How Could One Being Create All Life on Earth?

[g4macdad]

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?


<(((><

[g4macdad]

Evolution theory tells us this right?

[mumchup]

One being? Are you talking about Intelligent Design? There are no beings going around creating life according to evolutionary theory.

[g4macdad]

One being? Are you talking about Intelligent Design? There are no beings going around creating life according to evolutionary theory.

All life evolved from one organism?

<(((><

[Oualawouzou]

We don't know. One or several. Doesn't matter much.

If your question is where this (these) original organism(s) come(s) from, then you need to tackle abiogenesis, not evolution.

[mumchup]

Lightning, meteor impact, comet strike, etc. There has been more than one theory over the years and I'm not sure what is the most likely, I'm not an expert on the origins of terrestrial life (evolution is not exactly the same thing.) Maybe there was one, maybe there were quite alot of them all at once. No one was there to take a census.
If you are actually interested in learning about such things, may I suggest that you learn about what it is you are interested in by reading a book or taking a biology class? Asking vague, provocative questions like "How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?" here on this forum is only going to get you ignored. It comes off sounding like you want a fight instead of answers.
And evolution/origins are big subjects with lots of data, you can't learn all about it by asking a few questions on an internet forum.
But,
Here's an (incredibly short) example of a new species evolving from just one organism. A pregnant songbird is blown out to sea during a storm. She survives, only to find herself hundreds of miles from shore on a tiny island, a group of several. She is isolated from all others of her species, but there are lots of seeds to eat and no competition. She lays her eggs, her offspring grow big and fat with no predators to eat them. There's no one else around so they mate with each other, and so on for generations. Eventually the birds will become more and more suited to their environment, maybe even filling more ecological niches. For example, birds with bigger beaks find an island that has plants with harder seeds. The big-beaked birds will do best there and mate with other big-beaked birds because that's who's around. Eventually (I mean thousands of years,) the islands might contain lots of different species of birds, birds that can't mate with the mainland birds because they are too different genetically. And it all started with one bird.

I'll follow in a minute with my understanding of how that first organism may have come to be.

[mumchup]

Instead of my lame interpretation, check out wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I didn't even remember what it was called until Oualawouzou wrote it up above.
But here's a question to ponder: If a being created the first life on earth, what being created that being? And what being created the being that created the being that created life? And...

[g4macdad]

Lightning, meteor impact, comet strike, etc. There has been more than one theory over the years and I'm not sure what is the most likely, I'm not an expert on the origins of terrestrial life (evolution is not exactly the same thing.) Maybe there was one, maybe there were quite alot of them all at once. No one was there to take a census.
If you are actually interested in learning about such things, may I suggest that you learn about what it is you are interested in by reading a book or taking a biology class? Asking vague, provocative questions like "How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?" here on this forum is only going to get you ignored. It comes off sounding like you want a fight instead of answers.
And evolution/origins are big subjects with lots of data, you can't learn all about it by asking a few questions on an internet forum.
But,
Here's an (incredibly short) example of a new species evolving from just one organism. A pregnant songbird is blown out to sea during a storm. She survives, only to find herself hundreds of miles from shore on a tiny island, a group of several. She is isolated from all others of her species, but there are lots of seeds to eat and no competition. She lays her eggs, her offspring grow big and fat with no predators to eat them. There's no one else around so they mate with each other, and so on for generations. Eventually the birds will become more and more suited to their environment, maybe even filling more ecological niches. For example, birds with bigger beaks find an island that has plants with harder seeds. The big-beaked birds will do best there and mate with other big-beaked birds because that's who's around. Eventually (I mean thousands of years,) the islands might contain lots of different species of birds, birds that can't mate with the mainland birds because they are too different genetically. And it all started with one bird.

I'll follow in a minute with my understanding of how that first organism may have come to be.

I think this is micro-evolution. The discussion should be about macro-evolutiuon.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

Instead of my lame interpretation, check out wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I didn't even remember what it was called until Oualawouzou wrote it up above.
But here's a question to ponder: If a being created the first life on earth, what being created that being? And what being created the being that created the being that created life? And...

Yes the same problem plagues both sides. So all you are left with is Faith.

<(((><

[LostAngeles]

Yes the same problem plagues both sides. So all you are left with is Faith.

<(((><

Faith in what? Adding a creator makes the whole process that much more complex as mumchup pointed out. While we're not sure exactly how those first amino acids and proteins came together, we have ideas that don't add an extra layer of complexity by adding in a creator.

[g4macdad]

Faith in what? Adding a creator makes the whole process that much more complex as mumchup pointed out. While we're not sure exactly how those first amino acids and proteins came together, we have ideas that don't add an extra layer of complexity by adding in a creator.

So matter spontaneously creating information is less complex than a creator? And your still left with the same question. Did all life originate from one being?

PS. What's the easiest way to prevent the truth from surfacing? Limit everyone to 15 replies.

<(((><

[Oualawouzou]

Ah, a Goddidit. "We don't know, therefore = God."

[g4macdad]

Ah, a Goddidit. "We don't know, therefore = God." That is better. "We don't know" so show respect!

Faith


<(((><

[Z]

Actually, indications are that the first protolife emerged from pools containing numerous randomly accrued protein chains. Since only certain sorts of chains would properly form together and begin regulating other protien formations, those protein chains would survive, thrive, and intermingle.

Chances are this happened all over the Earth, anywhere the right initial conditions were favorable to proper protein formation.

So life didn't emerge from ONE being - more likely, life emerged from several billion beings, sometime within a million-year timespan.

And once proteins start organizing, under favorable conditions, they just didn't stop.

Early protolife was probably rather similar to what we now call 'viruses', but were somewhat different in that they didn't have cells to go around infecting. Instead, they were just acting and reacting to other long carbohydrate chains in their environment.

Now here's the really interesting part: in theory, these protolife forms started a chain reaction that would eventually strip the Earth of the very same conditions required for them to form in the first place - as they mingled about and stripped one molecule after another from the environment and began to form more complex creatures by random chemical processes. And as these other chemicals were slowly stripped away, what formed were simple forms of life that could probably go either way: they could be adapted to the preformative environment, or they could be adapted to the newly forming and more familiar N2, CO2 and O2 rich environments that were emerging. Of course, since the latter was becoming prevalent, those were the life forms that first emerged triumphant from the once seething seas of proto-life material.

And were probably already infected with the world's first communicable diseases. :)

Anyway, you've got a likely strawman there, pal. All life on Earth most likely didn't start with any Being at all.

[articulett]

We don't know. One or several. Doesn't matter much.

If your question is where this (these) original organism(s) come(s) from, then you need to tackle abiogenesis, not evolution.

That's a religious fish symbol in the OP. It's spring break. The fundies are trying to get their heaven bonus points by showing how faith is a much better way to find the truth than facts. They often start threads before reading much--and ask weird questions that imply a sort of ignorance--and then when they don't get an answer they understand, they'll conclude into "see, science can't explain...therefore my god is true."

It's a funny question...and implies such a vast lack of scientific understanding, that one doesn't know where to start. And one also realizes, that no matter how much explaining you did, nothing would be communicated. Faith is a recipe for cluelessness.

I'm fresh out of goodwill for the arrogant and the ignorant. They don't want the answers--they believe they already have them.

[g4macdad]

That's a religious fish symbol in the OP. It's spring break. The fundies are trying to get their heaven bonus points by showing how faith is a much better way to find the truth than facts. They often start threads before reading much--and ask weird questions that imply a sort of ignorance--and then when they don't get an answer they understand, they'll conclude into "see, science can't explain...therefore my god is true."

It's a funny question...and implies such a vast lack of scientific understanding, that one doesn't know where to start. And one also realizes, that no matter how much explaining you did, nothing would be communicated. Faith is a recipe for cluelessness.

I'm fresh out of goodwill for the arrogant and the ignorant. They don't want the answers--they believe they already have them.

Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.

Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.

I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.:cool:

<(((><

[Soapy Sam]

Here's an (incredibly short) example of a new species evolving from just one organism. A pregnant songbird is blown out to sea during a storm. She survives, only to find herself hundreds of miles from shore on a tiny island, a group of several. She is isolated from all others of her species, but there are lots of seeds to eat and no competition. She lays her eggs, her offspring grow big and fat with no predators to eat them. There's no one else around so they mate with each other, and so on for generations. Eventually the birds will become more and more suited to their environment, maybe even filling more ecological niches. For example, birds with bigger beaks find an island that has plants with harder seeds. The big-beaked birds will do best there and mate with other big-beaked birds because that's who's around. Eventually (I mean thousands of years,) the islands might contain lots of different species of birds, birds that can't mate with the mainland birds because they are too different genetically. And it all started with one bird.



Just curious. How many fertilised eggs do you reckon a pregnant songbird can carry?

A smallish flock of lost songbirds would seem a more probable scenario.

[articulett]

Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.

Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.

I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.:cool:

<(((><

No Mr. Clueless. When science doesn't explain it, we keep looking until we can. We don't insert invisible immeasurable entities that are an even bigger conundrum. I know your religion taught you that science is faith, but I'm sure you prefer airplanes built on facts and actual evidence medicine over prayer. Yes, I'm sure that you think you are a skeptic--why you are even skeptic of the skeptics so that makes you a super duper skeptic, eh?

Science works, just like math works. Like math, it is based on facts; it's useful; and it's the same truth for everyone. Although science may not be able to explain everything; I don't think religion has explained anything. I think it's very obvious that there are tons of beliefs--with all believers certain that they know "the truth"--and none of the truths agree, or can be verified, or measured in any way. Science doesn't pretend to have "special knowledge" or "higher truths"... nor does it pretend life is a test where you have to believe the right unbelievable story and inflict it on everyone else. It just has facts. Not believing it, just makes you ignorant. You won't be tormented forever. It's just the slow and steady accumulation of human knowledge without an iota of help from any invisible, immeasurable, omnipotent, propehtic, all-loving, entities. But it's brought the most wonderful of knowledge. See, the computer, you are typing on--thank science for that.

You've got your heaven bonus points and helped yourself believe in your magical story all the more while being deceptive. It is deceptive to pretend to want an answer and ask intelligent honest people questions that you really don't want answered at all. But I guess your "intelligent designer" likes them deceptive and arrogant and ignorant. Maybe, one day you'll be lucky enough to be embarrassed at the holier-than-thou no-it-all you once were.

Oh, and gee willikers...thanks for coming by and bludgeoning us with some of that Christian compassion and wisdom. I'm sure you'll be getting a rush of converts by setting such a fabulous example.

[gnome]

How about where there is not knowledge of something, you can't fill in the blank with something taken on faith... you rely on what evidence shows and admit the rest is unknown. That also does not preclude forming tentative ideas, that might explain more... a tentative idea that is testable is more scientific than a faith-based idea, even though there may not be certainty in either. The former can at least lead to new knowledge.

[Soapy Sam]

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?
Is this a question about gods or abiogenesis? Please clarify.

Evolution theory tells us this right?
Tells us what?

All life evolved from one organism?
Where did you hear that?

I think this is micro-evolution. The discussion should be about macro-evolutiuon.
Please explain what you think is the difference, why it matters and the mechanisms involved. We can start at any level you prefer, from species down to molecular chemistry.
Yes the same problem plagues both sides. So all you are left with is Faith. Faith in what? Please provide a logical justification for this conclusion if you will.
So matter spontaneously creating information is less complex than a creator? And your still left with the same question. Did all life originate from one being?
PS. What's the easiest way to prevent the truth from surfacing? Limit everyone to 15 replies. What information are you suggesting is being created? In what units do you measure it?

That is better. "We don't know" so show respect! Faith To whom and in what?

Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.
Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.
I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.:cool: I see no evidence to support your view. But you have the floor. Tell us something we have not heard before.

[ChristineR]

Your arguments are confusing me. Who created God? God is far more complex than a self-replicating molecule with some RNA swimming around in it. Your theory requires the spontaneous creation of a far more complex and more information-holding being than anything in the known universe!

We don't know how life happened, but we do know how it could have happened. It doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, or require any intervention by unknown entities. We have absolutely no clue how God could have happened, and it violates every known law of physics.

[LostAngeles]

I can't help but notice you seemed to have ignored Z's very excellent and accurate response, g4macdad. Would you mind taking an attempt to respond to it or would processing what he trying to explain shake your faith? And if that's the case, then how strong is your faith, really.

Oh and BTW, you're a troll and I'm bored.

P.S. Arti, my spring break is over. I get to be back in class during, "Holy Week."

[g4macdad]

How about where there is not knowledge of something, you can't fill in the blank with something taken on faith... you rely on what evidence shows and admit the rest is unknown. That also does not preclude forming tentative ideas, that might explain more... a tentative idea that is testable is more scientific than a faith-based idea, even though there may not be certainty in either. The former can at least lead to new knowledge.

Evolution Theory doesn't fill in blanks!?

You have more faith than anyone I know. Where are the intermediary versions of the eye? What use where those intermediary versions to the creature before the eye could actually see? They had to have a reason to develop! The information needed in the DNA would be incredibly complex. Yet it was an accident? Chance created this infinitely complex information?

Just listen to this, it's pure voodoo.

A big bang created everything, then a primordial ooze with a sprinkle of magic dust created the information to create and maintain complex organisms.

You have been shammed buddy.

It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.

<(((><

[LostAngeles]

More "primitive" or more simple organisms have the ability to sense light. In fact, I do believe it was last year that they identified the particular protein involved.

g4macdad, rather than troll, how about you take a class in evolutionary biology?

[skoob]

Evolution Theory doesn't fill in blanks!?Of course it does. It fills in the blanks using science based on actual observations.

Where are the intermediary versions of the eye? What use where those intermediary versions to the creature before the eye could actually see?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Chance created this infinitely complex information?Eyes aren't infinitely complex.


It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.You only have half a brain? I'm very sorry to hear that. It explains a lot though.

[g4macdad]

More "primitive" or more simple organisms have the ability to sense light. In fact, I do believe it was last year that they identified the particular protein involved.

g4macdad, rather than troll, how about you take a class in evolutionary biology?

Everyone takes evolutionary biology from grade school through highschool.

Only a few actually fall for it.


<(((><

[Apathia]

g4macdad,

Welcome to the Jref. Please accept a little friendly advice.
Do some more research on your topic. You don't realize it now, but with every post you make on this, you are embarrassing yourself more and more.
Before you can address the issue of evolution, you need to know what it is, precisely and accurately, then, if you have good reason and evidence that it's wrong, then you can present that. Right now you are speaking from a position of ignorance, and that's not a good place to be slinging insults from.

If you are here to witness to the Christ, then exhibit Christlikeness and a respect for factual evidence. Otherwise, the truth will never be able to set you free from your own chains.

[g4macdad]

Of course it does. It fills in the blanks using science based on actual observations.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Eyes aren't infinitely complex.

You only have half a brain? I'm very sorry to hear that. It explains a lot though.

Again these "actual observations" must follow you fundamental faith based beliefs or you reject them.

All my observations don't fit, so they are incorrect to you.

Do you really believe all scientist believe the same as you? If you answer yes. Why do you tell yourself lies? Evolution theory is bolagna.


<(((><

[g4macdad]

g4macdad,

Welcome to the Jref. Please accept a little friendly advice.
Do some more research on your topic. You don't realize it now, but with every post you make on this, you are embarrassing yourself more and more.
Before you can address the issue of evolution, you need to know what it is, precisely and accurately, then, if you have good reason and evidence that it's wrong, then you can present that. Right now you are speaking from a position of ignorance, and that's not a good place to be slinging insults from.

If you are here to witness to the Christ, then exhibit Christlikeness and a respect for factual evidence. Otherwise, the truth will never be able to set you free from your own chains.

Before anyone can address the issue of Christianity they have to actually read the Bible.

<(((><

[Apathia]

Before anyone can address the issue of Christianity they have to actually read the Bible.

<(((><

I have, many times over. I've done my Christian homework well.
But Bible wasn't the topic here was it? Unless that is your sole authority. If so, it rules out any productive discussion here.

And if you are just trolling, I have no more motivation to participate.

[g4macdad]

I have, many times over. I've done my Christian homework well.
But Bible wasn't the topic here was it? Unless that is your sole authority. If so, it rules out any productive discussion here.

And if you are just trolling, I have no more motivation to participate.

Are you the only one here commenting on Christianity? And you said nothing to the others? Only me? hmmm. I too smell fish.

<(((><

[JoeTheJuggler]

g4macdad, you are not being sincere at all. You pretend to be asking a question when it's obvious that your mind is closed.

If you want to profess your faith, and if you want to justify it based on your own ignorance (claiming that lack of knowledge somehow supports belief in your god), that's one thing. If you really want to know something about evolution through natural selection, that's another.

Also, why is this under "latest commentary issues"?

[jsfisher]

It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.

DJJ used that phase, too. Then again, half a brain is about all he seemed have. On the other hand, he wasn't a troll.

[g4macdad]

g4macdad, you are not being sincere at all. You pretend to be asking a question when it's obvious that your mind is closed.

If you want to profess your faith, and if you want to justify it based on your own ignorance (claiming that lack of knowledge somehow supports belief in your god), that's one thing. If you really want to know something about evolution through natural selection, that's another.

Also, why is this under "latest commentary issues"?

This is a completely open debate. Equal opportunity for all. Yet most of the opposing input sounds like G. W. Bush.

Instead of valid input it's " you don't know enough to debate this so just go away and come back later" You only solidify things with these comments. You're not fooling anyone. Well not me at least. Your losing. =P

<(((><

[The Atheist]

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?


<(((><

God.

Thanks

[Beleth]

A big bang created everything, then a primordial ooze with a sprinkle of magic dust created the information to create and maintain complex organisms.

You have been shammed buddy.

It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.You got one better that still fits the observable evidence? I'm all ears, buddy.

Until then, I refer the reader to the brilliant last paragraph here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=967245#post967245).

[jsfisher]

Instead of valid input it's " you don't know enough to debate this so just go away and come back later" You only solidify things with these comments. You're not fooling anyone. Well not me at least. Your losing.

I don't understand your basis for the "your[sic] losing" comment. You have not defined any position and not presented any objective evidence in support. You have just questions you expected to be Socratic but that were actually quite ignorant, then bashed without substance the replies.

You don't happen to have a prophecy somewhere, too, do you?

[ksbluesfan]

This is a perfect example of the methodology of a troll. They tend to make vague inflamatory statements, then throw in just enough to fan the flames. We're all too willing to jump to conclusions about what the troll is trying to say. When you get the troll nailed down in one area, they say "well, that's what {entity x} believes, but I don't".

Anyway, g4macdad, since you're so well informed on evolution and abiogenesis you need to use the proper channels to prove the worldwide scientific community is wrong and you're right. Since science is self-correcting, it will rejoice in the g4macdad revolution, and you'll turn the world on its ear. I'm looking forward to it.

[Apathia]

Are you the only one here commenting on Christianity? And you said nothing to the others? Only me? hmmm. I too smell fish.

<(((><

I have a substantial Christian background, as do a number of people who are regulars here. I no longer profess the Christian Religion, but I find a kinship with anyone who has a passion for truth.
Frankly, your approach and replies aren't from a position of understanding but a shallow polemic. Seriously, invest some time in understanding, and that not just in Science but in the Heart of the Gospel.

At least spend some time reading the many threads in this board on the issues of Science and Religion, so that you can see where we are, and not use usless arguments.

[g4macdad]

I don't understand your basis for the "your[sic] losing" comment. You have not defined any position and not presented any objective evidence in support. You have just questions you expected to be Socratic but that were actually quite ignorant, then bashed without substance the replies.

You don't happen to have a prophecy somewhere, too, do you?

Another!

<(((><

[g4macdad]

I have a substantial Christian background, as do a number of people who are regulars here. I no longer profess the Christian Religion, but I find a kinship with anyone who has a passion for truth.
Frankly, your approach and replies aren't from a position of understanding but a shallow polemic. Seriously, invest some time in understanding, and that not just in Science but in the Heart of the Gospel.

At least spend some time reading the many threads in this board on the issues of Science and Religion, so that you can see where we are, and not use usless arguments.

Another!

<(((><

[jsfisher]

Another!

I am in awe with the substance to your debate, g4macdad. It's conclusive; it's convincing. What possible counter could there be to such depth of rhetoric?

Just one question, though, if I may: Will you ever express and defend your position?

[g4macdad]

Call me a troll all night but no one forced you to comment. So if there is any fanning it's from you.

The original question was simple. You people got all bent out of shape and panicky because it destroys one of the most common and goofy arguments for evolution there is.
Why do you care so much? Has that ever occurred to you? Say you were wrong. What's the big deal? Why is it so important to you? Can you change the truth?
I don't care about if I'm right or wrong in the least. I have been looking for the truth as long if not longer than most of you. I am simply pointing out my observations. Take them or leave them. But post insulting and derogatory comments and you will lose.

<(((><

[LostAngeles]

g4macdad, like a troll, I note you still ignore Z's post above. Lemme go and link it here for you. Address it, or I think we're just going to have to go straight to kittens.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2494752#post2494752

There you go.

[jsfisher]

But post insulting and derogatory comments and you will lose.

The irony of that escapes you, doesn't it?

[g4macdad]

g4macdad, like a troll, I note you still ignore Z's post above. Lemme go and link it here for you. Address it, or I think we're just going to have to go straight to kittens.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2494752#post2494752

There you go.

OK, That might sound very convincing to you. All I see are unprovable theories. The only real evidence of micro-evolution is through fossils. This evidence relies completely on your faith in the geologic column. They also use carbon dating but both methods are very "inaccurate" to put it politely. If you want to look at the biochemistry side there are a number of biochemists who exclusively oppose evolution. Macro-evolution is almost purely faith based. Now I am sure since Z's comment more closely matches your fundamental faith based beliefs, you will accept his views and reject mine. I can do nothing to change this so please abstain from any derogatory statements. If you want links and names of authors your gonna have to wait till tomorrow.

<(((><

[ChristineR]

This guy reminds me of jesus_freak, only a little bit more annoyed.

All the answers to your scientific questions are provided. We don't claim to know all that stuff 100%--but we base our opinions on the evidence. And you still haven't been able to tell me how God could exist if the universe is too complicated to exist without help.

[g4macdad]

The irony of that escapes you, doesn't it?

What I am saying is you will gain nothing. You will lose. And I am getting tired.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

This guy reminds me of jesus_freak, only a little bit more annoyed.

All the answers to your scientific questions are provided. We don't claim to know all that stuff 100%--but we base our opinions on the evidence. And you still haven't been able to tell me how God could exist if the universe is too complicated to exist without help.

This kind of double talk was the purpose of this thread.
And exactly, who is "we"? I mean exactly.
<(((><

[ksbluesfan]

g4macdad -- tell us what you believe.

Do you believe God created life on earth? If so, tell us about this god. Are we talking about the God of the Bible? When did life start on Earth? How old is the universe?

So far, you done nothing more than state that you don't believe in evolution or abiogenesis. Opinion without evidence is never enough to convince somebody that they are wrong.

[g4macdad]

g4macdad -- tell us what you believe.

Do you believe God created life on earth? If so, tell us about this god. Are we talking about the God of the Bible? When did life start on Earth? How old is the universe?

So far, you done nothing more than state that you don't believe in evolution or abiogenesis. Opinion without evidence is never enough to convince somebody that they are wrong.

Hang on! I haven't seen one shred of evidence that does not require my faith.

How long is a day? Have days always taken the same amont of time? What measurement do we use to find out? Could I fill 1,000 pages with words to convince you and you never be convinced?

<(((><

[ChristineR]

This kind of double talk was the purpose of this thread.
And exactly, who is "we"? I mean exactly.
<(((><

What double talk? Are you trying to tell me that the existence of a being more complicated than the universe itself, which was not created and did not evolve is somehow automatically plausible, where believing theory based on an enormous amount of evidence requires some sort of faith?

We is the collective community of humankind. We look at the data, we formulate theories, and we test them. There's some gray areas, some not-so-gray areas.

[ChristineR]

Hang on! I haven't seen one shred of evidence that does not require my faith.

<(((><

Do you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow? Is believing that an act of faith? Can you explain why or why not?

[articulett]

Are you the only one here commenting on Christianity? And you said nothing to the others? Only me? hmmm. I too smell fish.

<(((><

Skeptics tend to be better informed about the bible and multiple interpretations and translations of it that the fundies. Some of us were believers before we became educated. There is so much evidence for evolution that you should immediately flog whomever you trusted that told you otherwise. It's all over the internet. Heck, even Time Magazine and Newsweek and National Geographic and Smithsonian can inform you. Do you not open newspapers. Have you seen a Natural History Museum. The only people who do not accept evolution are those that don't understand it and the fundies--fundie Christians and fundie Muslims! Also it confilicts with Scientology and Raelian theology too. In developed countries only Turkey is lower than America when it comes to accepting evolution--and there, it's because of Muslim Fundies. In the U.S. it's the Haggardy Christian--Fred Phelps fundies.

But all the faith in the world doesn't change the facts. Learn them before your thinking atrophies completely. I mean you really have to purposely avoid the evidence not to see how obvious it is. You do know we mapped the human genome and the chimpanzee genome and they are 98% the same!!! Your omniscient one forgot to mention that.

You know the forensic testing they use to test paternity--it's the same type of testing we do to show how closely any two living things are. And all this cool knowledge is free to you because you are alive in 2007 and have access to the web. Instead you let a clearly primitive barbaric text define your truths.
Those people didn't even know about germs back then...or schizophrenia...or that the male determines the sex of the baby or that matter is composed of atoms-- they were ignoramuses--and you are moreso, because you get all your truths via their "hearsay" and ignore the facts that are readily available. with you if you weren't such an a-hole.

On the bright side, you make many of us former Christians glad that we are no longer the butthead that you come across as. Do you believe in rain dances too?

[BillyJoe]

How could one being create all life on earth?

Exactly.

Who created him?

Yeah, that's what I wanna know.

Evolution theory tells us this right?

Wrong.

All life evolved from one organism?

We hypothesise that life gradually evolved from non-life.
We are looking for evidence to support this hypothesis.
We don't have it at this point in time.
We may never have it.

Moving on though....
From this primitive beginning, all organism on Earth today, evolved.
There is so much evidence for this from such a wide variety of sources that the truth of this statement is almost beyond question.
It is almost more likely that the Earth is flat.

I think this is micro-evolution. The discussion should be about macro-evolutiuon.

It all happens in small steps.
Each step is micro-evolution.
As the steps accumulate, we have macro-evolution.

Yes the same problem plagues both sides. So all you are left with is Faith.

To some extent you are correct.
But there is a difference:

In Relgion, you start with a conclusion and gather facts to support your conclusion.
In science, you start with facts and look for a conclusion that fits the facts.
In Religion the conclusion never changes, because contradictory facts are ignored.
In science, conclusions are always changing to fit new facts that need to be accounted for.

Considering this...
I have faith that science is likely to get us gradually closer to the truth.
I have no faith that religion already has the truth.
For a start, there is more than one religion, so at least one must be wrong.

So matter spontaneously creating information is less complex than a creator?

Well yes.
two atoms -> one molecule.
Two atoms are a little less complex than one molecule.
One molecule is infinitesmally less complex than a Creator.

And two molecules can combine to form a larger molecule by simply coming together. And so on and so on.
At the end of this simple stepwise process, there may possibly result a super Being.
I cannot see any explanation for a super Being being there at the start of the process.


Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.
Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.
I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.

As sceptics, we must be prepared to accept that...
Present day scientific theories may be wrong or incomplete.
Science is not able to explain everything at the present time.
Science may never be able to explain everything.

As a sceptic, you must be able to accept that...
You may be wrong.

A big bang created everything, then a primordial ooze with a sprinkle of magic dust created the information to create and maintain complex organisms.
It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.

It's called a theory because there is lots of supporting evidence.
In other words, it's the best we can do with our present knowledge
It could be wrong in detail but it's unlikely to be wrong in broard outline.
Of course, if more evidence comes to light, we will revise our theory.

Everyone takes evolutionary biology from grade school through highschool...Only a few actually fall for it.

It's not a matter of falling for it - I hope only a few have actually fallen for it!
It's a matter of studying it to, first of all, understand what it is, and then to consider if it might be true based on the quantity and quality of the evidence that has been accumulated for it.

Again these "actual observations" must follow your fundamental faith based beliefs or you reject them.....

There is some truth in this.

Firmly established theories are very hard to shift. This is because it took a lot of observations to derive the theory in the first place. However, observations can be wrong, so the theory could be wrong. For this very reason, however, a single observation cannot nullify a firmly established theory. Repeated observations that contradict a theory, will demand more attention. Confirmed, repeated observations over a long period of time by many different scientists can eventually overturn (or, more commonly, modify) a firmly held theory. This is how it should be. If we changed our theory with every contrary observation, we would be blown about like leaves in the wind.

This is how science works at getting closer to the truth.

All my observations don't fit, so they are incorrect to you....Do you really believe all scientist believe the same as you?

There is, and always has been, disagreement between scientists.
The more disagreement, the more shaky our faith (some say "trust") that a particular theory is true. However, there is virtually no disagreement amongst scientists that evolution actually occurred. Although there IS disagreement about the details of how it occurred. There have always been rogues (for lack of a better term) even amongst trained scientists, so there will never be complete agreement.

But it works!
Look around you. Look at the computer in front of you. Proof that science works!

Before anyone can address the issue of Christianity they have to actually read the Bible.

Agreed.
But lets leave this to another thread.

[g4macdad]

The Bible was written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them. I read that in a science book written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them.

<(((><

[ksbluesfan]

Hang on! I haven't seen one shred of evidence that does not require my faith.

How long is a day? Have days always taken the same amont of time? What measurement do we use to find out? Could I fill 1,000 pages with words to convince you and you never be convinced?

<(((><


You haven't seen one shred of evidence for what? How do you define "faith"?

I'm not a physicist. I haven't devoted my life to studying the length of the day of the early Earth. I tend to believe people who have devoted their lives to studying such matters and their peers who review their work.

If you fill 1,000 pages with nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, I won't believe you. You need to provide evidence.

Now, back to my questions. We'll start with an easy one. Do you believe the creation story in Genesis is factually correct?

[articulett]

I am in awe with the substance to your debate, g4macdad. It's conclusive; it's convincing. What possible counter could there be to such depth of rhetoric?

Just one question, though, if I may: Will you ever express and defend your position?

No silly. You know how woo operates. Endlessly declaring themselves victors in conversations that only they seem to be involved in. Asking silly questions and when no one answers with an answer you like (usually due to the inanity of the question), they declare themselves winner. They have to do this to keep their belief alive. It's a bummer that their invisible friend has to have such unlikeable spokespeople.

They sound like this to me: "Ha! you arrogant scientists think the earth is a sphere--well if that's the case, why don't the oceans fall out, huh? huh? You are just taking it on faith and the bible would have said so if it was a sphere. And you guys have to resort to that complex talking about gravity to explain the ocean conundrum--but I get motion sickness very easily--so I'd KNOW if the earth was spinning. You guys have as much faith as everyone else. You can't debate me and you sound like (insert villain)! I win. I knew you had no answer."

:)

At least they never cease to amuse. I wonder if skeptics go to their rapture sites and ask if they can have their car after the rapture comes? Or do they ask them their moral feelings about their god impregnating virgins without consent and killing his kid (who is really him) because some woman in a prior time at an apple? And since the omniscient one knows how it's all going to end up, don't they think it's kind of silly to try and effect the outcome?

[g4macdad]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

And you guys have to resort to that complex talking about gravity

I wish you knew how ridiculous you really are.

Slow up on those big 5th grade words Mr. science.


<(((><

[Apathia]

The Bible was written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them. I read that in a science book written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them.

<(((><

Billy Joe just gave you an excellent post. The post I should have.
But your reply is the above: not a replly to what he was saying, but precisely the kind of sideswipe a troll uses.

My opinion is that you do have some sincerity about what you believe in.
Stop destroying every ounce of your credibility.
Paul said when he addressed Jews, he spoke to them as Jews. When he addressed Gentiles, he spoke to them as gentiles. He knew their language. He knew where they we coming from. If Christian Apologetics is your purpose here, pay attention.

[~enigma~]

I think this is micro-evolution. The discussion should be about macro-evolutiuon.

<(((><
I think you have been reading too much of Kent Hovind who just so happens to be serving 10 years for tax evasion Mr. Highwayman from LCF :)

[ksbluesfan]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><


Ah, Pascal's Wager.

What if you've been worshipping the wrong god, and every time you go to church, he gets more and more angry?

[~enigma~]

Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.

Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.

I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.:cool:

<(((><
Who is writing a term paper on 9/11 being an inside job???

[Apathia]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><

Meaning that we are going to burn in hell for eternity?
If that is your meaning and you are correct, then all of us are toast. We evolutionists because we will burn in Hell, and you "faithful" because you will serve as slaves in the court of a hateful vendictive super being.

I trust that no one who honors truth, will come up on the short end of the stick in eventuality.

[~enigma~]

No Mr. Clueless. When science doesn't explain it, we keep looking until we can. We don't insert invisible immeasurable entities that are an even bigger conundrum. I know your religion taught you that science is faith, but I'm sure you prefer airplanes built on facts and actual evidence medicine over prayer. Yes, I'm sure that you think you are a skeptic--why you are even skeptic of the skeptics so that makes you a super duper skeptic, eh? If you really want to know what this guy believes, go over to LCF (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx) and check out posts from thehighwaymanq. Skeptic...no possible way.

[g4macdad]

The Bible was written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them. I read that in a science book written by men in a book to decieve us so we would obey them.

<(((><

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

What if you've been worshipping the wrong god, and every time you go to church, he gets more and more angry?

Well if you actually read the Bible you would find out. You and the other's opinions are really invalid until you have finished it then aren't they.

<(((><

[Apathia]

I think I'll make that my last post. I'm seeing more evidence of troll and less of sincere believer seeking to evidence his faith.

[~enigma~]

the truth.

Say it properly higwaymanq....TWOOF :)

[ksbluesfan]

Well if you actually read the Bible you would find out. You and the other's opinions are really invalid until you have finished it then aren't they.

<(((><

I have read the Bible. I didn't become an atheist out of apathy.

[~enigma~]

I have been looking for the truth as long if not longer than most of you.Your a kid in high school in New Jersey. What's with your dramatic bs?

[LostAngeles]

Well if you actually read the Bible you would find out. You and the other's opinions are really invalid until you have finished it then aren't they.

<(((><

I've read the Bible. I'm particularly fond of Ezekial 23, most especially verse 20. I find it really stirs something deep down within me.

[LostAngeles]

We're well past kitten point here. I'm just going to post this link.

www.randomkittengenerator.com

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm glad I skipped to the end of this thread rather than wasting a part of my night reading trollfoolery.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only real evidence of micro-evolution is through fossils.
This is a false statement.

Are you ignorant, or are you (as I suspect) lying?

And how does this fit into "Latest Commentary Issues"?

[Wavicle]

You have more faith than anyone I know. Where are the intermediary versions of the eye?

All around us. We can see many intermediary versions of the eye in extant species.

What use where those intermediary versions to the creature before the eye could actually see?

There are no non-seeing intermediary versions of the eye.

They had to have a reason to develop!

No, they had to impart some survival advantage. According to evolution, they have no 'reason' to develop. You can only look backwards in time and impart a "reason" for it. At the time it was just a chance mutation.

The information needed in the DNA would be incredibly complex. Yet it was an accident?

Not exactly, it was guided by the cold judgment of natural selection.

Chance created this infinitely complex information?

Obviously not.

It is not a valid theory to anyone who possesses half a brain and cares anything about the truth.

If you think you're smarter than them, you must be a genius of rare design. Stop arguing with us and go publish your data which categorically refutes all theirs. The fact that you brought up the evolution of the eye suggests to me you don't understand the theory.

If an eye suddenly appeared in an organism, or a nonfunctional eye evolved over millions of years until all its parts were in place then suddenly became functional, the theory of evolution would be thrown on its ear. As has been pointed out many times before: every step along the way had to be useful and more beneficial than the one before.

Any criticism of evolution you deliver that depends on useless pre-cursor organs or sudden appearance of a complex structure, is an argument from ignorance. Evolution does not posit any such thing ever occurred.

[duggie]

Oh! You mean science can't explain it =therefore my science is true.

Oh wait! That is every bit as much faith based as any other explaination.

I am every bit as much a skeptic as you. Sorry.:cool:

<(((><

I think we can both agree, therefore, that faith based "explainations" are inadequate, so I will renounce mine if you will renounce yours.

[strathmeyer]

Well if you actually read the Bible you would find out. You and the other's opinions are really invalid until you have finished it then aren't they.

g4macdad- We do not fit the prejudice you have assigned to us. We have read the bible. You are showing the greatest ignorance of it. Please move on to other insults.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6691461602c8a68de.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4997)

[BillyJoe]

One of the problems with these type of threads is that it's one poster against many. The one poster cannot possibly answer all the posts of all the other posters, at least in any depth. And there are always posters throwing insults so it seems much more imperative, and certainly easier, to hurl insults back rather than give a considered reply to those wishing to engage in discussion.

[SimonD]

Not into cats or recipes

"Dear God" XTC

, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

it's you....

Taken from http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/xtc/deargod.html

[Magyar]

Yes the same problem plagues both sides. So all you are left with is Faith.

<(((><

You KNOW what -

religion of one kind or another has been giving "answers" for creation and the way the world works for well over 2000 years. Science has had basically about 150 years (where it has been able to exist in relative independence)

And EVEN according to YOU it has been able to come to equal footing with your sky daddy.


I'd say even you are admitting that science is more powerful :)

[wahrheit]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><


Shouldn't that last paragraph read

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you WILL BURN IN HELLFIRE.*


* (C) 1inChrist.

[I less than three logic]

Well if you actually read the Bible you would find out. You and the other's opinions are really invalid until you have finished it then aren't they.

<(((><
You know, this strikes me as one of the worst responses you can give. It seems to me, that proportionally, more atheist have actually read the Bible than Christians. At least all the way through, not just snippet passages printed in greeting cards and such.

[BillyJoe]

For a moment there I thought you were going for a language award nomination.

[I less than three logic]

For a moment there I thought you were going for a language award nomination.
Me? No, I just posted what came to mind as I was reading through the thread. :D

[Ladewig]

The only real evidence of micro-evolution is through fossils.

There is evidence for micro-evolution that does not depend on fossils. Are you asserting that all experiments that end with animals being the same "kind" but unable to produce fertile offspring are false?


They also use carbon dating but both methods are very "inaccurate" to put it politely.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

[Ladewig]

The original question was simple. You people got all bent out of shape and panicky because it destroys one of the most common and goofy arguments for evolution there is.
Why do you care so much? Has that ever occurred to you? Say you were wrong. What's the big deal? Why is it so important to you? Can you change the truth?
I don't care about if I'm right or wrong in the least. I have been looking for the truth as long if not longer than most of you. I am simply pointing out my observations. Take them or leave them. But post insulting and derogatory comments and you will lose.

<(((><

Have you looked for the truth at www.TalkOrigins.org? That is a valuable resource for people interested in the truth.

. . . . . . . .

There is one important difference betwwen the evolutionists and the creationsists that you haven't noticed. All creationists are welcome to post as many messages as they like on evolutionist boards (like the JREF), but it takes only a few messages from an evolutionist on a creationist board before that person is banned.

. . . . . . .

www.TalkOrigins.org. Check it out.

[Z]

There was an interesting article on MSNBC just recently - forgive me for being too lazy to find it again for you - on the Box Jellyfish. Now, it seems that these creatures have many eyes, but that one pair of eyes has developed the ability to sense, IIRC, size and movement? And has become closer to a human eye than any other invertebrate - except, IIRC, the Octopus.

Granted, I'm just waking up, so the memory might be fuzzy.

Intermediate species forms have been discovered over the last few years that really have creationists sweating. And labs have been assembling proto-life for a little while now, albeit not always very successfully.

To the poster who mentioned the stranded bird scenario - I'm afraid your scenario doesn't really accurately reflect what would cause a divergence, but rather what was mentioned a bit later - a small group stranded somewhere, isolated from the main body of their species, and subjected to new pressures.

OK, let's think for a minute about how penguins MIGHT have developed. Let's say there's a species of bird that migrates south periodically. Now, let's say that a small flock of, oh, 20-30 of these birds migrates further south than normal - deviant weather patterns probably - and come to a place where the food is plentiful and the weather acceptable throughout their normal migration cycle (as can happen occasionally). So these birds temporarily disrupt their normal northward migration, and stay and hunt a while.

Now, as it happens, this species had a tendency to produce two different talents of note: some of them were excellent hunters in the air, others were skilled at catching fish. And this nice little niche is heavy on fish, but lacking in insect life... so the fish-hunters and swimmers grow fat, reproduce, and thrive; while the air-hunters flounder, get swallowed by local sea life, and fail to attract mates.

So a few years pass, and this small group is almost entirely fish-hunting.

Now, let's say that this same group has also always had a propensity for poor flight - USUALLY, the poor flyers got weeded out back home - hunted by land- based predators, unable to catch giant flying insects, etc. But in our little niche, it's the flyers who don't make it, and the swimmers are getting stronger by the day.

So time passes, and these birds stop flying altogether. But the weather finally starts to change, and suddenly they want to migrate - but find they can't. They've been cut off by a huge glacier.

So what happens next?

Well, back home, those of their species who developed thicker fat layers and fur-like feathers died rapidly of heat exhaustion, and never reproduced. But down here, as the weather suddenly cools, they find their own niche, and their thinner-fat, feathery cousins are at a decided disadvantage. Driven south (for whatever reason), those best suited to surviving in the cold and hunting fish flourish, while all those more like the ones they left behind - perish.


So more generations pass, and each generation is faced with new variations in their genetic code - some that survive to pass to the next generation, and some that don't.

This is evolution. It's not magical at all. It's very simple.

Think about the human species for a moment: Here we have these bipedal symmetrical upright apes, with their opposable thumbs and their brains capable of abstract thought! And an environment full of giant predatory beasts, changing weather, etc.

To survive, this species has to be rugged! Tough! Strong! Able to trek thousands of miles without exhaustion. Able to run down a large prey animal and beat it into submission. Etc.

Now, shift a few thousand years into their future - They no longer need to bash their prey to bits. They've developed agriculture and housing. So they've become less rugged and more refined.

OK, fast forward even more. Now, in our very recent past, a person born deaf or blind would have been cast aside, or stuck in a shelter somewhere. The chance of reproducing was practically nil. Society frowned on these mutants, and the thought of a deaf person reproducing with another deaf person seemed unthinkable.

But today, we have entire communities of congenitally deaf people actually celebrating the birth of deaf children! Whereas a millenium ago, a deaf person had to fight to be understood, now they have their own completely complex language, right down to idioms, dialects, and accents. Whereas a millenium ago, the deaf person could rarely find useful employment in many fields, nowadays the deaf person can be gainfully employed in most fields.

So that genetic abberation is starting to thrive at last. Ten generations from now, I have no doubt that we'll be realizing that humanity has diverged between hearing and non-hearing.

That's all evolution is about, really. Small changes within a population either cause an organizm to be better suited to survive, or cause it to fail to thrive; but as the environment changes, the same changes can shift from being a bane to a boon; from meaning certain death to meaning certain survival.

These days, evolution has ground almost to a halt. Humans have seen to that. We've compartmentalized every species through our almost universal presence; elephants stay in elephant areas, lions in lion areas, penguins in penguin areas. There's no place for populations to migrate and get cut off; we tend to un-migrate wandering mammal populations all the time.

On the other hand, human evolution is accellerating - invisibly. The development of the brain has been advancing rapidly, though most don't realize it. Certain modes of thought are being rewarded with reproduction and survival, while certain other modes are being culled, slowly but surely. The violent warlord of ages past, who through conquest and rape sowed his seed across continents, has become the incarcerated criminal of today, spreading his seed for only as long as he remains free; but spending the majority of his years locked behind metal bars, his genetic material going to rot. The quiet thinker of ages past, once almost assured a lonely and short life, and later a life of monastic chastity, has become the computer CEO of today, enjoying wealth, fame, power, and reproductive opportunity unheard of even in RECENT ages past. Society as a whole is leaning away from hulking brutes towards more effeminate contemplators.

Then again, it could be said that we're evolving to become symbiotically dependent on a new form of life - artificial life. As each generation is faced with a more technologically integrated world, we become more dependent on that technology. Those who can manage the tech, survive and reproduce. Eventually, humankind will be completely dependent on tech. And should the environment change again, and the tech fails.....

Next time, it'll probably be the insects that evolve.

[scotth]

So matter spontaneously creating information is less complex than a creator?
Yes... I know that isn't the answer you think it should be... but, it is. "Yes", it is the much simpler answer.
And your still left with the same question. Did all life originate from one being?

If your question is, does it appear that all life on earth is decended from a single organism? Again, the answer is yes, absolutely.


PS. What's the easiest way to prevent the truth from surfacing? Limit everyone to 15 replies.

<(((><
I'd suggest that the easiest way to prevent the truth from surfacing is to not look for it, because you think you already have it.

[Ladewig]

OK, let's think for a minute about how penguins MIGHT have developed. Let's say there's a species of bird that migrates south . . .


Most creationists would not be swayed by your detailed example because they would classify it as micro evolution, i.e. you start with a bird and you end with a bird. These creationists believe that one can never start with a proto-mammal and end with a dog and a cat.

I am unsure precisely what g4macdad's take is on micro-evolution, but he or she considers macro-evolution to be false.

[BillyJoe]

Me? No, I just posted what came to mind as I was reading through the thread. :D


Goddamn. No. It the classic failure to notice there's another page error. I'm always falling for it. I was replying to Simon Dalton. Turns out he stole the content of his post. It's okay, though, he attributes it - at the END of his post :mad:

[SimonD]

Goddamn. No. It the classic failure to notice there's another page error. I'm always falling for it. I was replying to Simon Dalton. Turns out he stole the content of his post. It's okay, though, he attributes it - at the END of his post :mad:

I didn't steal anything. I was quoting a song.

Where some people use cats or recipes, I'm using lyrics.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, sorry, poetic license. I know you weren't stealing.

(It's just that you didn't use the quote function and you didn't attribute the quote till the end of your post so, whilst reading it, I thought it was your piece.)

[SimonD]

Yeah, sorry, poetic license. I know you weren't stealing.

(It's just that you didn't use the quote function and you didn't attribute the quote till the end of your post so, whilst reading it, I thought it was your piece.)

Noted for next time.:)

[I less than three logic]

Goddamn. No. It the classic failure to notice there's another page error. I'm always falling for it. I was replying to Simon Dalton. Turns out he stole the content of his post. It's okay, though, he attributes it - at the END of his post :mad:
Ok, makes sense now. For a minute there I thought you had very low expectations for the language award. ;)

[g4macdad]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/proving-creation-main.htm


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Creation.htm

Now I know this proof isn't as good, or valid as yours(OF COURSE)! And you will reject all of it because it interferes with your blind faith but there it is any way.

<(((><

[ChristineR]

I've read the Bible several times and studied it. g4macdad, you're running up against one of the great ironies of atheism. Many atheists are ex-Christians who became atheists precisely because they studied the Bible. And although not all atheists fall into that category, those of us who do know the Bible well.

A lot better than the average Christian.

Oh, and we understand Pascal's wager also. Anytime I hear a Christian throw Pascal's wager at an atheist I know he's not serious about religion. It only takes about five minutes of thought to figure out that Pascal's wager is not going to make anyone decide to be a Christian. Which is not to say that there aren't good reasons to be a Christian--you just aren't stating them.

[ksbluesfan]

You sure have an interesting definition of "faith".

[g4macdad]

I've read the Bible several times and studied it. g4macdad, you're running up against one of the great ironies of atheism. Many atheists are ex-Christians who became atheists precisely because they studied the Bible. And although not all atheists fall into that category, those of us who do know the Bible well.

A lot better than the average Christian.

Oh, and we understand Pascal's wager also. Anytime I hear a Christian throw Pascal's wager at an atheist I know he's not serious about religion. It only takes about five minutes of thought to figure out that Pascal's wager is not going to make anyone decide to be a Christian. Which is not to say that there aren't good reasons to be a Christian--you just aren't stating them.

All opinion! No facts to back any of your emotional spew.

<(((><

[fuelair]

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?


<(((><

He was the child of the Big Bang.:D

[SimonD]

All opinion! No facts to back any of your emotional spew.

<(((><

Kettle pot black

[ChristineR]

All opinion! No facts to back any of your emotional spew.

<(((><

Several people have already explained a couple of the many problems with Pascal's wager. It's easy to find atheists who have read the Bible and are happy to talk about it. Would you like to discuss the Bible in a reasonable manner? Would you like to discuss Pascal's wager in a reasonable manner?

So far you haven't said anything about the Bible other than to state that we haven't read it, which is false. You got some responses to the Pascal's wager post, which you ignored.

[g4macdad]

Look I have no idea what Pascal's wager is.

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?

I know you are smarter than this. So don' t use this in your argument.

<(((><

[ksbluesfan]

Look I have no idea what Pascal's wager is.

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?

I know you are smarter than this. So don' t use this in your argument.

<(((><

From Wikipedia:

Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

[jsfisher]

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?


Hmmm, I think I understand what you mean. Just to be sure, can you start us off with something? What belief do you hold, and what facts have you to back it up?

[g4macdad]

"From Wikipedia:"!
ANOTHER PIECE OF PAPER!

Maybe you are not as smart as I thought.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

Hmmm, I think I understand what you mean. Just to be sure, can you start us off with something? What belief do you hold, and what facts have you to back it up?

The same "FACTS" as you have.

<(((><

[SimonD]

Look I have no idea what Pascal's wager is.

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?

I know you are smarter than this. So don' t use this in your argument.

<(((><

On one side, we have a people who has spent there lives studying and experimenting using the proven scientific method.

On the other, we have a book written thousands of years ago, by a bunch of shepards.

I know which one I'll believe in.

[g4macdad]

Me too!
<(((><

[Magyar]

[QUOTE=g4macdad;2496513
Now I know this proof isn't as good, or valid as yours(OF COURSE)! And you will reject all of it because it interferes with your blind faith but there it is any way.

<(((><[/QUOTE]

PROOF ??????????


I don't understand WHY it is so difficult for these IDiots to understand even the most BASIC of english/science terms?

HOW MANY GOD DAMNED TIMES do you have to explain that ONLY MATH has proofs!

And they continue to use big words like evidence that they OBVIOUSLY do not understand! One wonders how people like this function in the everyday world or are they just delusional only ( I don't mean to use this term as a pejorative, but I simply can not explain it any other way when it comes to this continued willful ignorance of basic terminology) when it comes to this?!

How is that possible?

[g4macdad]

I think Randi should give me the million bucks for being the greatest skeptic of all times.

I would then offer it to the first "scientist" who can prove evolution theory.

<(((><

[jsfisher]

Hmmm, I think I understand what you mean. Just to be sure, can you start us off with something? What belief do you hold, and what facts have you to back it up?

The same "FACTS" as you have.

[Emphasis mine]

Ok, that would be a "no," then.

[ChristineR]

Pascal's wager is the term philosopher's use for the argument you made: What if the Christians are right and the atheists are wrong? The atheists burn in hell and the Christians don't.

Here are some simple problems with the wager.

1) You have to include other gods as well. If the Koran is correct, Christians and atheists will both burn in hell. Since the Muslim hell is worse than the Christian hell, you should be a Muslim.

In general, the wager steers you toward the most vile, vicious, unforgiving deity.

2) You have to consider the possibility of a perverse God. Say you get to heaven and it's Baal. Baal looks at me, says "okay, you're an atheist, you made your choice based on the evidence and I understand that--I haven't been very active for the past 3000 years. Come to heaven." But then he looks at you and says "Yahweh! You worshiped that SOB! To hell for you!"

3) It requires flaky math. To make the right decisions you need to be able to choose the possibility of situations like I outlined above (Allah, Baal) and multiply them against the cost of the punishments. But you can get any result you like this way. Say I put the cost of Muslim hell at 1,000,000 and the cost of Christian hell at 500,000. I put the possibility of Allah existing at 1/1000 and the possibility of Yahweh existing at 1/500.

1/1000 * 1,000,000 = 1,000
1/500 * 500,000 = 1,000

So it's a tossup whether I should be Christian or Muslim. That's just one little example, a complete analysis requires a lot of math and basically gets you nowhere. You can get whatever results you like just by shaking the numbers around.

4) It assumes that belief is something you can choose. I can choose to go to church on Sundays and to live a moral life, but I'll still be an atheist. I'm not aware of any way I can make myself believe in something that is contradicted by all the evidence. I'll need more evidence.

5) It's dishonest, and it's disrespectful to God. What will God say when I get to heaven and he asks me why I worshiped him and I say "I was hoping for the big payoff!"

That's just a simple summary of the reasons that I can remember right now. Whole books have been written on this very subject.

[SimonD]

I think Randi should give me the million bucks for being the greatest skeptic of all times.

I would then offer it to the first "scientist" who can prove evolution theory.

<(((><

It's been proven.

It's your type of thinking that leads people to fly planes into buildings.

[g4macdad]

It's been proven.

It's your type of thinking that leads people to fly planes into buildings.

"It's been proven."
LOL! there you go again, jeesh.

<(((><

[SimonD]

<shakes head>

[ChristineR]

Go to TalkOrigins, read through the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" and then give me a reference to sources that refute them all. If you can do that, then I'll take your biology comments seriously. Otherwise you're just making sounds, which even I can do.

[g4macdad]

Go to TalkOrigins, read through the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" and then give me a reference to sources that refute them all. If you can do that, then I'll take your biology comments seriously. Otherwise you're just making sounds, which even I can do.

OH BOY!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496513#post2496513

<(((><

[ChristineR]

I went to your links already. There's nothing there that refutes the evidence, there's just a few paragraphs of not very good science which has itself been throughly refuted on TalkOrigins as well as many other places.

What do you think of the phylogenetic tree? Why would God make us so much like apes?

[ksbluesfan]

"From Wikipedia:"!
ANOTHER PIECE OF PAPER!

Maybe you are not as smart as I thought.

<(((><

And here I thought I was being courteous. That "piece of paper" explains Pascal's wager, and is take directly from Pascal's notes (Pensées). If you read it, you understand that Pascal was saying the same thing you said when you wrote the following:

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

[Ladewig]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/proving-creation-main.htm


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Creation.htm

Now I know this proof isn't as good, or valid as yours(OF COURSE)! And you will reject all of it because it interferes with your blind faith but there it is any way.

<(((><

The third link describes evidence of an old earth (orders of magnitude beyond 10,000 years: citation (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/AgeEarth.htm)). A tip of the hat to g4macdad for not falling for the Young Earth Creationist bunkum.

[g4macdad]

I went to your links already. There's nothing there that refutes the evidence, there's just a few paragraphs of not very good science which has itself been throughly refuted on TalkOrigins as well as many other places.

What do you think of the phylogenetic tree? Why would God make us so much like apes?
Why not leave the discussion?

There are no links. There is no "PROOF". That will ever turn your blind faith away.

So...Why come back?

<(((><

[Ladewig]

Look I have no idea what Pascal's wager is.

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?


So how do you propose that we decide which sources are credible and which are not?

[ChristineR]

Why not leave the discussion?

There are no links. There is no "PROOF". That will ever turn your blind faith away.

So...Why come back?

<(((><

Nonsense. There is a ton of evidence that, if it existed, could make me believe in God. Whatever else my faults, blind faith in the non-existence of God is not one of them.

I didn't ask for proof. I asked for you to read through a scholarly document aimed at people like you and then to comment, or to refer me to other's comments. I also said that if you could refer me to serious commentary or refutation I'd take it seriously. Where is the serious refutation?

[ksbluesfan]

Why not leave the discussion?

There are no links. There is no "PROOF". That will ever turn your blind faith away.

So...Why come back?

<(((><

How do you define "faith"?

[Ladewig]

There is no "PROOF". That will ever turn your blind faith away.



On the contary! There is all sorts of proof (or as you put it PROOF) that would cause me to believe in Jesus and Creationism. If the stars in the night sky moved to spell out Jesus's name, I'd most assuredly renounce my atheism. If a new species were discovered and all its internal organs were made up of cells with membranes that said "made in Heaven by the Alpha and Omega" I would immediately pray for forgiveness on bended knee.

Please don't suggest that we would not be turned away from evolutionary theory by reliable evidence.

[g4macdad]

The third link describes evidence of an old earth (orders of magnitude beyond 10,000 years: citation (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/AgeEarth.htm)). A tip of the hat to g4macdad for not falling for the Young Earth Creationist bunkum.

Ah! A tip of the hat to you too.

The part of the link that supports your BELIEF is correct. The other parts are "of course" false because they don't support your BELIEFS.

To me that is hilarious.

<(((><

[Oualawouzou]

Eh, I can't even access that site from work... From the "access denied" message: Catégorie/Category=Intolerance & Hate
Site/Site=ourworld.compuserve.com

Is it really that bad?

[g4macdad]

C'mon Randi gimme the $1,000,000.

<(((><

[Blindwatcher]

This thread reminds me of arguing with my five year old nephew, who merely replies "Nuh uh" to everything I say.

Since I have already had that argument today, I humbly request more kittens.

[ksbluesfan]

C'mon Randi gimme the $1,000,000.

<(((><

Why did you start this thread? With comments like this, do you expect us to take you seriously?

[duggie]

Why does god only use really annoying people to try and convince us of his existence?

[LostAngeles]

This thread reminds me of arguing with my five year old nephew, who merely replies "Nuh uh" to everything I say.

Since I have already had that argument today, I humbly request more kittens.

On Tuesday, I found myself in an arguement with a five year old.

"Why?" he asked.
"Why?" I responded.
"Why? he asked again.
"Why?" I responded again.
"No," he said.
"Yes," I said.
[repeat]

Kitties: www.roflcat.com

[LostAngeles]

In fact:

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270915355_c8b9ae48e6.jpg (http://www.roflcat.com)

[Skeptic Guy]

The OP asks the question "How could one being create all life on earth" and then tries to suggest that is a claim attributable to evolution. Where did that come from? Evolution claims no such thing.

However, religion does.

So my question to you, g4macdad, how does one "being" create all life on earth. And don't refer to the bible, please use science. Oh, and don't point us towards a hate site either. You can detail it all in a post.

[Soapy Sam]

Hang on! I haven't seen one shred of evidence that does not require my faith.

How long is a day? Have days always taken the same amont of time? What measurement do we use to find out? Could I fill 1,000 pages with words to convince you and you never be convinced?



I suggest you start looking for evidence then. The internet is not the place.

Days are getting longer. During the Devonian- about 400 million years ago-there were around 400 days in the year, with a correspondingly shorter day. The Earth's rotation is slowing down. Conservation of angular momentum of the Earth - Moon system is slowly forcing the two into tidal lock. The moon, having far less rotational momentum to start with, is already locked with one face towards Earth. You can check this by observation. No faith is required, so long as you believe your senses.
(Perhaps you are also a solipsist?)
The evidence- to be found in the fossil record in which you have no faith- is quite clear in the daily growth lines of corals and other marine invertebrates which reflect precisely the tides that are causing the frictional drag. There's a coincidence!
Oddly, it also coincides rather nicely with the radio isotope dating which you also do not trust. (At least do some elementary reading , please; Carbon 14 dating is used by archaeologists , not palaeontologists, except for Holocene and later Pleistocene studies.)
Google Runcorn & Moorbath (Quarterly Journal of Geology~1974 if I recall correctly. It has been some decades since I read the paper, but there is a wealth of later evidence in support. It is up to you to seek it if you are actually interested.)
You might also read up on radioistope dating. At least learn the basics about Rb/Sr and pb/Pb systems .

It would also be nice if you made clear what it is you came to this board to say. I presume you do actually know?

[Wavicle]

I think Randi should give me the million bucks for being the greatest skeptic of all times.

For starters Randi is not offering a million bucks for skepticism. Otherwise he could just cash out the bond and use it himself.

I would then offer it to the first "scientist" who can prove evolution theory.

Which of course would go unclaimed. Not because evolution is wrong, but simply because of your ignorance of science. Scientific theories are not proven. Scientific laws are not proven either.

If you hold a steel ball in your hand, drop it, then observe that it falls to the ground, you have not proven the law of gravitation. You've simply added another piece of evidence that supports it.

Same is true with evolution. All we have is a vast towering mountain of supporting evidence. We have no proof because WE DON'T PROVE THEORIES. We support them with evidence. How silly do you think it would have been if we had "proven" Newton's laws of motion only to have them shown to be incomplete when relativity arrived? Science exists in a universe of philosophy where, at any time, given sufficient evidence, we must modify or completely abandon our currently accepted theories.

So, provide sufficient contrary evidence to evolution, and we must modify or completely abandon it. Just be aware that you don't seem to have researched the topic very well and you are doing the same thing that JF did, that nearly everyone with your position does... Your pet argument gets shot down and you start link spamming.

[BillyJoe]

Ok, makes sense now. For a minute there I thought you had very low expectations for the language award. ;)

Actually I had a running joke going on there for a while, but fellow posters got a bit upset so now I go there only to find threads worth reading. You have to pick and choose though. Your's could easily have made it. :D

[Ladewig]

Repeated for emphasis:

So how do you propose that we decide which sources are credible and which are not?

[BillyJoe]

The caption's probably appropriate as well.


http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/gangsta.jpg

[I less than three logic]

My common sense says if you show me a piece of paper that backs what your faith has you to believe. I then show you a piece of paper that backs what I believe. Who has the "FACTS" at this point?
"All of the books in the world contain no more information than is broadcast as video in a single large American city in a single year. Not all bits have equal value." - Carl Sagan

[articulett]

So, now he's convinced me. Science is full of lying cheating conspiracists, and it is demonic forces that made the earth look old and all that jazz. So now who do I trust? There are so many truths to choose from. Do you pick from the people who seem the nicest? The smartest? The richest? The one that feels good? The one you're most afraid not to believe? The one that promises the best rewards? Should you wait for an inner knowingness? But what if it's wrong? The Heaven's Gate people believed they were going on a spaceship--I missed that spaceship already unless their knowingness is wrong. Apparently inner knowingness CAN be wrong. And not everybody can be right. And we know humans have been making up this kind of stuff for eons and then manipulating other people by telling them faith is good. We know that our species evolved seeing purpose and patterns and connections--but we also know that this makes us prone to common errors. We know humans misinterpret--heck, most of them thought the earth was flat, imagine that! We know people make up religions--Raelian? Moonies? Mormons?

Zeus was kind of a cool god--but most of the gods are so sexist--the abrahamic ones suck--punishing all mankind because some woman was entrapped into eating an apple by an invisible ******** and a talking serpent (what gives?)...and then this ******** premeditates the murder of his kid who was really him to somehow atones for some supposed sin some people in the future are bound to do(?!!?!)--but no worries--the dead kid is off to happy land after a couple of days-- they say 3...but good friday till Easter Sunday is 2-- but then I could never figure out how three gods-in -ne was supposed to be monotheistic or how you can kill someone who has an eternal soul. And wouldn't Mary be the one who suffered the most--she was impregnated without her consent...and then her kid was killed in front of her and lived happily ever after while she remained alive and bore witness to the horror. What mother wouldn't rather die than watch her kid did?

And what is with telling Abraham to kill Isaac--or I guess he was told to kill Ishmael in the Quo'ran which they assure us is the really true word of the creator of the universe on every single page of their sacred text.

So, what shall I believe...I've never had the urge to kill anyone, and I don't covet my neighbors wife. I'm not a priestly pedophile and I think fundies are...well...stupid. The Amish can't go on the internet (and I'm an addict) so that religion is out...and I might need a blood transfusion so the JW's are out.
And can you make yourself believe the unbelievable. Why does god care what you believe rather than what you do? How do you know if you believe enough? Do you have to be willing to do something you wouldn't normally do like kill your kid--like god asked abraham to do? Isn't that a sick test? How do you know if it's god telling you or a voice in your head? What's the differential?

How do you tell a prophet from a schizophrenic from a false prophet from a charleatan or who wrote what and when when there are no originals around and so many versions and translations and interpretations of texts supposedly written by someone who should have used his omniscience to plan ahead a little better. Why not digital info. from the almighty one?

There are some rich, good looking scientologists, but it's still creepy and sexist. And all those books in North Korea say that Kim Jong Il was born of a god--they can't all be wrong.

aak...I feel myself slipping back into science...I can't help it. I just don't know how to choose what to believe. So I am going to go with the evidence. I know it's awful of me, and certainly some demon inspired my choice--but all the gods tend to be omniscient, right...and so they already know how it's all going to turn out, right?--and none of them make any sense to me...none seem all loving...all seem sexist and stupid and barbaric and non-sensical-- why would an all loving anything be invisible and then demand to be worshipped? That makes no sense. What sort of all loving anything creates life with the POSSIBILITY of it suffering forever. I'm not all loving, and I would never have a kid if I believed there was such a possibility. It's evil. And why are the supposed spokespeople for this god or these gods or these beliefs so...brainwashed...uneducated...arrogant...dare I say, stupid...or maybe just ignorant. They don't even know what the rest of the world knows and they think they know things that no humans can know-- And they think it's important to shove it in everyone else's head while being utterly unaware of the huge emptiness in their own basic understanding of logicical fallacies, human foibles, and demonstrable facts.

[articulett]

On Tuesday, I found myself in an arguement with a five year old.

"Why?" he asked.
"Why?" I responded.
"Why? he asked again.
"Why?" I responded again.
"No," he said.
"Yes," I said.
[repeat]

Kitties: www.roflcat.com

yes...but the five-year-old's thinking will evolve, and he will cease to be a source of amusement; however fundies will be amusing us all the way until the rapture (and that can't come soon enough for me...)

Coversation with my child when Five.

Me: Who farted?
Him: you did...
Me: I knew you did...
Him: NO, YOU did--
Me: I'm agreeing with you--YOU did
Him: No, YOU, not me, YOU
Me: Of course...that's what I said...YOU, not me, YOU...

It's cute... when they're kiddies!

[articulett]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><


Unless the Muslims are correct. Then all those who worship the false prophet Jesus will go to hell. Or if the Mormons are correct--you won't go to the highest heaven. If the Scientologists are correct, you may reincarnate as a rock. If the Amish are correct, you've already exposed yourself to worldy things like the internet, so it's hell time for you, buddy. (The Amish actually still believe the earth is flat--the book they get all their truths from certainly indicates that it is...or rather...done shaped with a flat earth bottom. Actually, most people who claim to know what the creator of the universe wants people to think, do, and believe would think that you don't have it right at all and you should be worried. So many people--so sure that they will be experiencing something in some next life without any brain or body or sensory organs--and none of them really agree. Even christians don't agree who a real christian is...and nobody agrees on what god is, does, or wants. And if you ask questions, they call you arrogant for asking. You better believe in everything...and do all the necessary things you can think of to please this all loving overlord who has your eternity in his hands, hadn't you? I mean, maybe you should go be Amish, just in case. And give away all your possession as the bible says (it's harder for a rich guy to get into heaven than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, ya' know. You better tell Pat Robertson.)

[articulett]

Why not leave the discussion?

There are no links. There is no "PROOF". That will ever turn your blind faith away.

So...Why come back?

<(((><

damn, they're good at irony!

[articulett]

I think Randi should give me the million bucks for being the greatest skeptic of all times.

I would then offer it to the first "scientist" who can prove evolution theory.

<(((><

Evolution is proven to everyone who actually understands it...and many more. It has more evidence than atomic theory and more than gravity even. The only people for whom it will never be proven sufficiently is people who believe they will live happily ever after for believing the right unbelievable story. Fundies, Muslim extremists, and few tangential weird religions like Scientology. Why? Because the facts conflict with the "truth" they claim to know. We're busy looking at genomes to do things like forensics testing and to tell HOW closely related two animals are. We just created amino acids (pre-biotic life pieces) from non-life...the Amish stil live on a flat earth...and you live in the delusion your religion inflicted upon you. To us it's sad, but amusing. You trust people to tell you facts, when there are actual facts you can know and prove to yourself. You can see your own DNA. Lots of Christians understand and accept evolution--you do know that right? You do know about Francis Collins right? Or do you think that he's in on the conspiracy of proof that the Smithsonian, police labs, gentic testing centers, National Geographic, PBS, the BBC, every Natural History museum and everyone else are in on too?

So...how did you happen to stumble on the really true truth. And why is the evidence or word or whatever so convincing to you--clearly you know some religions are wrong--what examinations have you done towards your own belief to make sure you couldn't be fooled similarly. Or is that something you take on faith too.

Woos of all sorts have very loose standards when it comes to noticing evidence for their belief (confirmation bias) and they have a complete inability to grasp even the strongest and most blatant evidence that negates their belief.

What do you imagine the world would look like or your life would be if scientists really did have all the proof they say they did and if evolution really was a fact. How do you think you'd find out? Would your preacher man tell you you could believe it now. Or would you think it was a trick of satan? In very recent history people were freaked out about test tube babies--they though only god could make babies--turns out--humans can make them--even in a petri dish...and they're just like the kind made from sex. Imagine that.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why did you start this thread? With comments like this, do you expect us to take you seriously?

Because he's a troll, and you guys are spending an awful lot of effort feeding him. 150 responses for a nonsense OP isn't much around here, but there are worthy threads that don't get 5 responses sometimes.

Sigh...

[articulett]

Because he's a troll, and you guys are spending an awful lot of effort feeding him. 150 responses for a nonsense OP isn't much around here, but there are worthy threads that don't get 5 responses sometimes.

Sigh...

Yeah, but it's good friday when their magic man was killed and all. What better way to celebrate then to let the self invited woo be the pinata in festivity of fun.

In real life, I have to be nice to most woos, because they don't inflict their woo on me--though they often assume I believe as they do--but when a woo comes to a SKEPTIC'S FORUM to preach--then that is a sign for a good time to be had by all, isn't it? I love it when they get all feisty when no one is grateful for their "wisdom"--and the intelligent replies followed by the woo's lame responses always bring a tear of joy to my eyes--I am so glad my brain made it out in tact from my early woo indoctrination by well-meaning adults. Besides, when a woo is online, he's not spawning...and that is good for us all.

:)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah, but it's good friday when their magic man was killed and all. What better way to celebrate then to let the self invited woo be the pinata in festivity of fun.

I mean he's pure troll, just having a jape. I'm utterly unconvinced he's posted anything that isn't BS from the very start.

Of course I'm keeping Poe's law in mind, but that's just the impression I'm getting.

[articulett]

I mean he's pure troll, just having a jape. I'm utterly unconvinced he's posted anything that isn't BS from the very start.

Of course I'm keeping Poe's law in mind, but that's just the impression I'm getting.

Yeah...you're probably right...but usually fakers spell better and have better grammar and reasoning than actual fundies, so that gives them away -- but if so, then he's an excellent ringer.

Or it could be a real live kid...in which case I might feel bad--

on the other hand, we may have saved him from a life of religion induced dementia...or at least planted a seed.

[Hawk one]

OK, so I took his advice and started reading the bible.

So g4macdad, which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the true one, then?

[articulett]

OK, so I took his advice and started reading the bible.

So g4macdad, which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the true one, then?

Well after he tells us that, I hope he'll be back to clear up the discrepancies about Easter, since it is the season...

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

so many conundrums, so few woos with explanations...

[fuelair]

I think Randi should give me the million bucks for being the greatest skeptic of all times.

I would then offer it to the first "scientist" who can prove evolution theory.

<(((><
Great ego, big dream, load of crap, end of story.

[g4macdad]

OK!

First of all. Most of you really need therapy for your emotional issues.

Now, I keep getting told I haven't even stated my BELIEF. Which admittedly is mostly true. But isn't it strange how regardless of this fact, I get told over and over, I am completely wrong?

<(((><

[g4macdad]

Oh yeah. How many of you celebrate Easter and Christmas?

ROTFL!

( That one always gets the sheep hopping!)

<(((><

[Hindmost]

Well I hope your all correct. Becuase if you are, we will all be OK.

But if you are not correct, I am OK and you are in really big trouble.

<(((><

The bible doesn't really say we will be in trouble...it clearly states that the wages of sin is death. So, no big difference for us.

I would like to know what gave you your faith.

The bible is filled with miracles, but they seem to be in short supply for the last 2000 years. I would have faith if I saw just one.

glenn

[g4macdad]

The bible doesn't really say we will be in trouble...it clearly states that the wages of sin is death. So, no big difference for us.

I would like to know what gave you your faith.

The bible is filled with miracles, but they seem to be in short supply for the last 2000 years. I would have faith if I saw just one.

glenn

Glenn thank you for your respectful response. If you just give the Bible the same chance as any other Belief system today. I promise the answer to that is in there. God showed Israel many miracles after he delivered them from Egypt. But it didn't do any good. They still turned from him. I guess it's human nature. This is why it says in the Bible:

Matthew 12 :38

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

If you are somewhat of an internet addict like me, there is a sight with all versions of the Bible. And a very professional site too.

http://www.biblegateway.com

<(((><

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh yeah. How many of you celebrate Easter and Christmas?

ROTFL!

( That one always gets the sheep hopping!)

<(((><

Ha! Ha! Very clever, g4macdad. We must be hypocrites, right?

So I suppose on Wednesdays you worship the god Wodin? And on the Thursdays you are a devotee of Thor? Saturday you worship the god Saturn?

Believe it or not, even we atheists enjoy and value spending time with our families. Honest! It can happen totally without god's involvement!

By the way, "Easter" and "Christmas" celebrations both go back to pre-christian times. Or did you really think no one ever celebrated the first full moon after the vernal equinox or the winter solstice before Jesus came along?

[g4macdad]

Ha! Ha! Very clever, g4macdad. We must be hypocrites, right?

So I suppose on Wednesdays you worship the god Wodin? And on the Thursdays you are a devotee of Thor? Saturday you worship the god Saturn?

Believe it or not, even we atheists enjoy and value spending time with our families. Honest! It can happen totally without god's involvement!

By the way, "Easter" and "Christmas" celebrations both go back to pre-christian times. Or did you really think no one ever celebrated the first full moon after the vernal equinox or the winter solstice before Jesus came along?

ROTFL!
That is just too funny. Sorry.

*cough*bahhh*cough*

And it's always "we" C'mon please.
You're killing me!

<(((><

[UnrepentantSinner]

I mean he's pure troll, just having a jape. I'm utterly unconvinced he's posted anything that isn't BS from the very start.

Of course I'm keeping Poe's law in mind, but that's just the impression I'm getting.

I remain unconvinced.

[delphi_ote]

I remain unconvinced.
I'll second that. Bored troll.

[BillyJoe]

I'll third that....

I think we should stop licking this pussy cat.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/catsex.jpg

It's a bit grose and he's enjoying it too much. ;)

[articulett]

I'll second that. Bored troll.

Yeah, I'm giving up;

I don't speak woo.

They always seem to be having a different conversation than anyone else--and then there are those voices in their head or something that seems to be agreeing with them or laughing at their jokes despite all evidence to the contrary on the thread.

So woo or crazy person or troll--in the cyber world it all boils down to the same thing.

[g4macdad]

Sweet!

Final score:

Evolution theory-0

Jesus Our King And Saviour-1

I had tons of fun thanks all.

<(((><

[~enigma~]

From the latest playstation games manual...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1148/shoryukenen2.jpg

Screenshot from the newest playstation game...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8820/dogkickwf0.jpg

[Hawk one]

So which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the true one, then?

[~enigma~]

So which of the two creation stories in the Bible is the true one, then?
We are at kitten picture point. Please stay on topic...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5456/masterlockml4.jpg

[fuelair]

Oh yeah. How many of you celebrate Easter and Christmas?

ROTFL!

( That one always gets the sheep hopping!)

<(((><
I am sensing a similarity to DJ and another religious nutcase on here (the phrase "X, thank you for your respectful response" is exactly/one word different(thoughtful) and the style is Godsinned/DJyoudirtyguy all the way - though if the reports that Godsinned has an idiot webpage, while DJ has several -better cobbled together are correct they may just be trolls that feed off each other instead of three sockys. In that case they have three hands for the circle.:D

[~enigma~]

I am sensing a similarity to DJ and another religious nutcase on here (the phrase "X, thank you for your respectful response" is exactly/one word different(thoughtful) and the style is Godsinned/DJyoudirtyguy all the way - though if the reports that Godsinned has an idiot webpage, while DJ has several -better cobbled together are correct they may just be trolls that feed off each other instead of three sockys. In that case they have three hands for the circle.:D
Doesn't anybody read anymore. I said this guy is thehighwaymanq from the Loose Change forum. He is a 13 year old in school and he is firmly in the camp of woo.

Oh...

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4954/catmousejl3.png

[delphi_ote]

I had tons of fun thanks all.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/My_cat_and_her_toilet_by_MajikkuSak.jpg
Good riddance!

[BillyJoe]

I had tons of fun thanks all.

Looks like that last pussy picture got a bit excited, hey. :D

Careful though.....














































http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/ceiling.jpg

[~enigma~]

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/1029/whaaaa1iy9.jpg

[BillyJoe]

Ah, Delphi, yours is much better. :D

[~enigma~]

Looks like that last pussy picture got a bit excited, hey. :D

Careful though.....

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/ceiling.jpg


http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/8025/omggl3.jpg

[delphi_ote]

Ah, Delphi, yours is much better. :D
It's been a while since I've been a part of a classic threat kittening.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/face_of_sleeping_kitten.jpg
Celebrate!

[~enigma~]

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6387/dangerto9.jpg
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/622/catninjaxy4.jpg

Now I am going to bed...

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/108/catnapkn1.jpg

[BillyJoe]

He is a 13 year old in school...

You mean it's been more like.....

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/stick_em_up_cat_burglar.jpg



Oh, now I feel bad.
Here's a nice one for the little fella then...



http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Kitten-Ducks.jpg


THE END

[delphi_ote]

Now I am going to bed...
Ditto.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/1280-BlueMosqueCat.jpg
Goodnight!

[Apathia]

Sweet!

Final score:

Evolution theory-0

Jesus Our King And Saviour-1

I had tons of fun thanks all.

<(((><

"So long and thanks for the fish!"
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/CandF.JPG

[articulett]

Hey, don't make fun of cat masturbation...
I used to have an orange kitty boy who was rather limber and used to perform amazing acts of auto erotica complete with yowling sound effects; (The cat's tongue is rather sand-papery, you know--)

I'd post a picture, but it could embarrass his relatives who are still amongst my household members--

[Beleth]

Sweet!

Final score:

Evolution theory-0

Jesus Our King And Saviour-1
Words on a page.

Heck, not even that. Electrons on a monitor.

I had tons of fun thanks all.

<(((><
Not nearly as much fun as we had.
Sorry it had to be at your expense.

[LostAngeles]

I don't think you guys are really giving this matter the gravitas it deserves.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg (http://www.roflcat.com)

[SimonD]

That's better. Finally some decent posts:)

[BillyJoe]

The little fella resting peacefully in his mother's bosom, safe from the clutches of the ravenous wolf pack:

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/catincleave.jpg

...or not!

[SimonD]

The little fella resting peacefully in his mother's bosom, safe from the clutches of the ravenous wolf pack:

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/catincleave.jpg

...or not!

I'll go along with that

[Niobe]

Cats eat fish, true story.

[Mojo]

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?


<(((><

That's a religious fish symbol in the OP. I would have thought that given the second question in the OP, these would be more appropriate:

:turtle::turtle::turtle::turtle::turtle:

All the way down!

[BillyJoe]

Well, I think we've finished with this little fish

<+++<

[g4macdad]

Well, I think we've finished with this little fish

<+++<
"WE" "WE" "WE"

All the way home.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

If you're not with "US" you're with the terrorists.

George warned "US" about those nutty conspiracy theorists.

KEERIPES! "You're" Neo-cons.

<(((><

[g4macdad]

Sorry I don't speak Wee.

If you can't stand on your own. To me, you are no more than Zealots, Pharisees or Baptists.

Beware of the WEE.

Some day, I will grow up and post kitty pictures with clever captions to prove my maturity.

<(((><

[Z]

I guess he couldn't manage the actual replies I gave him. I suppose reading all those words was too difficult for him. He needs a priest to come along and spoon-feed him the parts he agrees with, right?

BTW, I celebrate neither Christmas nor Easter. Nor Passover, nor Ramadan, none of that. I celebrate the solstices and equinoxes. They existed long before your dead guy on a pogo stick came along. As for the Bible, however, I have read both testaments, the Apocrypha, the Qu'Ran, the Analects of Confucious, the Rg Veda, the Tao Te Ching, and a number of other texts besides. I have read the Bible in dozens of translations, and have even read a few of the books excluded from the official version. I own two copies of direct translations from early Greek texts, and six other copies besides.

And one thing is clear:

if we are to be judged by our actions, then you are doomed, g4.

As to the OP, as I said before: it's a strawman. Evolution theory suggests parallel multiple proto-life sources created all life on earth. Only silly little small-minded religions make the claim that one being created all life.

So, anyway, why don't you come back when you have some stronger game... or any game at all, for that matter?

Science : 1
g4fool : -5

[g4macdad]

I guess he couldn't manage the actual replies I gave him. I suppose reading all those words was too difficult for him. He needs a priest to come along and spoon-feed him the parts he agrees with, right?

BTW, I celebrate neither Christmas nor Easter. Nor Passover, nor Ramadan, none of that. I celebrate the solstices and equinoxes. They existed long before your dead guy on a pogo stick came along. As for the Bible, however, I have read both testaments, the Apocrypha, the Qu'Ran, the Analects of Confucious, the Rg Veda, the Tao Te Ching, and a number of other texts besides. I have read the Bible in dozens of translations, and have even read a few of the books excluded from the official version. I own two copies of direct translations from early Greek texts, and six other copies besides.

And one thing is clear:

if we are to be judged by our actions, then you are doomed, g4.

As to the OP, as I said before: it's a strawman. Evolution theory suggests parallel multiple proto-life sources created all life on earth. Only silly little small-minded religions make the claim that one being created all life.

So, anyway, why don't you come back when you have some stronger game... or any game at all, for that matter?

Science : 1
g4fool : -5

"HE" not being as clever as "WEE" (of course), has so no game. So "WEE " must emulate his "weak game" posts.

<(((><

[BillyJoe]

"WE" "WE" "WE"....All the way home.

Yes we have done you like a dinner. :D

<+++<

[SimonD]

...They existed long before your dead guy on a pogo stick came along...

Did you mean this?

[g4macdad]

I guess he couldn't manage the actual replies I gave him. I suppose reading all those words was too difficult for him. He needs a priest to come along and spoon-feed him the parts he agrees with, right?

BTW, I celebrate neither Christmas nor Easter. Nor Passover, nor Ramadan, none of that. I celebrate the solstices and equinoxes. They existed long before your dead guy on a pogo stick came along. As for the Bible, however, I have read both testaments, the Apocrypha, the Qu'Ran, the Analects of Confucious, the Rg Veda, the Tao Te Ching, and a number of other texts besides. I have read the Bible in dozens of translations, and have even read a few of the books excluded from the official version. I own two copies of direct translations from early Greek texts, and six other copies besides.

And one thing is clear:

if we are to be judged by our actions, then you are doomed, g4.

As to the OP, as I said before: it's a strawman. Evolution theory suggests parallel multiple proto-life sources created all life on earth. Only silly little small-minded religions make the claim that one being created all life.

So, anyway, why don't you come back when you have some stronger game... or any game at all, for that matter?

Science : 1
g4fool : -5
OK

More seriously. You really solidify the point of this post Z.

If I go and read all your "scientific" evidence. I will come to the same conclusion as you do when you read the Bible. Because I will be looking for all the errors and inconsistencies. Science is no less a religion as any other. At some point after you hear enough evidence, you go "I believe". I was hoping being the skeptics you claim to be, this would be easy to figure out. What I have found out is, this whole skeptic thing is bogus from the get go. Most of you sound like Neo-con zealots to me.


<(((><

[BillyJoe]

Sorry I don't speak Wee.

No, it definitely comes from your mouth - unless you have a gaping hole where your pecker should be. :D

Beware of the WEE.

Well stop splashing it about. ;)

Some day, I will grow up and post kitty pictures with clever captions to prove my maturity.

In the mean time:

,,,M
,,,O
Q

[SimonD]

:)

[g4macdad]

:)

Now I'm getting through! =P

<(((><

[delphi_ote]

Now I'm getting through! =P

<(((><
Your cover is blown. Your fish is annoying. You have nothing to contribute.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/r1628422817.jpg

GROW UP OR GO AWAY!

[BillyJoe]

If I go and read all your "scientific" evidence. I will come to the same conclusion as you do when you read the Bible. Because I will be looking for all the errors and inconsistancies. Science is no less a religion as any other. At some point after you hear enough evidence, you go "I believe". I was hoping being the skeptics you claim to be, this would be easy to figure out. What I have found out is, this whole skeptic thing is bogus from the get go. Most of you sound like Neo-con zealots to me.

<(((><




The difference between science and religion:
(This was my first reply to you in this thread when I was silly enough to take you seriously.)

In Relgion, you start with a conclusion and gather facts to support your conclusion.
In science, you start with facts and look for a conclusion that fits the facts.
In Religion the conclusion never changes, because contradictory facts are ignored.
In science, conclusions are always changing to fit new facts that need to be accounted for.

Considering this...
I have faith that science is likely to get us gradually closer to the truth.
I have no faith that religion already has the truth.
For a start, there is more than one religion, so at least one must be wrong.

-------------------------

It's called a theory because there is lots of supporting evidence.
In other words, it's the best we can do with our present knowledge
It could be wrong in detail but it's unlikely to be wrong in broard outline.
Of course, if more evidence comes to light, we will revise our theory.

-------------------------

Firmly established theories are very hard to shift. This is because it took a lot of observations to derive the theory in the first place. However, observations can be wrong, so the theory could be wrong. For this very reason, however, a single observation cannot nullify a firmly established theory. Repeated observations that contradict a theory, will demand more attention. Confirmed, repeated observations over a long period of time by many different scientists can eventually overturn (or, more commonly, modify) a firmly held theory. This is how it should be. If we changed our theory with every contrary observation, we would be blown about like leaves in the wind.

This is how science works at getting closer to the truth.

------------------------

There is, and always has been, disagreement between scientists.
The more disagreement, the more shaky our faith (some say "trust") that a particular theory is true. However, there is virtually no disagreement amongst scientists that evolution actually occurred. Although there IS disagreement about the details of how it occurred. There have always been rogues (for lack of a better term) even amongst trained scientists, so there will never be complete agreement.

But it works!
Look around you. Look at the computer in front of you. Proof that science works!



Your reply? - still waiting....


<+++<

[BillyJoe]

Now I'm getting through!

<(((><



Well I certainly am....

http://www.foxriverwatch.com/man_eating_fish.jpg


<+++<

[g4macdad]

The difference between science and religion:
(This was my first reply to you in this thread when I was silly enough to take you seriously.)




Your reply? - still waiting....


<+++<

Sorry, but if this was true your stance would change as each side revealed new evidence. As it is though, you are more like good old GDubbya and you're, "staying the course".

<(((><

[BillyJoe]

Sorry, but if this was true your stance would change as each side revealed new evidence...

<(((><


You must have missed this bit...

Firmly established theories are very hard to shift. This is because it took a lot of observations to derive the theory in the first place.

However, observations can be wrong, so the theory could be wrong.

For this very reason, however, a single observation cannot nullify a firmly established theory.

Repeated observations that contradict a theory, will demand more attention.

Confirmed, repeated observations over a long period of time by many different scientists can eventually overturn (or, more commonly, modify) a firmly held theory.

This is how it should be. If we changed our theory with every contrary observation, we would be blown about like leaves in the wind.

This is how science works at getting closer to the truth.



<+++<

[g4macdad]

You must have missed this bit...




<+++<

So you have been swayed by creationists before?

<(((><

[delphi_ote]

You must have missed this bit...
Reading is never important to the internet troll.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/neko.jpg

[BillyJoe]

So you have been swayed by creationists before?

<(((><


You must have missed this bit....

In Relgion, you start with a conclusion and gather facts to support your conclusion.
In science, you start with facts and look for a conclusion that fits the facts.
In Religion the conclusion never changes, because contradictory facts are ignored.
In science, conclusions are always changing to fit new facts that need to be accounted for.

Considering this...
I have faith that science is likely to get us gradually closer to the truth.
I have no faith that religion already has the truth.
For a start, there is more than one religion, so at least one must be wrong.



<+++<

[I less than three logic]

So you have been swayed by creationists before?

<(((><
When have any creationist ideas ever reached this point?

Confirmed, repeated observations over a long period of time by many different scientists ...snip

[g4macdad]

Reading is never important to the internet troll.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/neko.jpg
Yes those pesky terrorists or trolls or whatever the new bad guys are. It's a good thing WEE know better, huh fellas?

<(((><

I LOVE YOU

JESUS IS KING AND SAVIOUR

[g4macdad]

When have any creationist ideas ever reached this point?

You wouldn't know would you?

<(((><

[I less than three logic]

You wouldn't know would you?

<(((><
This response is completely non sequitur. Why wouldn't I know, what logic did you follow to reach that conclusion? :confused:

[delphi_ote]

I LOVE YOU
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/1161535376-1161528850144.jpg




















Just kidding.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/30KittenFight.jpg

[g4macdad]

This response is completely non sequitur. Why wouldn't I know, what logic did you follow to reach that conclusion? :confused:

Have you ever even considered praying?

<(((><

[BillyJoe]

So you have been swayed by creationists before?

<(((><


You must have missed this bit....



In Relgion, you start with a conclusion and gather facts to support your conclusion.
In science, you start with facts and look for a conclusion that fits the facts.
In Religion the conclusion never changes, because contradictory facts are ignored.
In science, conclusions are always changing to fit new facts that need to be accounted for.

Considering this...
I have faith that science is likely to get us gradually closer to the truth.
I have no faith that religion already has the truth.
For a start, there is more than one religion, so at least one must be wrong.


<+++<




http://www.fishygifts.com/resource/mn_WindchimeFish.jpg

[I less than three logic]

Have you ever even considered praying?

<(((><
Sure, why not? Whom should I consider praying to. The Sun seems like as good a candidate as any and it seems to work well for Mr Carlin.

"I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-- George Carlin

In a continuation of your nonsensical questioning, have you ever even considered answering a question with a rational answer?

[g4macdad]

Sure, why not? Whom should I consider praying to. The Sun seems like as good a candidate as any and it seems to work well for Mr Carlin.

"I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-- George Carlin

In a continuation of your nonsensical questioning, have you ever even considered answering a question with a rational answer?

I sure would, and have, but it is not rational to you because you don't believe it. Why is this so hard for you?

<(((><

[duggie]

And the Sun is much more successful at getting women to remove clothing.

[I less than three logic]

I sure would, and have, but it is not rational to you because you don't believe it. Why is this so hard for you?

<(((><
Logic is not subjective. Either your conclusions adhere to logical inferences drawn from the premise, or they do not. They are rational or they are not. So far, your responses to me show no evidence of any rational thinking taking place anywhere near you.

How did you go from,
When have any creationist ideas ever reached this point?
to
You wouldn't know would you?
What steps were in involved to get from A to B? What line of thought did you follow to go from,
This response is completely non sequitur. Why wouldn't I know, what logic did you follow to reach that conclusion?
to
Have you ever even considered praying?

There is nothing at all rational about your answers, they are utter nonsense. No amount of believing is going to change that.

[Lonewulf]

g4macdad doesn't think that science is reliable.

Therefore, there is no moon, no sun, gravity doesn't pull us to the ground, black is white, up is down, and a supernatural entity waved all of existance into being because he was bored. Also, though there is no fossilized evidence of any sort, unicorns and giants exist, 'cause they were in da bahble.

Now, I'm going to say the Original Post:

How could one being create all life on earth? Who created him?

Intriguing question.

How could one being create all the universe? Who created Him?

Your question is directed towards the wrong crowd.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Jesus-*****-Christ on a... well, not on a crutch over this weekend... how can so many of you just snap at the bait while claiming to to skeptics?

Come on people.

[Lonewulf]

Jesus-*****-Christ on a... well, not on a crutch ove this weekend... how can so many of you just snap at the bait while claiming to to skeptics?

Come on people.

I'm bored.

It's this or the Gun Control thread.

This tends to make me less agitated.

[g4macdad]

g4macdad doesn't think that science is reliable.

Therefore, there is no moon, no sun, gravity doesn't pull us to the ground, black is white, up is down, and a supernatural entity waved all of existance into being because he was bored. Also, though there is no fossilized evidence of any sort, unicorns and giants exist, 'cause they were in da bahble.

Now, I'm going to say the Original Post:



Intriguing question.

How could one being create all the universe? Who created Him?

Your question is directed towards the wrong crowd.

How could someone who belongs to a "crowd" be a skeptic?

And did you entirely miss my whole point? It is that this is the same problem with both arguments.

C'mon!

<(((><

[I less than three logic]

Jesus-*****-Christ on a... well, not on a crutch over this weekend... how can so many of you just snap at the bait while claiming to to skeptics?

Come on people.
I'm bored.

It's this or the Gun Control thread.

This tends to make me less agitated.
Yeah. Besides, someone has to feed the trolls or they might go away. Then what would we do for fun? :D

ETA: In fact, the fun of the forum has captured my attention a bit too long. I have to be up for work in about 5 hours, so I'm going to bed. :)

[BillyJoe]

Jesus-*****-Christ on a... well, not on a crutch over this weekend... how can so many of you just snap at the bait while claiming to to skeptics?

Come on people.

Yet here you are. :D

[~enigma~]

Dead guy on a pogo stick?

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/6624/crucifiedcatxs9.jpg

[g4macdad]

Yet here you are. :D

Billy thank you very much.

The reason they keep coming back is, they know the truth. They are scrambling. Whenever the WEE are ready this thread will die.

<(((><

[duggie]

Have you ever even considered praying?

<(((><

Have I ever implored an imaginary sky creature to re-arrange the unfolding of the universe so that I might experience sex before I die? You and me both..

[Beleth]

Sweet!

Final score:

Evolution theory-0

Jesus Our King And Saviour-1

I had tons of fun thanks all.

<(((><
I think I've had as much fun with this hypocrite and liar as is possible.

His whole argument boils down to "as long as I don't look too closely at your position, it looks exactly as ridiculous as mine, therefore mine is better." Which of course is nonsense on multiple levels.


His words remind me of a similar outburst in Jer 4:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/Jer004.html#19):
My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace.If he cannot control the contents of his unholdable bowels, perhaps he could at least attempt to not display them here with such pride.


Sorry to be such an X-hole.

[~enigma~]

Billy thank you very much.

The reason they keep coming back is, they know the truth. They are scrambling. Whenever the WEE are ready this thread will die.

<(((><
Don't force me to pull out the dog picture the highwaymanq...I guarantee you will not like the dog picture.

[Z]

OK

More seriously. You really solidify the point of this post Z.

If I go and read all your "scientific" evidence. I will come to the same conclusion as you do when you read the Bible.

Not if you actually are capable of thought.

Scientific evidence does not require faith at any point. Scientific evidence is mutually observable by all parties. Scientific evidence is out there for anyone willing to do the work to find.

The Bible, on the other hand, is self-contradictory, based entirely on fantasy, and has no observable real world correllation.

So try again.

[g4macdad]

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

<(((><

[delphi_ote]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/die.jpg

[Z]

So you have been swayed by creationists before?

<(((><

Creationists never offer new evidence. What they do offer is complete garbage.

[~enigma~]

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

<(((><You forced my hand...

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/494/dogbuttjesusnp1.jpg

[Beleth]

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.
They laughed at Bozo too!

And you can begin expressing your opinions courageously and honestly any time you wish.

[Niobe]

GThe mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices

Like Christianity? OH SNAP

[Lonewulf]

How could someone who belongs to a "crowd" be a skeptic?

You really don't know a thing about science, do you? Wow, you make me depressed.

[SimonD]

Like Christianity? OH SNAP

Or any other religion or Communism or Fascism

[g4macdad]

Like Christianity? OH SNAP

Evolution is taught in all american schools, not Christianity. You are the sheep not me.

<(((><

[Hokulele]

So, did anyone catch Matsuzaka's first start against KC the other day? Pretty impressive, although it was only the Royals. I am looking forward to his pitch selection against a team with a better lineup.

[SimonD]

Evolution is taught in all american schools, not Christianity. You are the sheep not me.

<(((><

What happened to the Lamb of God? I thought we were all sheep and God was the shepard?

I like Sage Francis's take on the matter

"... but hates common black sheep who refuse to follow the shepherd. Who heard little lambs into slaughter?-LISTEN - to the silence of the man..."

[g4macdad]

The WEE believes the official 9/11 story.

The WEE believes Evolution theory.

The WEE conforms to everything mainstream.

The WEE IS THE PROBLEM!

<(((><

[g4macdad]

What happened to the Lamb of God? I thought we were all sheep and God was the shepard?

I like Sage Francis's take on the matter

"... but hates common black sheep who refuse to follow the shepherd. Who heard little lambs into slaughter?-LISTEN - to the silence of the man..."

So you aren't a skeptic? LOL WOW!

<(((><

[Raphael]

Don't you know Jesus is a Chevrolet man! You're in big trouble g4macdad!

[SimonD]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=sarcasm&ia=luna)
sar·casm / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
[Origin: 1570–80; < LL sarcasmus < Gk sarkasmós, deriv. of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarco-)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Synonyms 1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony)1. 2. jeer.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Laugh it up funny boy, but once again you show your ignorance

[g4macdad]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=sarcasm&ia=luna)
sar·casm / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
[Origin: 1570–80; < LL sarcasmus < Gk sarkasmós, deriv. of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarco-)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Synonyms 1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony)1. 2. jeer.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Laugh it up funny boy, but once again you show your ignorance

See the synonym bitterness? Why would someone with confidence be bitter?

<(((><

[articulett]

Sure, why not? Whom should I consider praying to. The Sun seems like as good a candidate as any and it seems to work well for Mr Carlin.

"I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-- George Carlin

In a continuation of your nonsensical questioning, have you ever even considered answering a question with a rational answer?

That quote of George Carlin's always bugged me. Because if there was a 50% wish granting rate to prayer (or star wishing or sun worship) than you should pray often for much. If you prayed a thousand times a day for a million dollars that would be 500 million dollars a day. He meant to say that praying was effective as sun worship (or star wishing) and I hardly think it's 50%. But it does remind me of my favorite optical illusion:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video8.htm

Anyhow, I've been praying for the OP to go away--but so far, no luck.

I guess I'm about as lucky as all the Christian passengers on the 9-11 flight praying for the plane to land safely (as recorded on their phone calls home). I guess god was answering to "Allah" that day...the flight recorders recorded the hijackers praising "allah" as they went to their eternal rewards...now THAT is faith! You know, Christians just don't sacrifice themselves for god enough...they just don't seem eager to meet their "happily ever after". Why might that be? How come those passengers weren't whooping it up to finally get to go the forever birthday party in the sky in one fell swoop? No cancer, or long term suffering--just "zap". Ungrateful, those Christians, I guess.

[SimonD]

See the synonym bitterness? Why would someone with confidence be bitter?

<(((><

I'm not bitter, just frustrated at how stupid one person can be

[Hokulele]

Don't you know Jesus is a Chevrolet man! You're in big trouble g4macdad!

Yup, and he's number 0!

http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/5651456