Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creation or Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by eXcessiveForce
    The theory of Evolution uses adaptation as a vehicle for evolution but no proof exists that this actual has occurred, can occur or will occur in the future.

    If we all evolved from apes then why are there still apes? shouldn't they be gone. Where is the link between apes an people? I have not seen any ape like humans, Except maybe in NHB
    Proof is a slippery concept in science - Evolution is a theory supported by evidence. It is the favored theory amoung scientists because it explains the situation better than any other explanation. So to the first point - you are correct no 'proof' exists, only more evidence for this than any other theory.

    There are piles of evidence that evolution has occurred. Fossil evidence clearly shows creatures from the distant past which resemble creatures from the middle past which resemble creatures alive today. It's not a dramatic jump, it a slow adaptation.

    No, the Apes shouldn't be gone. At some point apes began to differentiate and a strain began to develop greater cognitive ability (or whatever you want to call it). This doesn't mean the ape as a creature disappeared, only that the gene pool expanded in another direction

    Comment


    • #62
      and stupid, nonsense statements like 'you can't disprove god' which mean absolutely nothing whatsoever in an argument in which the burden of proof lies upon the believer.

      Why? If a group of people are discussing God, why does the believer have any more burden of proof than the disbeliever? I mean, if he came to your door to convince you, then sure, but we are all posting here so it's a conversation.


      Additionally, I don't see that science and faith are mutually exclusive. To say that God can't exist because man can't measure him in a test tube is a ludicrous fallacy off reasoning.



      Man and God are sitting on a park bench. Man says to God " I can do anything you can, there isn't anyhting you cn do that I can't improve on."

      So God picks up some dirt and with it creates a beatiful bird.
      Man says "great, now watch me" man goes to pick up some dirt, but God stops him and says" Uh-uh, you go get your own dirt."

      ba-dum-bum

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sanitarium

        The typical arguments of a net-christian (my pet name for them) include things like blind adamance, eloquent words aimed at baffling the 'enemy', convenient getouts (always used with the bible), referalls to an unreliable, 2000 year old fairy tale, and stupid, nonsense statements like 'you can't disprove god' which mean absolutely nothing whatsoever in an argument in which the burden of proof lies upon the believer.
        See, here we go again, busting on the Bible with no proof. Tell me, why is it fairy tales? Do you believe in homer's odyssey? Do you believe he wrote it? Have you ever questioned it's authenticity? No, of course not. What if I told you that we only have 74 manuscripts (if you want I can get you the source) of homer's odyssey. Furthermore, we have thousands of manuscripts of the Bible. Explain that.


        Originally posted by Sanitarium
        The second your God comes up to my door, and explains to me why he felt the need to 'create' a world full of natural disasters, and why he oh so conveniently has only ever showed any proof of his amazing powers to some crackpot arabs 2000 years ago who didn't even know the earth was round, I'll believe you.
        First of all, could you design a better world? Could you design an eyeball, a digestive track. Could you design a food chain? Could you design other star systems? When you have, email it to me, I'd like to see it.

        To limit his revelations to only 2000 years ago is absurd and once again we have someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. This isn't the first time God kept quiet. There have been other periods of thousands of years when God said nothing according to our "fairy tale." You ought try reading it.


        -Hikage

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by gregimotis
          Why? If a group of people are discussing God, why does the believer have any more burden of proof than the disbeliever? I mean, if he came to your door to convince you, then sure, but we are all posting here so it's a conversation.
          Because the sum of evidence against god is more than there is for god.

          Asking us to 'disprove god' is as stupid as saying 'I'm actually a cat. Disprove it'.

          Additionally, I don't see that science and faith are mutually exclusive. To say that God can't exist because man can't measure him in a test tube is a ludicrous fallacy off reasoning.
          Scientific research, and the whole method of science itself, dictates that the concept of a christian god is ludicrous. My point is that we don't need to measure him in a test tube.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Hikage
            See, here we go again, busting on the Bible with no proof. Tell me, why is it fairy tales? Do you believe in homer's odyssey? Do you believe he wrote it? Have you ever questioned it's authenticity? No, of course not. What if I told you that we only have 74 manuscripts (if you want I can get you the source) of homer's odyssey. Furthermore, we have thousands of manuscripts of the Bible. Explain that.
            It's fairly tales because the stories it tells and things it talks about are similiar to what I've read in fictional books. I don't need proof to say that the bible is a load of crap. It talks about a man parting an ocean ffs. It talks about putting 2 of every species of animal in the world on a big magical boat. It talks about someone turning a fish and some bread into loads of meals. It's implicit.

            I'll set the scene. The time is ...2000 years ago. Man is a stupid beast, he doesn't know much about the world around him. He can't explain death, he can't explain life, he can't explain earthquakes, he can't explain why he's different to animals. His primitive, flawed reasoning leads to many incorrect assumptions about his environment. Things like...'the earth is flat'. Man often gets scared of things like death, because he doesn't know what happens. Man seeks an explanation. Using aforementioned primitive, flawed logic he comes to the conclusion that there's a mysterious King-like being who magically 'created' the world, and it's inhabitants. Man mixes in some stories, and spreads the word. The concept of this God figure is interesting to other examples of Man, and the idea of being rewarded with a place in 'Heaven' after death is quite tempting. And so the religion spreads, and parents indoctrinate their children. Over the next 2000 years, scientific advances are huge. Funnily enough, a lot of them go a long way towards proving beyond reasonable doubt that this religion thing is a load of bollocks. But no, people are stuck in a rut and dislike this idea. They carry on indoctrinating their children, while certain individuals strive to research the world around them to new heights.

            And now we arrive at present day. Unfortunately, indoctrination is still rife. Yet most people, although maybe wondering about how life originated in their childhood, reach an emotional and logical maturity in their late teens and rightfully throw the idea of God away where it belongs - in the annals of history, that box next to the trash can.


            First of all, could you design a better world? Could you design an eyeball, a digestive track. Could you design a food chain? Could you design other star systems? When you have, email it to me, I'd like to see it.
            Yes I could design a better eyeball, and a better digestive tract. The world would have to wait til I studied Geography in detail enough to know how tectonic plates etc work. For the eyeball I'd design it using an array of hard, light-sensitive molecules for greater resolution and protection than the human eye. Oh wait, we've already designed a better eye. It's called the Digital Camera. God didn't bless us with eyes like that did he? Why not? Hmm. I thought he made Man in his image? Did God have poor eyesight then?

            To limit his revelations to only 2000 years ago is absurd and once again we have someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
            You're clutching at straws now. The reference to the 2000 year mark was because that's when the christian calendar starts. Feel free to try and 'prove' how I don't know what I'm talking about by referring to the my other points, as they are the main body of my argument.

            This isn't the first time God kept quiet. There have been other periods of thousands of years when God said nothing according to our "fairy tale." You ought try reading it.
            And all of these periods just happen to leave behind not a trace of evidence. How convenient! You must LOVE it, heh. The same god who designed a world which would from time to time, randomly devastate populations of his people with earthquakes, volcanos, tidal waves. I ask, why would this God appear, do all the shit, mess about with Jesus for a bit then dissapear for so long? The fact that he supposedly interacted with people like Moses in the first place shows that he wanted people to acknowledge his existence. The bible states he is omnipotent and omniscient, and thus should know that these days, hardly anyone really believes in him (and not for the right reasons either). so why not make a guest appearance?

            Don't tell me, 'the lord works in mysterious ways'? Yeah..right.

            Comment


            • #66
              there was a documentary on TV a few weeks ago, Stories like that of Mozes is based on parts that could be true BUT not within one lifetime, it stretches a period of more than 200 years
              And this is true for most of the old testament

              Seems the writers of the old testament weren't reporting but making a point, they tried to instill believes in the semite people


              Personally I don't find a creation that uses the same blueprint all the time only changing less than 1% not that creative

              Comment


              • #67
                out of left field

                .....do you not believe in a force in this universe greater than us? Whether you choose to call it God or what have you... can you deny its existence? Religious indoctrination....no matter what you choose to do with it when you get older.....I believe children need something in their lives.......they have to understand that there is something greater than us.......and for those of us that like to think we're all grown up........Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot should drive home the point that we are just a speck on the eyelash of God...or whatever you choose to call that divine force.......it's a quarter to five in the a.m. what the heck am I doing up so early....going back to....................thanks for letting me throw in my 2 and 1/4 cents.....

                Comment


                • #68
                  Sant, Now you are ranting. You are not using logic in your arguments. You have resorted to saying you can say something is so because you believe it. Belief is the same as indoctrination. Something in your life now causes you to feel that you are correct about the bible. When I studied logic in college we were not allowed to factor in belief or feelings in our arguments.

                  If you notice I did not try to prove that God exists or does not exist. That was not the point in question.

                  The question is creation or evolution.

                  To which I replied that Evolution has not been proven nor observed and that is why science calls it a theory. Scientists of high caliber also will often say that the best answer to how the universe started in that there is a God that is all powerful. Why because then everything can work out no matter what. But sciense has to have Empirical evidence. Now if God were to show up and prove he did it. Science will then recognize God as the creator, Until then they will not. Science only tells us about what we can observe.


                  My problems with this thread are people claiming to use logic when they are not.
                  Saying that we have created life. We never have not even close!
                  Saying evolution happens. We have never seen it.
                  Saying that we started out as inorganic material that slowly became life. Refuted by Biogenisis.
                  Saying that we came from an explosion (chaos) and became an ordered life form (order) Refuted by Thermodynamics.

                  So I have based what I have said on Science, Logic, Empirical reasoning.

                  Common sense is not used in science. No where when I studied science did we get to say. Well it's just common sense. Science says prove it. and then prove it again.

                  So if you want to attack someones beliefs by telling them there is no God, Prove it. Otherwise you are just taking your beliefs and trying to force them on someone else.

                  And to date the Human animal is much more sophisticated than anything we can create or even come close to creating. The human eye is thousands of times more complex than a camera of any type. It operates faster than any camera and can render images in 3 dimensions. It takes very fancy equipment to do that. Also it fits into a very small space.

                  Besides which eyes should not exist in the theory of evolution. Because to first have eyes one must have a place in the skull from which they may protrude. This means you must have a whole in the skull. This is a vunerability that should have made any creature trying to get eyes weaker than others.

                  Realize they could not just have eyes. It would be slow over time. Also eyes are prone to infection and damage and have very little covering. All of these things makes it unlikely that eyes could have evolved.


                  Bottom line, If you say you are going to use science then use science. If logic then use logic. But if you are going to come in and say I believe this then stand up and say these are my beliefs. Don't try to hide behind science and tell everyone that your beliefs are science. Because they are not even though you might like it to be so.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    sigh, this is getting easy.

                    Originally posted by Sanitarium

                    I'll set the scene. The time is ...2000 years ago. Man is a stupid beast, he doesn't know much about the world around him. He can't explain death, he can't explain life, he can't explain earthquakes, he can't explain why he's different to animals. His primitive, flawed reasoning leads to many incorrect assumptions about his environment. Things like...'the earth is flat'. Man often gets scared of things like death, because he doesn't know what happens. Man seeks an explanation. Using aforementioned primitive, flawed logic he comes to the conclusion that there's a mysterious King-like being who magically 'created' the world, and it's inhabitants. Man mixes in some stories, and spreads the word. The concept of this God figure is interesting to other examples of Man, and the idea of being rewarded with a place in 'Heaven' after death is quite tempting. And so the religion spreads, and parents indoctrinate their children. Over the next 2000 years, scientific advances are huge. Funnily enough, a lot of them go a long way towards proving beyond reasonable doubt that this religion thing is a load of bollocks. But no, people are stuck in a rut and dislike this idea. They carry on indoctrinating their children, while certain individuals strive to research the world around them to new heights.
                    I've heard this before and it doesn't impress me any more this time. This is waht I mean that you don't know what you're talking about. You're doing the same things that you are accusing the Christians of doing and that is throwing around theories w/o having anything to them. I offered statistics to you on the presence of manuscripts, to which you responded nothing. I'm sure you just overlooked that.

                    As far as the science goes, once again, you don't know waht you are talking about. It seems that every time someone tries prove God wrong, they end up proving him correct. To say that science is proving it wrong is a blatant lie and you haven't done your research. You're merely parroting something someone else told you. For example: They thought that Christ never lived and that he was some Grimm brothers creation... archaeolgists have found his equivalent of a death certificate. Furthermore, since we know he lived, how come no one has ever produced a body to say that he did in fact stay dead instead of rising as we know he did?
                    Other diggings have found that almost every culture carries a story of a wide-spread flood which all took place around the same time. Now why is that?
                    Once again, we know where the city of Jerico was. Archaeologists have discovered taht the walls have fallen away from the city, as opposed to inward which is the direction most city walls that are under siege fall.

                    Originally posted by Sanitarium
                    Yes I could design a better eyeball, and a better digestive tract. The world would have to wait til I studied Geography in detail enough to know how tectonic plates etc work.
                    So you're admitting that you don't know how to do it. Interesting.

                    Originally posted by Sanitarium
                    For the eyeball I'd design it using an array of hard, light-sensitive molecules for greater resolution and protection than the human eye. Oh wait, we've already designed a better eye. It's called the Digital Camera. God didn't bless us with eyes like that did he? Why not? Hmm. I thought he made Man in his image? Did God have poor eyesight then?
                    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't digital cameras take batteries? Are we all going to have a Duracell sticking out of our heads? How are you going to power it genius? Plus, I don't really want to short circuit every time it rains.



                    Originally posted by Sanitarium
                    You're clutching at straws now. The reference to the 2000 year mark was because that's when the christian calendar starts. Feel free to try and 'prove' how I don't know what I'm talking about by referring to the my other points, as they are the main body of my argument.
                    See above comments. I stick to my conclusion. You don't know what you're talking about. All you have is a number of unfounded theories that aren't even creative.



                    Originally posted by Sanitarium
                    And all of these periods just happen to leave behind not a trace of evidence. How convenient! You must LOVE it, heh.
                    What are you talking about?

                    Originally posted by Sanitarium
                    The same god who designed a world which would from time to time, randomly devastate populations of his people with earthquakes, volcanos, tidal waves. I ask, why would this God appear, do all the shit, mess about with Jesus for a bit then dissapear for so long? The fact that he supposedly interacted with people like Moses in the first place shows that he wanted people to acknowledge his existence. The bible states he is omnipotent and omniscient, and thus should know that these days, hardly anyone really believes in him (and not for the right reasons either). so why not make a guest appearance?

                    Don't tell me, 'the lord works in mysterious ways'? Yeah..right.
                    Simple actually. As I stated in other posts. God doesn't just spoon feed his followers because that would produce only a bunch of robots. He would rather us decide by our own free will that He exists. He wants us to use our faith, thus producing a bunch of serious followers.

                    Now, instead of saying all this about science.. do you have something concrete or do you conceede that you really don't know what you're talking about?

                    -Hikage

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by eXcessiveForce
                      Sant, Now you are ranting. You are not using logic in your arguments.
                      I think you'll find I am. Go read the definition I posted. Lying is even worse than avoidance.

                      You have resorted to saying you can say something is so because you believe it.
                      ...no I haven't? I don't believe anything unless it either makes sense using known laws or I see it myself. I don't NEED to be hit by a car at 100mph to know that it'd kill me because I understand physics and biology. See?

                      Belief is the same as indoctrination.
                      Ridiculous statement! Indoctrination is forcing views on vulnerable people (like children) when they are incapable of knowing/finding out otherwise. The Nazis did it and religious people have done it for hundreds of years. Kids are taught to believe in their parents religion before they can think for themselves. Which imo is disgusting, parents do not 'own' their children and putting ideas in their heads which will dramatically affect the way they think or live should be against human rights.

                      Belief, (and I assume you mean belief in scientific principles), is different from indoctrination. My teachers at school did not tell me there was a god or there wasn't. They didn't say 'the big bang happened, end of story'. They explained to me the reasons behind the theory of the big bang and let me come to my own conclusion about it. Same with gravity, radiation, etc etc. You only need to either drop a ball on the floor, or see a video about Hiroshima to know that what we've learned about those parts of science are true. There is no evidence towards the existence of a Christian God. Big difference.

                      Something in your life now causes you to feel that you are correct about the bible.
                      Yes, it's called intelligence.

                      When I studied logic in college we were not allowed to factor in belief or feelings in our arguments.
                      Nor have I. You can't call scientific evidence a 'belief' because you merely have to open your eyes to the world around you to see/hear/touch/smell actual proof beyond reasonable doubt that what we've learnt from research is true. Science IS logic. It IS intelligence.

                      If you notice I did not try to prove that God exists or does not exist. That was not the point in question.

                      The question is creation or evolution.
                      And you'll notice I never specifically adressed you either.

                      To which I replied that Evolution has not been proven nor observed and that is why science calls it a theory. Scientists of high caliber also will often say that the best answer to how the universe started in that there is a God that is all powerful.
                      Oh really? I doubt any reputable scientist (non-indoctrinated) would confirm that that is the 'best answer'. It's a possible answer. But a possible answer that is very very unlikely, and even if it was true, leaves behind more questions to be answered. Like 'who made God'. 'God just was' is not a valid answer to that question.

                      Why because then everything can work out no matter what. But sciense has to have Empirical evidence. Now if God were to show up and prove he did it. Science will then recognize God as the creator, Until then they will not. Science only tells us about what we can observe.
                      You're actually helping me there ya know. What have christians observed about God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. They put their faith in an old book that was written by people with a vast lack of knowledge about the world around them, with tales that funnily enough have never happened again. Don't bother mentioning miracles or crap like that because not one has been properly documented with proof.

                      My problems with this thread are people claiming to use logic when they are not.
                      Saying that we have created life. We never have not even close!
                      Saying evolution happens. We have never seen it.
                      Saying that we started out as inorganic material that slowly became life. Refuted by Biogenisis.
                      Saying that we came from an explosion (chaos) and became an ordered life form (order) Refuted by Thermodynamics.
                      Again, I direct you to the posted definition of logic.
                      We have created life, to an extent. We haven't been able to synthesise actual living organisms (maybe we have actually, dunno) but that means nothing. All we've claimed to have done is give nature a helpful push ie. IVF and similiar methods. And we are constantly advancing.

                      We have never seen evolution...well of course we haven't, evolution happens over thousands/millions of years. Do you know anyone who's lived that long? We've seen it's effects. We have a good, solid basis for believing in evolution. What's the bible's explanation? God just 'made' different species? Hardly credible.


                      So I have based what I have said on Science, Logic, Empirical reasoning.

                      Common sense is not used in science. No where when I studied science did we get to say. Well it's just common sense. Science says prove it. and then prove it again.
                      Of course it is, wtf are going on about?

                      Common Sense


                      common sense

                      Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

                      Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


                      Perception through the intellect; apprehension; recognition; understanding; discernment; appreciation.

                      Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.



                      n : sound practical judgment; "he hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples" [syn: good sense, gumption, horse sense, sense, mother wit]

                      Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


                      Are you trying to tell me that things like sound practical judgement, perception through intellect, recognition and understanding aren't involved in Science? Get real!

                      So if you want to attack someones beliefs by telling them there is no God, Prove it.
                      Here we go again. 'Prove it' . You can always tell you've won a debate over this crap because they say 'prove it'. Basically translated as 'ner ner you can't prove he doesn't exist so i win'. As if.

                      The fact is, I don't need to prove god's non-existence. The fact is, you are stupid to even contemplate asking someone to prove something's non-existance when by it's very nature it is conveniently totally unseen and totally unheard. I'm God. Prove I'm not . Now that is stupid logic.

                      Otherwise you are just taking your beliefs and trying to force them on someone else.
                      As already stated, my 'beliefs' have a vast grounding in the real world. And thus they hold an uncomparitively higher value than 'there was a god'.

                      And to date the Human animal is much more sophisticated than anything we can create or even come close to creating. The human eye is thousands of times more complex than a camera of any type. It operates faster than any camera and can render images in 3 dimensions. It takes very fancy equipment to do that.
                      Do you know anyone with eyes that have 16x digital zoom? No. The eye is a very primitive organ actually. It has a layer of light sensitive cells which react to light and send electric impulses down a nerve. I wouldn't call it extremely complex. Almost every animal on the planet has eyes. Some better than ours.

                      Some cameras can record motion to the 1000th of a second. Your eyes work at something around 1/30-1/60th for normal vision, and up to 1/220 or slightly above for 'snapshots' (ie. identifying an object but not being able to piece together it's motion). So no the eye doesn't operate faster than cameras.

                      And no the eye does not generate 3d images, your brain does that.

                      Also it fits into a very small space.
                      Like spy cameras.

                      Besides which eyes should not exist in the theory of evolution. Because to first have eyes one must have a place in the skull from which they may protrude. This means you must have a whole in the skull. This is a vunerability that should have made any creature trying to get eyes weaker than others.
                      you don't know what you're talking about. Creatures didn't 'try to get' eyes. Evolution is based on two things, adaptation and mutation. Just ONE mutation could have been responsible for two eye holes, even eyes themselves. And around the time that eyes evolved, I sincerely doubt there was an organism alive that had the intelligence to take advantage of someone else having holes in their skull. How would it know?

                      Realize they could not just have eyes. It would be slow over time. Also eyes are prone to infection and damage and have very little covering. All of these things makes it unlikely that eyes could have evolved.
                      Eyes have a clever method of preventing infection and damage in the way of eyelids and tear ducts.

                      If you're going to use biology, at least get some basic understanding of it first.

                      Bottom line, If you say you are going to use science then use science. If logic then use logic. But if you are going to come in and say I believe this then stand up and say these are my beliefs. Don't try to hide behind science and tell everyone that your beliefs are science. Because they are not even though you might like it to be so.
                      Are you reading the same thread? I don't have a 'belief', already stated that. How on earth you can possible accuse me of not using science is beyond belief. It really is a whole new realm of blind adamance.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Bottom line, If you say you are going to use science then use science. If logic then use logic. But if you are going to come in and say I believe this then stand up and say these are my beliefs. Don't try to hide behind science and tell everyone that your beliefs are science. Because they are not even though you might like it to be so.
                        Yes.


                        Just for the sake of conversation, let's take the bible and Christion specific ideas out of it for a moment - because we aren't going to get anywhere debating the ark - and talk just about the idea of 'God' as it relates to science...

                        I submit that 'God' does not relate to science. If 'God' is a conscious entity which created the universe then the rules of the universe cannot be applied to 'God'. God existed before the rules, God thought up the rules, and all our reasoning (including logic and physics) are based within that ruleset.

                        Or God does not exist, but our reasoning is still bound by the same ruleset. It's a circular problem and isn't rationally soluable based on our current perspective.

                        You either believe in God or you don't. You define him however you decide to. You cannot prove or disprove him. It's only your FAITH which makes God real or unreal to you, and that's kind of close to what the theists have been saying all along.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Hikage
                          I've heard this before and it doesn't impress me any more this time. This is waht I mean that you don't know what you're talking about. You're doing the same things that you are accusing the Christians of doing and that is throwing around theories w/o having anything to them. I offered statistics to you on the presence of manuscripts, to which you responded nothing. I'm sure you just overlooked that.
                          And you do, I suppose? Because you lived there right? The evidence and logic is staring you in the face and all you can say 'you dont know what you talking about'. The presense of manuscripts means nothing. Because they are not valid real data. You cannot take the world of ancient man saying such and such about God to be true because of the time it was written at.


                          As far as the science goes, once again, you don't know waht you are talking about. It seems that every time someone tries prove God wrong, they end up proving him correct.
                          No Hikage, I think you'll find that only happens in your head. Outside is a different story. How can you say that we end up 'proving god correct' is hilarious. Prove god correct? You are a MARVEL!

                          To say that science is proving it wrong is a blatant lie
                          Only if you deliberately choose to exclude logic, sense and physical evidence from your life. Science, no, intelligence proves it wrong, beyond reasonable doubt.

                          and you haven't done your research. You're merely parroting something someone else told you.
                          I've done all the research I need about the world around me to know what's what concerning debates like this. And what about your research? All of it is based on an old book, christians have nothing more to go off. So you're effectively parroting what someone else told someone else who told someone else.....repeat 40 or so times.

                          For example: They thought that Christ never lived and that he was some Grimm brothers creation... archaeolgists have found his equivalent of a death certificate. Furthermore, since we know he lived, how come no one has ever produced a body to say that he did in fact stay dead instead of rising as we know he did?
                          'rising as we know he did' lol! How do you know he did then eh? Got any real evidence to back it up? Any logical basis for believing that someone can rise from the dead? Didn't think so.

                          I don't suppose the thought crossed your mind that his body may have been disposed of? A thousand things could have happened to it. But just because we haven't found the body, you assume he rose from the dead? O-kay.

                          Other diggings have found that almost every culture carries a story of a wide-spread flood which all took place around the same time.
                          And you don't stop to think that this may have been caused by the natural world itself? Again, just because 'there was a flood' you assume that it was related to some kind of God, that's a totally weak link and doesn't hold any logic in it at all.

                          Now why is that?
                          Once again, we know where the city of Jerico was. Archaeologists have discovered taht the walls have fallen away from the city, as opposed to inward which is the direction most city walls that are under siege fall.
                          Again, could the enemy not have invaded through the gates or doors and then smashed down the walls from the inside? That's a much more reasonable explanation than linking it to God.

                          So you're admitting that you don't know how to do it. Interesting.
                          No I'm not and don't bother trying to twist my words either. Whether I can or can't design a better 'world' (which is a vague and unsuitable word in the first place) is utterly irrelevant to God not existing. What exactly were you trying to say? 'I'm pathetic'? Well done.

                          I already said I could design a better eye that would be higher resolution and more protected, but you ignored that I see?

                          Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't digital cameras take batteries? Are we all going to have a Duracell sticking out of our heads? How are you going to power it genius? Plus, I don't really want to short circuit every time it rains.
                          What a dumbass you are, really. It's obvious that I was talking about the concepts of a digital camera's optical device. No, not all digital cameras take batteries. In fact, if we so desired, man could make one that was steam powered, or nuclear powered. And how exactly is water going to get inside your eyeball?

                          You again ignore most of my post. If God made man in his image why do we have inferior eyes to what is techically possible. Why didn't god have better eyes?


                          See above comments. I stick to my conclusion. You don't know what you're talking about. All you have is a number of unfounded theories that aren't even creative.
                          All you have is a stubborn, ill-founded, blind and adamant faith in something you were indoctrinated in. You have nothing to support your feeble and evasive arguments but an old book. No physical evidence, no logic, no scientific theory that supports it's ideas in any way or form.


                          What are you talking about?
                          I'm talking about the fact that all of these magical events that could have proved the existence of a higher being all happened a long long time ago during a period of huge lack of knowledge and human intelligence and not ONE jot of proof left behind. No unidentified elements, no videotapes, no pictures. And that is so very convenient for the net-christian because he can safely refer to things that didn't happen simply because noone can physically go back and 'prove' him wrong.

                          Simple actually. As I stated in other posts. God doesn't just spoon feed his followers because that would produce only a bunch of robots.
                          But he has produced a bunch of robots. An army in fact. As you are a living example of.

                          He would rather us decide by our own free will that He exists.
                          But the huge majority of his followers are indoctrinated from birth. Surely he would want to put a stop to that.

                          And also, you can't just apply your statement to now and not then. Why show himself then and not now? Why 2000 years ago, when the world has been in existence for billions of years?

                          Now, instead of saying all this about science.. do you have something concrete or do you conceede that you really don't know what you're talking about?
                          I see you've used 'Tactic 5' of the Net Christian Survival Handbook.

                          'ignore all points made to you except ones which you can either twist, or spew unrelated comments at, and point blank accuse your victor of having nothing concrete when in fact he's posted all that needs to be said against you. Stoutly deny all evidence towards you and refuse to give an inch upon your faith. This tactic is marked D for Desperate'.

                          And now, inevitably, we come to the point in every religious debate where everything has been posted and we hit the brick wall of good ol' christian ignorance

                          I won't bother posting on this thread more because from a lot of experience, I know what'll happen. I'll continue to post points that you blatantly ignore or fail to answer properly and you won't stop posting until I do. No offense but your posts show how deluded you are. You've ignored most of the most implicit and thought provoking points and you aren't worth my time to point them out to you like explaining a pop-up-book to a 5 year old.

                          Now, you can feel free to pat excessiveforce on the back, and him you. You can post several times telling each other how stupid I am, and how right you are. It'll make you feel real good, and you can hit Post Reply with the smarmiest look in the world on your face. Because the fact is you'll never change and it is a waste of time arguing with the equivalent of a piece of stone. Your lot used to wind me up by acting like this but thankfully not anymore. Ok, maybe a bit . But really, who cares. Then later you'll go to bed and say your prayers and feel like someone is 'out there'. Unfortunately when you die you'll do nothing more than rot in a box but (also unfortunately) you won't be in a position to hear me saying 'told you so'.

                          Goodnight gentlemen, and thank God your kind are dying out. Arf.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.
                            -- Peter De Vries


                            A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
                            -- Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              cont'd

                              and......perception is reality

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TNT
                                and......perception is reality
                                not meant for here, please disregard as I am not being allowed to delete

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X