'?
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why many dominant species on Earth went non-evolved for tens of millions of years.
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain how the eye evolved, from what state, and what was its prior purpose.
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain the evolution of the Sexual Reproductive system, also, that of the heart.
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why, over millions of years, evolution happened with some apes but not others.
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why the evolution of the Human would result in its type of intelligence, versus all other species.
EV's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
PWNED
-
Even if evolution is incredibly fallible...
The next logical answer is not intelligent design and there is no proof to suggest that either.
Good grief. You are being deliberately obtuse. As predicted, you miss the point, which is that evolution is rankly refuted by science and reality. In other words, it didn't happen. Nothing evolved or evolves or will evolve. Sorry.
-
Nothing evolved or evolves or will evolve. Sorry.
Beaks of finches, butterflies, polar bears, etc. life adapts and evolves that is a proven fact.
-
The atheist silence is most instructive. They have no response to the scientific facts because of the myriad reasons atheism and evolution don't work, the relatively compact history of the universe being one of the most difficult to work around.
Today's Creation Moment
Are Rocks Like Vaults or Sponges?
1 Corinthians 2:7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"
One of the common methods of finding the age of rocks, and ultimately the age of the Earth, measures the decay of radioactive uranium into lead – the more lead, the older the rock. The method, however, makes some very big assumptions. First, scientists assume there was no lead in the rock when it first formed, but this is unprovable. Then, they assume that rocks are like locked vaults and that no uranium, lead, or the in between decay elements can ever enter or leave the rock.
The fact is, numerous scientific studies show all these assumptions are wrong. Studies have shown that commonly dated rock material can have lead in it as it crystallizes. Other studies have shown that lead, uranium and the other elements important for dating can be removed from the rock by simple weathering or other conditions. In other words, while evolutionary scientists compare rocks to locked vaults, we are learning they are more like sponges. This explains why evolutionary dating methods have found, for example, one part of a rock to be 30 times older than another part of the same rock.
The next time you hear someone say that certain rocks or the fossils in them are millions or billions of years old, just remember that rocks are not like vaults. They are more like sponges that gain or lose elements, making accurate dating impossible. There is no good scientific evidence that the Earth is any older than the few thousand years indicated by the Bible.
Prayer:
I thank You, Lord, that I can trust You as the Rock of Ages. Amen.
-
Beaks of finches, butterflies, polar bears, etc. life adapts and evolves that is a proven fact.
Adaptations and mutations are not evolution or prove there of. Evolution is not a fact.
-
Beaks of finches, butterflies, polar bears, etc. life adapts and evolves that is a proven fact.
So the finches remained finches, and Natural Selection REDUCED the total genetic information available. That, DEVOLUTION, is your best proof of evolution? Talk about being brainless. LMFAO.
-
The atheist silence is most instructive. They have no response to the scientific facts because of the myriad reasons atheism and evolution don't work, the relatively compact history of the universe being one of the most difficult to work around.
Today's Creation Moment
Are Rocks Like Vaults or Sponges?
1 Corinthians 2:7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"
One of the common methods of finding the age of rocks, and ultimately the age of the Earth, measures the decay of radioactive uranium into lead – the more lead, the older the rock. The method, however, makes some very big assumptions. First, scientists assume there was no lead in the rock when it first formed, but this is unprovable. Then, they assume that rocks are like locked vaults and that no uranium, lead, or the in between decay elements can ever enter or leave the rock.
The fact is, numerous scientific studies show all these assumptions are wrong. Studies have shown that commonly dated rock material can have lead in it as it crystallizes. Other studies have shown that lead, uranium and the other elements important for dating can be removed from the rock by simple weathering or other conditions. In other words, while evolutionary scientists compare rocks to locked vaults, we are learning they are more like sponges. This explains why evolutionary dating methods have found, for example, one part of a rock to be 30 times older than another part of the same rock.
The next time you hear someone say that certain rocks or the fossils in them are millions or billions of years old, just remember that rocks are not like vaults. They are more like sponges that gain or lose elements, making accurate dating impossible. There is no good scientific evidence that the Earth is any older than the few thousand years indicated by the Bible.
Prayer:
I thank You, Lord, that I can trust You as the Rock of Ages. Amen.
Why 2 steaks?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=459640.0;attach=505033;image)
-
Why 2 steaks?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=459640.0;attach=505033;image)
Why you are so fearful of the reality of Biblical creation, only you can know. But it's really simple. Some of us have a lot of trouble believing stuff on the basis of authority, in the absence of evidence, and particularly when beliefs are contradicted by evidence. That's what atheists like you insist on believing by the way.
-
So which "god" do these 44 Nobel Prize Winners believe is correct? The Judeo-Christian one? The Greco-Roman gods? Hindu gods? Norse Gods?
I mean if you're going to say the only obvious answer is a god...which one is it and what's the evidence to support that selection?
-
Dr. Christian B. Anfinsen — Biochemist, known for: Ribonuclease, Anfinsen's dogma; Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1972)
"We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place”
Prof. Dr. Sir Fred Hoyle - Astronomer
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
-
Jesus F'ng Christ
5 pages of this crap
how about you post this shit on the religion board
-
Why you are so fearful of the reality of Biblical creation, only you can know. But it's really simple. Some of us have a lot of trouble believing stuff on the basis of authority, in the absence of evidence, and particularly when beliefs are contradicted by evidence. That's what atheists like you insist on believing by the way.
First answer why 2 steaks?
-
Take a boxed cake mix, some eggs and some milk. Now...Throw 'em all against a wall and come back in 7 days and what have you got?
A mess. But why?
Ingredients are just that. You still need someone to combine them properly and then "bake" 'em.
But if some choose to think or believe otherwise I have no problem with that. No one will know the truth of any of this until they're dead.
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/eb/eb9819ab87b98a2e302d50aa08b6f07135ac45bf52636846081427bf82e385f7.jpg)
Silly boy. God needs nothing. Men on the other hand want what they want and especially so "religious" men. They tend to want sex, money and power and more often than not claim that "God" told them you need to give it up to them.
But you knew that.
I put no stock in religion and even less in men. Faith in Christ? That is another matter.
So then, what have I taught you this day? If you're going to make a point try not to make a fool of yourself.
-
Take a boxed cake mix, some eggs and some milk. Now...Throw 'em all against a wall and come back in 7 days and what have you got?
A mess. But why?
Ingredients are just that. You still need someone to combine them properly and then "bake" 'em.
But if some choose to think or believe otherwise I have no problem with that. No one will know the truth of any of this until they're dead.
I hate to break this to you.
But even if there was a "designer" - it does not mean that something happens when you die other than decomposition. A "designer" does not guarantee an afterlife.
-
I hate to break this to you.
But even if there was a "designer" - it does not mean that something happens when you die other than decomposition. A "designer" does not guarantee an afterlife.
Ummmm...Did you not read my words? If some think or believe otherwise that is fine with me. By default, "some" does indeed include you, my friend.
Again. None of us will know the truth of anything until we die. In other words, my faith may not be right but I chose it as I think it is right for me. Not you. Me. I will not force you to wear the same shoes as I nor do I really care if you wear shoes at all. Get it? Got it? Good.
Be well, sir. ;D
-
Silly boy. God needs nothing. Men on the other hand want what they want and especially so "religious" men. They tend to want sex, money and power and more often than not claim that "God" told them you need to give it up to them.
But you knew that.
I put no stock in religion and even less in men. Faith in Christ? That is another matter.
So then, what have I taught you this day? If you're going to make a point try not to make a fool of yourself.
Jesus's Dad (I mean Jesus) obviously needs human beings to believe in him it and to "accept" him as their personal saviour
Apparently Jesus's dad created everything for this one purpose. Get born, figure out which religion is "right" and get your ticket to heaven or fuck it up and spend eternity being tortured.
Why would Jesus dad create something only to know that a certain amount of his creation will spend their tiny speck of life not picking the right religion and then move on to eternal suffering
makes god seem like a prick
-
Adaptations and mutations are not evolution or prove there of. Evolution is not a fact.
"Check the Bible! Check Jesus! Evolution is not fact!"
(http://giant.gfycat.com/HarmfulCleanAardwolf.gif)
-
So which "god" do these 44 Nobel Prize Winners believe is correct? The Judeo-Christian one? The Greco-Roman gods? Hindu gods? Norse Gods?
I mean if you're going to say the only obvious answer is a god...which one is it and what's the evidence to support that selection?
Talk about red herrings. The there-are-many-gods-therefore-all-gods-including-the-true-one-are-false atheist argument. It is clear from careful examination of the evidence that Scripture is indubitable fact. So please, go pick up a King James Bible, and find out what you are missing. The only thing worse than ignorance is wilful ignorance.
-
what gets me is these mad hatters think - "woah I debunked evolution - now we can come back to the bible", but really what makes them think that the bible is the default position just because they think evolution is false - btw all those arguments against evolution have been continually debunked for ages
-
what gets me is these mad hatters think - "woah I debunked evolution - now we can come back to the bible", but really what makes them think that the bible is the default position just because they think evolution is false - btw all those arguments against evolution have been continually debunked for ages
Evolution hasn't been around for ages. Nice try.
The bible has and it has never been debunked and never will.
-
Jesus's Dad (I mean Jesus) obviously needs human beings to believe in him it and to "accept" him as their personal saviour
Apparently Jesus's dad created everything for this one purpose. Get born, figure out which religion is "right" and get your ticket to heaven or fuck it up and spend eternity being tortured.
Why would Jesus dad create something only to know that a certain amount of his creation will spend their tiny speck of life not picking the right religion and then move on to eternal suffering
makes god seem like a prick
Men are pricks. Men. Look at how we behave. Like I said, none of us will know the truth of anything until we breathe our last. I hope to hear the words, "Well done, faithful servant".
If there is nothing waiting for each of us, then we won't know poo. Will we? Yup.
-
Evolution hasn't been around for ages. Nice try.
The bible has and it has never been debunked and never will.
It's been around longer than you
-
Talk about red herrings. The there-are-many-gods-therefore-all-gods-including-the-true-one-are-false atheist argument. It is clear from careful examination of the evidence that Scripture is indubitable fact. So please, go pick up a King James Bible, and find out what you are missing. The only thing worse than ignorance is wilful ignorance.
What about Hindu scriptures that proclaim their gods are "true"? Their scriptures are thousands of years older than the Judeo Christian ones...it makes sense then that their revelation is the true one. Perhaps you should "go pick up the Bhagavad-Gita".
-
what gets me is these mad hatters think - "woah I debunked evolution - now we can come back to the bible", but really what makes them think that the bible is the default position just because they think evolution is false - btw all those arguments against evolution have been continually debunked for ages
When all of the facts line up on the side of creation, and none stand in support of evolution, what is an evolutionist to do? Deny, ignore, misrepresent and lie about what is known. These folk are aware that they are clueless about science, just as a person who is unable to speak Portuguese knows full well that he is unable to speak Portuguese. So when evolutionists like you make bold but false assertions about science, they are aware that they are lying. How exactly does that accord with the Ninth Commandment?
-
What about Hindu scriptures that proclaim their gods are "true"? Their scriptures are thousands of years older than the Judeo Christian ones...it makes sense then that their revelation is the true one. Perhaps you should "go pick up the Bhagavad-Gita".
I looked into the Krishna faith as a youth. From what I was told it was relatively new and mostly made up/embellished by Abhay Charanaravinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. This came from a former devotee of the faith. I have not looked into it much in many years but I was impressed that one George Harrison had embraced that belief and gave it serious consideration many years ago.
While your words are not directed at me I felt somewhat (albeit poorly) qualified to state my thoughts on it all the same. I did enjoy the food of the Krishna folk and was particularly fond of (and to some degree still am) of their music.
By the way, its turtles all the way down. ;D
-
Wiggs and Harrigan share the dunce's hat.
If evolution didn't occur then that is one sadistic uncaring creator. Flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, spiders, sharks, snakes, cockroaches, bugs, bacteria, diseases....yep, all created. Ditto for women with periods!
I mean, wtf kind of creation is that? Evolution is a fact but many Christians don't like the consequences so keep looking for ways to reject it.
The truth is religions are fabricated bullshit preying on human weakness. The Pope and other religious leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Total filt and evil.
-
Men are pricks. Men. Look at how we behave. Like I said, none of us will know the truth of anything until we breathe our last. I hope to hear the words, "Well done, faithful servant".
If there is nothing waiting for each of us, then we won't know poo. Will we? Yup.
must be because god created us in his image
what kind of god creates an entire universe (or thousands or god only knows how many) for the sole purpose of creating a dumb little man that then has to play a game of trying to pick the "right" religion or face eternal suffering.
Seems like god is pretty much a sadist
-
must be because god created us in his image
what kind of god creates and entire universe (or thousands or god only knows how many) for the sole purpose of creating a dumb little man that then has to play a game of trying to pick the "right" religion or face eternal suffering.
Seems like god is pretty much a sadist
An image can be distorted or glorified. Some choose to paint their own Picture of Dorian Grey. The choice is before each and every one of us and can be made for the better with or without a belief in the Christ or any God or gods for that matter. But you already know and understand this for you are no fool.
-
Wiggs and Harrigan share the dunce's hat.
If evolution didn't occur then that is one sadistic uncaring creator. Flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, spiders, sharks, snakes, cockroaches, bugs, bacteria, diseases....yep, all created. Ditto for women with periods!
I mean, wtf kind of creation is that? Evolution is a fact but many Christians don't like the consequences so keep looking for ways to reject it.
The truth is religions are fabricated bullshit preying on human weakness. The Pope and other religious leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Total filt and evil.
You need to evolve. Yup. I cannot help you. No one can. Change is up to you but please, change for the better and not the bitter.
-
Wiggs and Harrigan share the dunce's hat.
If evolution didn't occur then that is one sadistic uncaring creator. Flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, spiders, sharks, snakes, cockroaches, bugs, bacteria, diseases....yep, all created. Ditto for women with periods!
I mean, wtf kind of creation is that? Evolution is a fact but many Christians don't like the consequences so keep looking for ways to reject it.
The truth is religions are fabricated bullshit preying on human weakness. The Pope and other religious leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Total filt and evil.
The historical fact of creation and the mechanisms by which it occurred are among the best established results in all of science. Among scientists, there is no debate on the reality of either. None. No contrary evidence. No plausible alternative. Yet those who are ignorant of the facts, indeed, not interested in becoming informed, confidently assert that scientists are dunces.
The puzzlement is why you remain rooted in science denialism. What atheists like yourself regard as their greatest strength – the so-called theory of evolution – is in reality a flaw. They will disagree, thereby reinforcing my point. When deeply held atheist beliefs conflict with evidence, the only way to preserve those beliefs is to deny, ignore, misrepresent, dissemble, fudge, lie, disparage, and ultimately, to double down on delusion and outrageous claims in the face of established scientific facts. Numerous examples at this site (your post is but one example).
Evolution is not merely irrational, it also interferes with clear-headed analysis of facts. It jeopardizes the proper education of children, and it leads inevitably to bigotry and poor judgment. Pretending that one's grandfathers were monkeys is particularly idiotic. So why does such thinking persist? Evolution evidently helps atheists to flee reality. Early indoctrination, societal expectations and conventions, deference to authority, coercion and avoidance of those who think differently all play a role.
Progress towards a more rational and equitable religious society will require each of these factors to be addressed until atheist mythology ultimately collapses under its own weight. It is the responsibility of those who already get it to engage those who don't, as politely and gently as possible, but resolutely and without concern for occasional offence.
-
Harrigan, you really have no shame whatsoever. You are not qualified to judge evolution so stop with your crap gathered from Christian apologists.
Christ didn't exist and the Universe doesn't need God to be explained. Hope this helps but unfortunately your Dunce's hat prevents you from being
able to know the truth. Instead, you cling to your pathetic fables.
-
Harrigan, you really have no shame whatsoever. You are not qualified to judge evolution so stop with your crap gathered from Christian apologists.
Christ didn't exist and the Universe doesn't need God to be explained. Hope this helps but unfortunately your Dunce's hat prevents you from being
able to know the truth. Instead, you cling to your pathetic fables.
A defining characteristic of atheist folk is the unshakable acceptance of certain evolutionist beliefs no matter how thoroughly those beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence or how irrational, disingenuous or flat-out dishonest the special pleading that is then required to avoid the obvious. Evolutionists provide a particularly absurd example of religious delusion owing to the sheer volume of science that has to be denied or disregarded to preserve core beliefs. Given that the truth of creation has been uncontroversial in the scientific community for many centuries, it is unremarkable that 46% of Americans reject the myth of evolution, and a further 32% dismiss the silly storytelling of how evolution supposedly occurs via Natural Selection.
In marked contrast with the perception of non-scientists like yourself, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that much of what many believe about the origin of the human race and our place in the material world is simply not true. The challenge ahead is to find a way to communicate that Scriptural reality to a population that is ill-prepared to face it and that continues to indoctrinate children in mythological evolutionist nonsense. A short-term objective must be to persuade Christians to go public with their scientific facts, and to nudge those already on the fence onto the side of reason. The historical facts of Christ and of creation are not invalidated, and debunked atheist mythology like evolution does not then magically become true (except maybe to you), simply because you epically fail of grasping reality.
-
thanks ron - I now realise shinto buddhism is the path to follow - you've opened my eyes
-
1) The Bible : The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22)
Science Then : The earth is a flat disk
Science Now : The Earth is a sphere
You may want to really read rather than cut and paste : http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html
-
The philosophers of science are committed to accepting new theories as evidence warrants. I concur. The only unshakeable acceptance of beliefs is by some Christians who need Jesus and God to have a purpose in life.
How sad for those deluded individuals. The early Christians who wrote the Bible have deceived everyone. That is something that should make everyone angry. We were all duped about the truth.
Dr Richard Carrier has made a solid case re the non-historicity of Jesus. We await a peer reviewed reply from scholars who can present evidence that he really was a man. Nope, it is a sham like so much
else in our society.
-
Harrigan, you really have no shame whatsoever. You are not qualified to judge evolution so stop with your crap gathered from Christian apologists.
Christ didn't exist and the Universe doesn't need God to be explained. Hope this helps but unfortunately your Dunce's hat prevents you from being
able to know the truth. Instead, you cling to your pathetic fables.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/bingiisme/ONEWISADORABLE.gif)
-
First answer why 2 steaks?
He has evolved into a greedy pig....
-
Any good porn in those "holly" books :D
Supposedly Maria Magdalena was good fuck ;)
-
I've debated this evolution nonsense with the morons of this board many times over the years. It's crazy how people that are so learned in some areas are so stupid (yes, stupid) in others. This is what happens when you blindly trust a system. Evolution....HAHAHAHAHAH AHA. Fucking morons. As I've stated many times before.
SHOW ME THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!
SHOW ME PROOF OF EVOLUTION....NOT MUTATIONS. Mutations are non beneficial. Adaptation is not evolution. Define evolution when referring to how we "evolved" from slime, then show me this in nature. It's always the same bullshit. "Well Wiggs, this takes millions or billions of years" Get the fuck outta here with that shit. To this day none of the morons have showed one shred of proof to support this asinine theory.
Why are there still apes? Why are there still a large variety of animals and living creatures if we all evolved from the same thing. It's because evolution is utter bullshit.
THE BIBLE IS RIGHT...FACT!
Oh and before he chimes in...Shut up Adam. ::)
Say WHAT? Show you to proof of evolution, not mutations? Do the word "oxymoron" ring any bells in your big empty head? Evolution is mutations, but the problem is that completely stupid religious people are claiming, that all mutations are bad. That is silly, and it is also a lie. What you morons doesn't understand is the fact, that evolution is ongoing phenomena, it hasn't stop and its work is seen in everyday life. How, you ask because you are simple minded stupid. Well, if we look average height of the people in different continent, people get taller generation after generation. Why, you ask, because you are dumb as the donkey. Because we have moved from agricultural environment to technological environment, so we don't benefit to being short and strong structured. Most of our time is for leisure, and most of us have some kind of sport as a hobby, so by that we grow taller and lighter...just about everywhere else, than USA. There they grow fatter and fatter, until they die, just as stupid as they were when they born ;D
And what about the fossils? Explain them as a biblical point of view? They are millions of years old, so when exactly god did create this earth? Did he create it billions years ago, then he find himself thinking that it is fucking boring just levitate in thin air, so he create those critters which became the fossils millions of years later...but how? God just think that I had enough with this crap, and kill them by flood and shit storms? And what then? It is fucking boring out here, hello is anyone listening? Lets create some dinosaurs..and kazam, there they are...but even them were boring, so god kills them, those silly fuckers. What next? How about a man, who walk with his knuckles hanging on the ground? Let's create it, shall we..kazam..but this is dork, absolute no brains at all, so let's try again...kazam? And that he did like 20 times, before he were able to create modern man, who walks on two feet and fucks everything with the pulse. So were your god some kind of moron, because he create man to be his own image, but there is those 20 beta versions to be found from the time period of hundred of thousands of years.
And why all this crap? Why fossils exist? If those were creation of god but he want to kill them, why leave them to be fossils? Why he didn't cremate the fuckers to the ashes, because he has to know that ashes are good to the plants as fertilizer. He can create man from crap and woman from the bone of that, but he aren't able to make dinosaur carcasses disappear? But instead of that, he leave them to being found by man? What is the point? Just plain stupid ;D
And if he create everything, why he create things like oil through the evolution, and other things from crap etc.? What I mean is that the oil what they pump out from USA etc. have been grass and trees billions of years ago. Then evolution of the earth take its place and those trees and grass were packed deep in to soil, and pressure together with time make oil out of it. Why don't just create? And why oil, because it is evil stuff and spoil air of this planet? Why didn't he create some fuel which doesn't pollute at all? Why didn't him put the man to invent electric car instead of fuel burning motor? You don't have answers, and you cant find them, because you are too simple to do that.
-
Jesus F'ng Christ
5 pages of this crap
how about you post this shit on the religion board
AHAHAHAHAH!! I've been told the following has something to do with it....the assumption being I'd be unfair.
-
lol yeah, in case they would destroy your fairy tales a bit more.
AHAHAHAHAH!!! Yes the obvious conclusion.
-
Still makes me laugh how the 1 billion christians who within that 1 billion disagree about their own religion think they know more than the 6 billion other people on earth.
-
Atheism is the belief that an individual's intellectual capacity is more intelligent than the universe's. Many might claim advance physic degrees and other subjects but ask them to make a can opener with tools with a piece of metal. They draw a blank.
Most atheists will say a prayer at the end of their life just in case. In that one moment of doubt faith exists. As sure as evil is real so is goodness. No matter where you go in the world most religions have common components. God is a father figure. He loves us and wants us to live with him providing you live a live of goodness.
No matter how collectively smart our civilization is we cannot create life of even a one cell organism from non living materials. If atheist truly believed in their belief's they wouldn't be concerned with religious people. They are always involved in trying to stop religious people at every turn and that shows a lack of conviction. A true atheist wouldn't care what others believe or practice.
If God exists wouldn't his intelligence be something we couldn't even begin to comprehend?
-
Most atheists will say a prayer at the end of their life just in case.
Really? MOST atheists? Who undertook this worldwide study of all these atheists on their deathbeds, writing the notes as they passed away.
Please provide the links to this important study of MOST atheists
-
In the end no one knows fuck all so might as well believe in an imaginary man who gives you no reason to beleive he exists and some how just as nothing can't be made into something, who came from nowhere and has no existence of his own.
Can the nobel prize winner explain where God came frome?
Also a nocel prize is not the know all of everything. They usually win a prize for working on one specific topic.
-
Really? MOST atheists? Who undertook this worldwide study of all these atheists on their deathbeds, writing the notes as they passed away.
Please provide the links to this important study of MOST atheists
I bet you will. Your pompous pseudo intellectualism shows I struck a nerve. You're not as smart as you think. If you had conviction in your atheist believes you wouldn't care what believers think.
-
Still makes me laugh how the 1 billion christians who within that 1 billion disagree about their own religion think they know more than the 6 billion other people on earth.
An even crazier stat is the one that suggests that out of 7.2 billion folks on earth 216 million atheists (3% of the total) believe their worldview is superior to everyone else's.
-
An even crazier stat is the one that suggests that out of 7.2 billion folks on earth 216 million atheists (3% of the total) believe their worldview is superior to everyone else's.
That's the thing, no one knows anything. Regardless of one's thoughts on evolution and such is science can prove the earth is greater than 6000 years old. Also let's say there is a magical being named God who created everything. How did he create it? Seriously. Does he have a CAD program? It fucking takes me 10 hours to build a little village in minecraft. How in the world does one being create the earth, the layers, the resources, every little orgamism, micro orgamisms, viruses, bacteria, every grain of sand and dirt, gases of all kinds, all of the elements etc.... Is he some sort of architect, scientist and sadist all rolled into one?
-
That's the thing, no one knows anything. Regardless of one's thoughts on evolution and such is science can prove the earth is greater than 6000 years old. Also let's say there is a magical being named God who created everything. How did he create it? Seriously. Does he have a CAD program? It fucking takes me 10 hours to build a little village in minecraft. How in the world does one being create the earth, the layers, the resources, every little orgamism, micro orgamisms, viruses, bacteria, every grain of sand and dirt, gases of all kinds, all of the elements etc.... Is he some sort of architect, scientist and sadist all rolled into one?
Is the presupposition then that God is not a transcendent, supernatural being with providence over his creation? If attempting to force fit creative events into a purely naturalistic perspective I can see the difficulty.
I would also assume that you presuppose that I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
-
Is the presupposition then that God is not a transcendent, supernatural being with providence over his creation? If attempting to force fit creative events into a purely naturalistic perspective I can see the difficulty.
I would also assume that you presuppose that I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
If god is supernatural then why aren't we? Couldn't he have created everyone as supernatural? Are we just God's ant farm for his amusement? Why did God create earth? Was he bored? If God has always existed then are we the only earth, have there been other earths before us?
-
1) The Bible : The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22)
Science Then : The earth is a flat disk
Science Now : The Earth is a sphere
2) The Bible: Innumerable stars
(Jeremiah 33:22 )
Science Then : 1100 stars
Science Now : Innumerable Stars
3) The Bible: Air has weight
(Job 28:25)
Science Then : Air is weightless
Science Now: Air has weight
4) The Bible : Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41)
Science Then : All stars were the same
Science Now: Each star is different
5) The Bible : Light moves
(Job 38:19-20)
Science Then : Light was fixed in place
Science Now : Light Moves
6) Free Float Of Earth In Space
(Job 26:7)
Scientists Then : Earth sat on a large animal (hahaha sorry atheists make the best comedians)
Science Now : Free float of earth in space
7) The Bible : Winds Blow In Cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Science Then : Winds blew straight
Science Now : Winds blow in cyclones
8) The Bible : Ocean Floor contains deep valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
Science Then : The ocean floor was flat
Science Now : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
9) The Bible : Blood is the source of life and health
(Leviticus 17:11)
Science Then : Sick people must be bled
Science Now: Blood is the source of life and health
10) Creation Made Of Invisible Elements
Hebrews 11:3
Science Then: Mostly ignorant on the subject
Science Now Creation made of invisible elements
Can you people see how many times science has been wrong over and over again??? LOL Probably not because you atheists are blind hahahahah So I'll list a one more just for every atheist on this post.
11) The Bible: Ocean Contains springs
(Job 38:16)
Science Then : Ocean fed only by rivers and rain
Science now : Ocean Contains springs
All I know is one more is coming LOL
The Bible: There is a God
Atheists Then : There is no God
Atheists Soon : There is a God But wait it's too late!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
8) 8)
-
If god is supernatural then why aren't we? Couldn't he have created everyone as supernatural? Are we just God's ant farm for his amusement? Why did God create earth? Was he bored? If God has always existed then are we the only earth, have there been other earths before us?
If god is supernatural then why aren't we? In a sense we are supernatural as we are created by God who stands outside the scope of natural, scientific methodology. At the very least we are products of the supernatural...we originate from it. Still our nature is human while God's is divine.
Couldn't he have created everyone as supernatural? So I can understand, what do you mean by "as supernatural"? Equal to God? Ability to fly? Laser beam eyes?
Are we just God's ant farm for his amusement? He created us so that we could come into fellowship with him and glorify him. The more we fellowship with him the more we become like him.
Why did God create earth? The same reason he created everything else (all other non-human creations). In order to display his glory.
Was he bored? That would suggest a limitation on his part so I'd say no.
If God has always existed then are we the only earth, have there been other earths before us? Since we're speaking from a perspective of the biblical God then we can refer to his holy book that begins with "in the beginning". I wouldn't think there are alternate earths or realities given we are the genesis and his creative efforts have ceased.
-
An image can be distorted or glorified. Some choose to paint their own Picture of Dorian Grey. The choice is before each and every one of us and can be made for the better with or without a belief in the Christ or any God or gods for that matter. But you already know and understand this for you are no fool.
Why did you decide bring up an unrelated book of fiction?
was your point that people can take a book of fiction and interpret it to suit their needs?
where have I seen that before?
-
Last I heard, Ron Harrigan was banned. ;) ;)
-
Atheism is the belief that an individual's intellectual capacity is more intelligent than the universe's.
Not true, You just realize there is more out there than just Earth. That you will never know everything, so you go by what you do know, what can be proven by factual evidence.
-
Atheism is the belief that an individual's intellectual capacity is more intelligent than the universe's. Many might claim advance physic degrees and other subjects but ask them to make a can opener with tools with a piece of metal. They draw a blank.
Most atheists will say a prayer at the end of their life just in case. In that one moment of doubt faith exists. As sure as evil is real so is goodness. No matter where you go in the world most religions have common components. God is a father figure. He loves us and wants us to live with him providing you live a live of goodness.
No matter how collectively smart our civilization is we cannot create life of even a one cell organism from non living materials. If atheist truly believed in their belief's they wouldn't be concerned with religious people. They are always involved in trying to stop religious people at every turn and that shows a lack of conviction. A true atheist wouldn't care what others believe or practice.
If God exists wouldn't his intelligence be something we couldn't even begin to comprehend?
You just made up your own ridiculous definition of atheism that is patently incorrect. Atheism has a known definition, it's like me saying the definition of theism is a round hole on a wooden ship. Shit doesn't work like that, you don't get to use words however you want without some consensus of agreement.
-
You just made up your own ridiculous definition of atheism that is patently incorrect. Atheism has a known definition, it's like me saying the definition of theism is a round hole on a wooden ship. Shit doesn't work like that, you don't get to use words however you want without some consensus of agreement.
No, the atheist proposition is that they aren't required to prove or disprove anything. They place the burden of proof on the theist who makes the initial and/or affirmative claim.
All atheism represents is a lack of belief in God or gods due to the rejection of all available evidence. Further claims of insufficient evidence (in spite of their presuppositions) or a claim of a "total lack of any evidence whatsoever" (this statement often peppered with references to "flying spaghetti monsters", "storybooks written by ancient goat herders", "fairytales", "how did Noah get every species in the ark" and "the man in the clouds") is par for the course in this type of "discourse".
Some atheists go a step further claiming that all people are atheists. Given that theists believe in their God and reject all other gods they are deemed atheists towards all other gods.
atheist: "a" - without or lack of belief
"theist" - a person who believes in god(s)
"atheist" - a person that is without or has a lack of belief in god(s)
The term "atheist" is almost deemed unnecessary by the atheist community as a "non-theist" feels equally as ridiculous as a "non-gardener" or "non-chef". Since we don't refer to those things in that that way we don't need the term "atheist". Typically we only define the affirmative position on things.
-
atheist: "a" - without or lack of belief
"theist" - a person who believes in god(s)
"atheist" - a person that is without or has a lack of belief in god(s)
The term "atheist" is almost deemed unnecessary by the atheist community as a "non-theist" feels equally as ridiculous as a "non-gardener" or "non-chef". Since we don't refer to those things in that that way we don't need the term "atheist". Typically we only define the affirmative position on things.
Who really cares about a definition. Atheism is just the rejection of a God(s) based on lack of sufficient evidence.
Seriously, this is not brain surgery. More important things to worry about than a definition.
-
.
-
atheist: "a" - without or lack of belief
"theist" - a person who believes in god(s)
"atheist" - a person that is without or has a lack of belief in god(s)
The term "atheist" is almost deemed unnecessary by the atheist community as a "non-theist" feels equally as ridiculous as a "non-gardener" or "non-chef". Since we don't refer to those things in that that way we don't need the term "atheist". Typically we only define the affirmative position on things.
I honestly don't understand your post unless you misunderstood mine.
-
I honestly don't understand your post unless you misunderstood mine.
I was providing the common definition for an atheist based upon numerous atheists comments I've read and heard over the years.
-
REJECTION OF EVOLUTION (ALONG WITH ATHEISM)
BTW the MAIN REASON people reject evolution is because
#1 there is NO proof for it
#2 it's recognized as a hoax
#3 anyone who really knows science knows that evolution has NOTHING to do with science
#4 99.99% of all evolutionists rely on logical fallacies, intimidation and insults as the main parts of their scientific arguments
#5 it's perfectly obvious that evolutionists are liars; they deny design, something that is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
#6 the fossil record disproves evolution; it shows animals suddenly appeared full formed and never changed.
#7 in the entire existence of mankind there is not one reported case of a new animal appearing
(http://i55.tinypic.com/w1r1c5.jpg)
-
Adaptations and mutations are not evolution or prove there of. Evolution is not a fact.
But nurse Milton, who is darker you or your Afro grandpa & how black was his grandpa 8)
FACT: Australian snakes evolution in the last 10 years is very visible , reason is poisonous cane toad spreading, sneak heads a now much smaller ;)
FACT 2: smart AU birds now peel of poisonous cane toads skin & then eat them, not like before
FACT 3: several other hunters, don't eat those toads any more , etc,........
-
So was everything supposed to evolve into a human?
-
atheist: "a" - without or lack of belief
"theist" - a person who believes in god(s)
"atheist" - a person that is without or has a lack of belief in god(s)
The term "atheist" is almost deemed unnecessary by the atheist community as a "non-theist" feels equally as ridiculous as a "non-gardener" or "non-chef". Since we don't refer to those things in that that way we don't need the term "atheist". Typically we only define the affirmative position on things.
you need a label if you're gonna go around burning people at the stake - it just works better
-
Why did you decide bring up an unrelated book of fiction?
was your point that people can take a book of fiction and interpret it to suit their needs?
where have I seen that before?
Fine, be an asshole then. Here allow me to put in a simple and concise way that even one such as you can understand. Go intercourse yourself.
There now. We can all get along fine, right? What a fooktard. And yes I would say as much to your face and not worry one bit about the here and now or the hereafter.
Some of you children crack me up. I can get along with almost anyone. Almost. Again, go intercourse yourself little man. Oh, and its not as though you don't have your lucid moments but this ignorant display of faux machismo ain't one of 'em.
What a pricklet.
-
Fine, be an asshole then. Here allow me to put in a simple and concise way that even one such as you can understand. Go intercourse yourself.
There now. We can all get along fine, right? What a fooktard. And yes I would say as much to your face and not worry one bit about the here and now or the hereafter.
Some of you children crack me up. I can get along with almost anyone. Almost. Again, go intercourse yourself little man. Oh, and its not as though you don't have your lucid moments but this ignorant display of faux machismo ain't one of 'em.
What a pricklet.
I have no idea which one of my three sentences made you so mad
or even why the anger at any of those questions
-
I was providing the common definition for an atheist based upon numerous atheists comments I've read and heard over the years.
I realize that, so you are in agreement with me.
Lack of belief in god does not mean man worships himself, the concept of requiring worship is a theist one.
-
Worshipping anything is ridiculous...
-
my muscles require worship, salvation bestowed!
-
If god is supernatural then why aren't we? In a sense we are supernatural as we are created by God who stands outside the scope of natural, scientific methodology. At the very least we are products of the supernatural...we originate from it. Still our nature is human while God's is divine. Divine basically means relating to, coming from, or like God or a god. So it would appear that we are devine too.
Couldn't he have created everyone as supernatural? So I can understand, what do you mean by "as supernatural"? Equal to God? Ability to fly? Laser beam eyes? What do YOU define as supernatural being that we are products of the supernatural?
Are we just God's ant farm for his amusement? He created us so that we could come into fellowship with him and glorify him. The more we fellowship with him the more we become like him. So, God made us and yet he needs to be reminded how great 'his' actions are in creating us? Almost borderline narcissistic. Fellowship is a friendly association generally with people of the same interest. Hmmm so if some love football and others hate football....which side does God choose?
Why did God create earth? The same reason he created everything else (all other non-human creations). In order to display his glory. Little pent up need to be noticed? Look at me, look what I can do! Now bow down to me like the slaves you are
Was he bored? That would suggest a limitation on his part so I'd say no. You may say that, but what does God say
If God has always existed then are we the only earth, have there been other earths before us? Since we're speaking from a perspective of the biblical God then we can refer to his holy book that begins with "in the beginning". I wouldn't think there are alternate earths or realities given we are the genesis and his creative efforts have ceased.
So what was God thinking putting water on Mars? The Bible was written by HUMANS, who had NO concept of galaxies, solar systems, etc. Oh wait, it was written in there about God creating the heavens and the earth. How do you know there isn't another 'earth' out there. Have you asked God if he created another Earth? If so, what was the answer. Is that a prayer that can be answered?
-
I've debated this evolution nonsense with the morons of this board many times over the years. It's crazy how people that are so learned in some areas are so stupid (yes, stupid) in others. This is what happens when you blindly trust a system. Evolution....HAHAHAHAHAH AHA. Fucking morons. As I've stated many times before.
SHOW ME THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!
SHOW ME PROOF OF EVOLUTION....NOT MUTATIONS. Mutations are non beneficial. Adaptation is not evolution. Define evolution when referring to how we "evolved" from slime, then show me this in nature. It's always the same bullshit. "Well Wiggs, this takes millions or billions of years" Get the fuck outta here with that shit. To this day none of the morons have showed one shred of proof to support this asinine theory.
Why are there still apes? Why are there still a large variety of animals and living creatures if we all evolved from the same thing. It's because evolution is utter bullshit.
THE BIBLE IS RIGHT...FACT!
Oh and before he chimes in...Shut up Adam. ::)
The utter stupidity in the above post would be entertaining if the person wasn't serious...
-
We all know that god is dead. They have told us.
-
We all know that god is dead. They have told us.
go to the depths of your own being, then ask the question is god dead.
-
Fundamentalists, theists = trolls
http://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514 (http://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514)
-
The philosophers of science are committed to accepting new theories as evidence warrants. I concur. The only unshakeable acceptance of beliefs is by some Christians who need Jesus and God to have a purpose in life.
How sad for those deluded individuals. The early Christians who wrote the Bible have deceived everyone. That is something that should make everyone angry. We were all duped about the truth.
Dr Richard Carrier has made a solid case re the non-historicity of Jesus. We await a peer reviewed reply from scholars who can present evidence that he really was a man. Nope, it is a sham like so much
else in our society.
perhaps jesus is just a parable. we've all made sacrifices in service of muscular hypertrophy. What higher purpose is there that that?
-
It's no wonder the human race never advances...too many ignorant idiots like Ron Harrigan.
-
It's no wonder the human race never advances...too many ignorant idiots like Ron Harrigan.
advance where?
-
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/secularoutpost/files/2013/08/Fake-and-Real-Jesus.jpg)
-
It is no surprise that brainless idiots like Straw Man, Dantelis, Vince Basile the history-denier, and other atheist arseheads fail to comprehend that the great Ron Harrigan has slain atheism forever with the sharp sword of science. Of course evolution is also retarded rubbish believed only by gullible mongs.
-
The philosophers of science are committed to accepting new theories as evidence warrants. I concur. The only unshakeable acceptance of beliefs is by some Christians who need Jesus and God to have a purpose in life.
How sad for those deluded individuals. The early Christians who wrote the Bible have deceived everyone. That is something that should make everyone angry. We were all duped about the truth.
Dr Richard Carrier has made a solid case re the non-historicity of Jesus. We await a peer reviewed reply from scholars who can present evidence that he really was a man. Nope, it is a sham like so much
else in our society.
Carrier is an atheist moron, not an actual historian, and hence his views are biased nonsense. Only a gullible idiot like you could believe his nonsense. No serious scholar denies that Christ existed, and the events depicted in the Bible are accepted as verified history. To deny Christ is akin to denying that the Roman Empire ever existed. Surely even you can't be that stupid.
-
We all know that god is dead. They have told us.
If God were dead, you would not even exist, you brainless moron.
-
If god is supernatural then why aren't we? In a sense we are supernatural as we are created by God who stands outside the scope of natural, scientific methodology. At the very least we are products of the supernatural...we originate from it. Still our nature is human while God's is divine.
Couldn't he have created everyone as supernatural? So I can understand, what do you mean by "as supernatural"? Equal to God? Ability to fly? Laser beam eyes?
Are we just God's ant farm for his amusement? He created us so that we could come into fellowship with him and glorify him. The more we fellowship with him the more we become like him.
Why did God create earth? The same reason he created everything else (all other non-human creations). In order to display his glory.
So god created the universe, earth, and then humans, so humans could tell him ; wow man,you re so powerful! ? Do you even start to realize how fucking dumb what you re saying is? He s basically acting like pretentious... HUMAN KID, creating stuff so people would compliment him ? or are you attributing "him" human behaviors, which is actually described as being anthropomorphism ? How comes he is suposed to be a super sky daddy, a dad just like ..humans have ? Do you realize that in all religions gods were always men like super father who knew everything and made the rules...just like males who ruled the human species for milleniums did? Fact is god(s) are a creation of man, who is an animal. He s an almighty, eternal, MALE created by ...males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
Was he bored? That would suggest a limitation on his part so I'd say no.
If God has always existed then are we the only earth, have there been other earths before us? Since we're speaking from a perspective of the biblical God then we can refer to his holy book that begins with "in the beginning". I wouldn't think there are alternate earths or realities given we are the genesis and his creative efforts have ceased.
rofl.
You re sinking.
-
you need a label if you're gonna go around burning people at the stake - it just works better
You'll have to forgive me. What?
-
I realize that, so you are in agreement with me.
Lack of belief in god does not mean man worships himself, the concept of requiring worship is a theist one.
No I just defined atheism.
-
rofl.
You re sinking.
Thanks for the information. Never read anything like it before.
-
I don't know you so I'll ask.....do you want me to provide you longer more indepth responses?
-
No I just defined atheism.
Yes and definitions imply meaning, no where does it state anything about man and worshipping himself etc.
-
Yes and definitions imply meaning, no where does it state anything about man and worshipping himself etc.
Sorry I wasn't part of the argument. ...just defined atheism.
-
Sorry I wasn't part of the argument. ...just defined atheism.
So you decided to interject with the definition and not be a part of the argument. Ok...
I assumed you were implying something.
-
So you decided to interject with the definition and not be a part of the argument. Ok...
I assumed you were implying something.
The definition of atheism was being mentioned so I threw it in... that was it.
Haven't done any deep end of the pool stuff in this thread.
-
Straight to the religion board when the thread is dead.