The evidence that God exists is all around you. Observation, logic and reason have to tell you how complex the world is. From the tiniest particle to the far reaches of the universe. We haven't even begun to reach the limit. The human body alone is completely impossible to accomplish with nothing but time. Lots and lots of time. How exactly does time alone create us? Why do we have morality built into our psyche? The only device evolution has is time. There is hyper design in every animal, plant and geological structure. Take the human eye alone and really study it and then tell me that time alone created it.
There is one other fact that no one wants to associate with how the worlds began. The person we call Jesus Christ. He was there in the beginning. ...
You are spewing all this religious nonsense in the forum today, but for the record, what you say here is technically heresy to any Christian religion of note. Jesus was definitely *not* "there in the beginning" and it's an abomination to what he stood for to say so.
In any case please go somewhere else with the religious junk, I find it deeply offensive.
This is supposed to be a forum of ideas and rational debate. Religion is irrational by definition and has no place in any logical debate of anything. Please go to some church or street corner if you want to argue religion.
I am only replying to posts previous to mine. It is weird that I can be called names but forum rules forbid it. Where are the moderators now?
Yes, there is evidence of a worldwide flood. You see what happened in months as taking millions of years.
I'm offended when you say Christianity can not be part of a logical debate.
There has never been an observable mutation that made something better like adding an eyeball. It is alway bad, like cancer. How does that make me the moron? Show me observable macro evolution, not micro adaptation to environment. There is none.
The complexity of the internet was built by humans which were built by God.
Show me one observable mutation into something better. And don't give me caterpillars into butterflies, they were designed to do that. I mean real evolution. Just one instance will do. Not conjecture, that is not science. Real science is the ability to prove results.
What did Jesus stand for that forbids him to be co-creator with God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
You are spewing all this religious nonsense in the forum today, but for the record, what you say here is technically heresy to any Christian religion of note. Jesus was definitely *not* "there in the beginning" and it's an abomination to what he stood for to say so.
In any case please go somewhere else with the religious junk, I find it deeply offensive.
This is supposed to be a forum of ideas and rational debate. Religion is irrational by definition and has no place in any logical debate of anything. Please go to some church or street corner if you want to argue religion.
Show me observable macro evolution, not micro adaptation to environment. There is none.
See the problem here isn't that you don't believe in evolution, it's that you don't understand it. Evolution doesn't do single step macro, it's all about the micro.
I understand that there is no observable evolution, only theory. Complete science requires the theory to be provable before it becomes fact. It is not possible for small changes to turn into something as complex as a human eyeball. It takes design and a plan for building it. You can take more time and make the changes as small as you want. Who designed the end product? I believe I have an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
See the problem here isn't that you don't believe in evolution, it's that you don't understand it. Evolution doesn't do single step macro, it's all about the micro.
I understand that there is no observable evolution, only theory. Complete science requires the theory to be provable before it becomes fact. It is not possible for small changes to turn into something as complex as a human eyeball. It takes design and a plan for building it. You can take more time and make the changes as small as you want. Who designed the end product? I believe I have an answer.
You're full of categorical statements with no evidence to back you up. Why does it "take design", other than you wanting it to? There are observable products of evoltuion - see ring species, which i helpfully pointed out above.
There have been many plausible deconstructions of how the eye may have evolved, lots of them are on Youtube, just search for "eye evolution" - try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0 for a start.
And besides that, there are numerous examples of optical sensitivity in cells in other animals that precurse the eyes we're used to.
And besides that, lots of people have eyes that don't work very well - seems like pretty wonky "intelligent" design no?
Do some research on how complex your eye is. There is nothing in any stage that shows this could happen with chance, time, mutation, evolution or anything else. Sensitivity to light is far different than what our eyes can do. By design.
God put a curse on his creation after the rebellion of man. That is why there are mutations that result in decay.
Review the second law of thermodynamics and tell me why every single thing in the universe goes from order to decay except for unobservable evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
You're full of categorical statements with no evidence to back you up. Why does it "take design", other than you wanting it to? There are observable products of evoltuion - see ring species, which i helpfully pointed out above.
There have been many plausible deconstructions of how the eye may have evolved, lots of them are on Youtube, just search for "eye evolution" - try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0 for a start.
And besides that, there are numerous examples of optical sensitivity in cells in other animals that precurse the eyes we're used to.
And besides that, lots of people have eyes that don't work very well - seems like pretty wonky "intelligent" design no?
Gotta love the argument: "I don't know how it could have happened (and that scares me) so I won't try to understand but instead force myself into believing the first simple answer that comes along."
I don't understand the psychology of thinking that a few decades of life qualifies you to say that "nothing in any stage that shows this could happen with chance, time, mutation, evolution or anything else". AT ANY STAGE. Even if you only believe the earth is five thousand years old, that's a whole lot more experience than you have. Weird stuff goes down in the jungle and the ocean trenches. Turn the five thousand into five billion, and there's so much scope for change it's beyond belief.
But apparently an infinite moblin in the sky is a more reasonable explanation. Using logic, no less.
I don't understand the psychology of thinking that a few decades of life qualifies you to say that "nothing in any stage that shows this could happen with chance, time, mutation, evolution or anything else". AT ANY STAGE. Even if you only believe the earth is five thousand years old, that's a whole lot more experience than you have. Weird stuff goes down in the jungle and the ocean trenches. Turn the five thousand into five billion, and there's so much scope for change it's beyond belief.
But apparently an infinite moblin in the sky is a more reasonable explanation. Using logic, no less.
That's what makes his defense hypocritical. He says that blah blah can't be proven or observed so it can't be true, yet he then claims stuff that also can't be proven or observed yet must be true.
Thanks for al of the replies. (I did look at your link, Crowley, don't agree it really shows evolution that leads more complex life)
I agree weird stuff goes on in the deep places on earth. Weird things go on outside of the dimension we live in too. Just be open minded enough to consider it. The origins of life the way we know it has never been replicated yet either. I just believe that there is a creator that made it all instead of happenstance. Which one is more believable?
There is logic to what I believe. I know in my head that I am not just a collection of amino acids and proteins. I'll bet you all know it too. Anything else I say will just be quotes from the Bible. Enjoyed the debate. I'll respond if we aren't done. Enjoy your day.
Comments
The evidence that God exists is all around you. Observation, logic and reason have to tell you how complex the world is. From the tiniest particle to the far reaches of the universe. We haven't even begun to reach the limit. The human body alone is completely impossible to accomplish with nothing but time. Lots and lots of time. How exactly does time alone create us? Why do we have morality built into our psyche? The only device evolution has is time. There is hyper design in every animal, plant and geological structure. Take the human eye alone and really study it and then tell me that time alone created it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=eye+evolution
The internet is pretty darn complex too, is God the only conceivable answer for that?
Apple defintely has a good chance to win back Android users, and keep them. Using an Apple machine is a valve, going to Android is a revolving door.
I love this analogy.
There is one other fact that no one wants to associate with how the worlds began. The person we call Jesus Christ. He was there in the beginning. ...
You are spewing all this religious nonsense in the forum today, but for the record, what you say here is technically heresy to any Christian religion of note. Jesus was definitely *not* "there in the beginning" and it's an abomination to what he stood for to say so.
In any case please go somewhere else with the religious junk, I find it deeply offensive.
This is supposed to be a forum of ideas and rational debate. Religion is irrational by definition and has no place in any logical debate of anything. Please go to some church or street corner if you want to argue religion.
Yes, there is evidence of a worldwide flood. You see what happened in months as taking millions of years.
I'm offended when you say Christianity can not be part of a logical debate.
There has never been an observable mutation that made something better like adding an eyeball. It is alway bad, like cancer. How does that make me the moron? Show me observable macro evolution, not micro adaptation to environment. There is none.
Show me one observable mutation into something better. And don't give me caterpillars into butterflies, they were designed to do that. I mean real evolution. Just one instance will do. Not conjecture, that is not science. Real science is the ability to prove results.
You are spewing all this religious nonsense in the forum today, but for the record, what you say here is technically heresy to any Christian religion of note. Jesus was definitely *not* "there in the beginning" and it's an abomination to what he stood for to say so.
In any case please go somewhere else with the religious junk, I find it deeply offensive.
This is supposed to be a forum of ideas and rational debate. Religion is irrational by definition and has no place in any logical debate of anything. Please go to some church or street corner if you want to argue religion.
Show me observable macro evolution, not micro adaptation to environment. There is none.
See the problem here isn't that you don't believe in evolution, it's that you don't understand it. Evolution doesn't do single step macro, it's all about the micro.
Try looking up ring species for small changes contributing to big changes. Easy start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
PS. Metamorphoses isn't the same as mutation. More evidence that you don't know what evolution is.
I understand that there is no observable evolution, only theory. Complete science requires the theory to be provable before it becomes fact. It is not possible for small changes to turn into something as complex as a human eyeball. It takes design and a plan for building it. You can take more time and make the changes as small as you want. Who designed the end product? I believe I have an answer.
See the problem here isn't that you don't believe in evolution, it's that you don't understand it. Evolution doesn't do single step macro, it's all about the micro.
Try looking up ring species for small changes contributing to big changes. Easy start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
PS. Metamorphoses isn't the same as mutation. More evidence that you don't know what evolution is.
Was kidding about metamorphosis being evolution.
I understand that there is no observable evolution, only theory. Complete science requires the theory to be provable before it becomes fact. It is not possible for small changes to turn into something as complex as a human eyeball. It takes design and a plan for building it. You can take more time and make the changes as small as you want. Who designed the end product? I believe I have an answer.
You're full of categorical statements with no evidence to back you up. Why does it "take design", other than you wanting it to? There are observable products of evoltuion - see ring species, which i helpfully pointed out above.
There have been many plausible deconstructions of how the eye may have evolved, lots of them are on Youtube, just search for "eye evolution" - try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0 for a start.
And besides that, there are numerous examples of optical sensitivity in cells in other animals that precurse the eyes we're used to.
And besides that, lots of people have eyes that don't work very well - seems like pretty wonky "intelligent" design no?
Do some research on how complex your eye is. There is nothing in any stage that shows this could happen with chance, time, mutation, evolution or anything else. Sensitivity to light is far different than what our eyes can do. By design.
God put a curse on his creation after the rebellion of man. That is why there are mutations that result in decay.
Review the second law of thermodynamics and tell me why every single thing in the universe goes from order to decay except for unobservable evolution.
You're full of categorical statements with no evidence to back you up. Why does it "take design", other than you wanting it to? There are observable products of evoltuion - see ring species, which i helpfully pointed out above.
There have been many plausible deconstructions of how the eye may have evolved, lots of them are on Youtube, just search for "eye evolution" - try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0 for a start.
And besides that, there are numerous examples of optical sensitivity in cells in other animals that precurse the eyes we're used to.
And besides that, lots of people have eyes that don't work very well - seems like pretty wonky "intelligent" design no?
Cheers.
But apparently an infinite moblin in the sky is a more reasonable explanation. Using logic, no less.
I don't understand the psychology of thinking that a few decades of life qualifies you to say that "nothing in any stage that shows this could happen with chance, time, mutation, evolution or anything else". AT ANY STAGE. Even if you only believe the earth is five thousand years old, that's a whole lot more experience than you have. Weird stuff goes down in the jungle and the ocean trenches. Turn the five thousand into five billion, and there's so much scope for change it's beyond belief.
But apparently an infinite moblin in the sky is a more reasonable explanation. Using logic, no less.
That's what makes his defense hypocritical. He says that blah blah can't be proven or observed so it can't be true, yet he then claims stuff that also can't be proven or observed yet must be true.
I agree weird stuff goes on in the deep places on earth. Weird things go on outside of the dimension we live in too. Just be open minded enough to consider it. The origins of life the way we know it has never been replicated yet either. I just believe that there is a creator that made it all instead of happenstance. Which one is more believable?
There is logic to what I believe. I know in my head that I am not just a collection of amino acids and proteins. I'll bet you all know it too. Anything else I say will just be quotes from the Bible. Enjoyed the debate. I'll respond if we aren't done. Enjoy your day.
... and I thought it was fucked up when the thread was hijacked by discussions about Dick's dick... at least that was funny... sort of...
Dick is clearly impressive in many ways so why not talk about his King Richard? (That's what I'd call it if my name was Dick)
Dick is clearly impressive in many ways so why not talk about his King Richard? (That's what I'd call it my name was Dick)
I'd call it Moby.
I'd call it Moby.
But then your dick is a bald vegan, electronic musician. Well I guess it's bald at least