Re: God

**NotSuchAMisterE** 2011-12-01, 01:04

Amy Cool wrote:I'm not offended of course, I made an impact on this thread because I wanted to discuss and thats what we do here, we still discuss and I must say that I start to like this discussion

Ultimate lol wrote:They found a skeleton that could stand up straight and walk, but ran on all fours. No Ape nor human does that. Not saying this is 100% prove but you can say that about everything.
We don't know what it is yet so like you say its not 100% sure and lets just wait and see what will it be at the end

Ultimate lol wrote:Also take in mind to make a fossil, situation have to be totally ideal. The reason we find most fossils from 1 period is because most of them died under these special conditions. Also the fossils of these lagers creatures like Dino’s are more easily preserved than animals of smaller size.
Amy Cool wrote:So if Dino's have been found and even millions of fossils of today's animals, then why exactly those in the middle stage of evolution are missing?
Ultimate lol wrote:They are not, they just don’t stand out.
-> This is just assuming they exist not a proof they do. But when I say the opposite, They don't exist, since they have not been found yet, thats my temporary proof. "If you can't prove something exists, then it does not exist until proved otherwise".

Amy Cool wrote:Those fossils should be much bigger than animals today, so there is no logic in saying that animals of smaller size are harder preserved.
Ultimate lol wrote:Smaller = more fragile
Not saying that there are no smaller fossils but chances that they are either: Not found, damaged by the pressure of earth or eroded away are way larger with smaller animals
What you say about middle stage smaller size compared to Dino's big size making them less chances to survive till today would be logical if they did not found millions of fossils of today's animals which are even smaller than those in the middle. So what about these, even smaller ones, why are they found when they have smallest chance to stay among those bigger ones? Again, a simple coincidence? Well, speaking of millions of years, many of those coincidences had to happen to hide whole stage of evolution there.

Amy Cool wrote:And yes, we have changed, However, all those things have nothing to do with evolution.

Ultimate lol wrote:Change is the definition of evolution

Religion also states that humans are living things on top of food chain, being able to do what no being could before, learning. However, I was speaking of evolution part where our structure, our organism should change in time, for example that we did not have some organs we have today or so. None of those changes occurred. By this I mean, they have not been discovered yet.

Ultimate lol wrote:Not true. We changed quite a lot. Obviously or brain size increased and if you look at the human body we are far from perfect. We have a few elements for example we don’t use anymore.
We have a small tail bone
We have organs without a current function
Can you name some of those organs without a function? I'm really curious there.

About tailbone itself...Heard of Hans Spemann? The Primary Organizer? He won a noble price proving that tailbone is the "designer" of your body. Without it, we would not be able to grow into what we are. It is responsible for organizing the body in development stage. That is its main function. Now on another side we have evolution scientists tell us that tailbone was a tail once, having main functions in balance/movement. Well, humans balance system is complex including brain and ear and other body parts but not tailbone. Seeing it from the view of evolution, human adapted and and tail was no more needed to take part in the balance? Yea, right. That makes so much sense for me. No offense here. Its just that I can't believe something that is just a simple assuming that it was a coincidence. On another note lets take a look what Hans found more. He found out that tailbone cells cannot be degraded or destroyed O_o. So what the hell is that? It means that tailbone does not decompose in ground. You can die, all cells can die but tailbone does not. It stays. It means that if we are buried in the ground, dead for millions of years, our whole body would decompose but tailbone would stay. Thats right. It has been proved by Hans. No special conditions needed for it. It just stays no matter what. Muscles, fat and bone marrow will be decomposed but tailbone cells stay. They tried it by burning them totally and still it was the same. They boiled it and still was the same. They did many other things but still, it was the same. Tailbone survives. Now lets take a look what the Prophet said about this:

"All of the Sons of Adam (men) will decay except for the bone of coccyx (tailbone). From it he (man) was created and by it he will be reconstructed."
In another statement he says also:
"There is nothing of the human body that does not decay except one bone; that is the little bone at the end of the coccyx of which the human body will be recreated on the Day of Resurrection."

He would not know that if he wasn't taught by the God Himself.

Ultimate lol wrote:We could mutate ourselves, crops and animals into improved/different versions. It has been done on small scale. It’s however currently considered Immoral/unethical to do so. Probably did not stop some parties though.
When they make "Captain America" and not some retard, that dies soon or cannot think wisely or has body dysfunctions, call me
Yes it is true that some new fruits were found by "mutating" and we use them today, but that is not mutation, its just mixing species like with human race, for example black man and white woman, their child will be mixture of both but still a human, nothing mutated, same structure like every other human.

Ultimate lol wrote:The DNA of chips and humans match for around 99% currently already.
Yes its true. However it doesn't mean anything yet. Here is the proof:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038
If that is not enough on DNA and connections with it then you are always free to investigate more on that topic. I will just take one part of that article: "Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm". That small worm...

Ultimate lol wrote:A story like you wrote can be written for all kinds of creatures, including ourselves. And I get your point on it the first time (a bit to long read for what it needs to prove).
Now I’m not saying it is not impressive what it can do and how its pretty perfect but you say that it always has been like this or else it would die.
This only partially true. The mosquito is 1 of the oldest insects out there. The dino’s even had them. Yet they survived the extinction of the Dino’s while the surroundings definitively changed around them drastically right?
How? It evolved. It adapted. And so it’s species lived on. Evolution is not that a creature get an organ from one point to another. It takes thousands of years. This is also the reason we didn’t change as much for us to notice on first site.
Evolution is that you have 1000 of the same creatures. They are however all a bit different. Some positive some negative. Who is most likely to survive? The positive different. So each generation is an improvement of the other. The organ you speak of could have started out as a DNA “mistake” that ended up being useful for his survival so he could pas it on.

You say those things of course but just assuming it. Theory of evolution can only be proved and used as scientific fact if those missing millions of fossils of the middle stage dig out somehow. For me they are simply not the same creatures. They just look similar. They may be same family like chimpanzee and gorilla, yet they are different things. For now it is so, until evolution theory is proved to be right.

Amy Cool wrote:devil who influences people and changes their mind states.
Ultimate lol wrote:A bit crude to cut it here but this is what it comes down to right? The devil influenced some of the fist people to believe in multiple gods right? No need to discuss why. This is enough for me (no offence intended)
Yep thats it. All those deaths by human acts, illnesses, broken marriages, not being able to control yourself, rapes, thieves, wars, depressions, all those bad things are suggesting the presence of the devil. How can a good raised man, influenced by many good things around him, suddenly become evil and kill people just like that? Animal instinct of survival? You are not in a war, not in a life threatening situation and yet u have to kill. I'm talking about "psychos", serial killers whose brains are 100% healthy but still need to kill or rape or do some other bad thing. Some chemical reactions maybe? Hormones response? Seeking for power? All considered human nature? Well you can see it as you wish, I see it like that.

Just a quick question, Amy. You seem to take everything in the Bible for being from the mouth of God and to be be fact. Yet you're talking as if the dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. According to the Bible, wasn't the world created 6,000 years ago? Not trying to knock your beliefs, just trying to understand exactly what your beliefs are.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-01, 05:00

Amy Cool wrote:I'm not offended of course, I made an impact on this thread because I wanted to discuss and thats what we do here, we still discuss and I must say that I start to like this discussion .

Good, me to Smile

Amy Cool wrote:So if Dino's have been found and even millions of fossils of today's animals, then why exactly those in the middle stage of evolution are missing?

Ultimate lol wrote:They are not, they just don’t stand out.

This is just assuming they exist not a proof they do. But when I say the opposite, They don't exist, since they have not been found yet, that’s my temporary proof. "If you can't prove something exists, then it does not exist until proved otherwise".

This is a risky comment you are making as I can respond with the same: "If you can't prove something exists, then it does not exist until proved otherwise" the same applies to god. And no, your previous proofs are not 100% conclusive.

Ultimate lol wrote:Smaller = more fragile
Not saying that there are no smaller fossils but chances that they are either: Not found, damaged by the pressure of earth or eroded away are way larger with smaller animals

What you say about middle stage smaller size compared to Dino's big size making them less chances to survive till today would be logical if they did not found millions of fossils of today's animals.

First of all you left my comment out why so many Dino fossils can be found *sadface* Because of volcanoes and tar pits.
Second of all you decrease your owns statement by stating today’s animals. Of course they are found more and better intact. They have been in the ground for way less time. So erosion, pressure and earth shifts had way less impact on those then the ones that have been there for millions, I repeat millions of years. That’s a lot of time for something to stay preserved. I repeat conditions have to be ideal. and that was mainly in the time of the Dino's due to high volcanic activity and tar pits.

Amy Cool wrote:Religion also states that humans are living things on top of food chain, being able to do what no being could before, learning.

So you don't think the increasing of our brain size to be part of evolution but just due to the fact we can learn? Ok, If you want to leave it at that.

Ultimate lol wrote:Not true. We changed quite a lot. Obviously or brain size increased and if you look at the human body we are far from perfect. We have a few elements for example we don’t use anymore.
We have a small tail bone
We have organs without a current function

Can you name some of those organs without a function? I'm really curious there.
The organs are the appendix and the gall bladder. There are however a lot of useless things on the body we don't need. A simple google would have gave you these lists.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-useless-body-parts.php
http://www.bloggingwv.com/20-useless-body-parts-why-do-did-we-need-them/

Sure, some are discussable (like your tailbone story) but you can't deny all of them.

Tailbone story.

He would not know that if he wasn't taught by the God Himself.

Whell... people could just have tried to burn bodies themselves and found out the tailbone stays? They thought this was special/a sign and therefore wrote about it?
Interesting stuff though

Yes it is true that some new fruits were found by "mutating" and we use them today, but that is not mutation, its just mixing species like with human race

That is not mutation, that’s cross breading. With mutating I literally mean changing stuff on gene/DNA level. We already engineered a form of corn that grows faster on less food and water and produces more corn. However we don't know yet if these product are 100% safe to eat without side effects. That’s why stuff like that is not around yet. With the emphasis on yet. But we have a number of successful bio engineered products.

Ultimate lol wrote:The DNA of chips and humans match for around 99% currently already.

Yes its true. However it doesn't mean anything yet. Here is the proof:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038

Good read, and I'm am willing to admit it is ~95% instead of 98.5. Cause this is still similar. Other than that the article is not very fair in looking at both sides as is is written by someone against evolution in general. He turns things around sometimes. Like with the two chromosomes. He states it like we lost them. While the common ancestor could have that number but the chimps could have gained them. This way he is twisting some of the evidence.

Amy Cool wrote:Theory of evolution can only be proved and used as scientific fact if those missing millions of fossils of the middle stage dig out somehow.

For the big evolution line I refer back to the fossil story of earlier. On proven evolution I'll come back later.

Amy Cool wrote:devil who influences people and changes their mind states.

Ultimate lol wrote:A bit crude to cut it here but this is what it comes down to right? The devil influenced some of the fist people to believe in multiple gods right? No need to discuss why. This is enough for me (no offence intended)

[/quote]Yep thats it.[/quote]
All the text after this was not part of my question. Just the devil influenced some of the first people to believe in multiple gods. The reason for it I don't really mind.

[/quote]all those deaths by human acts, illnesses, broken marriages, not being able to control yourself, rapes, thieves, wars, depressions, all those bad things are suggesting the presence of the devil. How can a good raised man, influenced by many good things around him, suddenly become evil and kill people just like that? Animal instinct of survival? You are not in a war, not in a life threatening situation and yet u have to kill. I'm talking about "psychos", serial killers whose brains are 100% healthy but still need to kill or rape or do some other bad thing. Some chemical reactions maybe? Hormones response? Seeking for power? All considered human nature? [/quote]
Whell I watch a lot of "criminal minds" but I won't lay that on ya.

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-01, 20:32

NotSuchAMisterE wrote:Just a quick question, Amy. You seem to take everything in the Bible for being from the mouth of God and to be be fact. Yet you're talking as if the dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. According to the Bible, wasn't the world created 6,000 years ago? Not trying to knock your beliefs, just trying to understand exactly what your beliefs are.

I never told my source is Bible. If you pasted one of the verses I mentioned into google search bar you would be informed more Wink

. According to the Book I use as my source of truth, nothing is given literally. Answers are between the lines, for people who give thought. If it was, everyone would believe in God and this world would not be as it is, the exam before eternal life. So to answer your question, nothing like humanity dating from just 6000 years is given. In the Book it states that "God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days"
Now it must be said that the original word 'Youm' can mean a day as we know it, or it can mean any stage or period of time. Seeing it in other places and other contexts in the Book it was clear that this word used by God means for longer period of time in here. So to speak it means in 6 stages, 6 periods of time. How long one period is we don't know. Now to more detailed one stating that humans were not first to be on the Earth: "Wasn’t there a long period of time before humans were even mentioned?" This leaves much time for Dinos and everything else.

Ultimate lol wrote:This is a risky comment you are making as I can respond with the same: "If you can't prove something exists, then it does not exist until proved otherwise" the same applies to god. And no, your previous proofs are not 100% conclusive.

Now we see why humanity is still not convinced yet, nor in existence of God nor in evolution by chance. So its best to leave it here not to create deadloops Wink

Ultimate lol wrote:First of all you left my comment out why so many Dino fossils can be found *sadface* Because of volcanoes and tar pits.

I am sorry for that. I missed even reading it. Now I saw that you quoted it into my text thats why I accidentally skipped it.

Ultimate lol wrote:Second of all you decrease your owns statement by stating today’s animals. Of course they are found more and better intact. They have been in the ground for way less time. So erosion, pressure and earth shifts had way less impact on those then the ones that have been there for millions, I repeat millions of years. That’s a lot of time for something to stay preserved. I repeat conditions have to be ideal. and that was mainly in the time of the Dino's due to high volcanic activity and tar pits.

True. But still speaking of millions of years scientific calculations cannot determine so accurately that the conditions could not be met during that middle stage. So to speak your argument here again, can just suggest and not prove anything. I mean try to see it from my view, when I look at it, it must be good coincidence that exactly the Dino's had ideal conditions and then all the way until just recently the conditions have not been met so that we don't have any evidence of that evolution. I mean I asked myself a lot of times the question like "Why exactly Dino's time had those conditions met? Why had the Earth to spit fire from its heart exactly at that time and not after, or maybe it did but we did not find out O_o?" For you it may not be so hard all this to happen by chance but for me, all this, universe, milky way and other galaxies, life forms, all this, and even worse when you look it from scientific view, if we would change anything just by a tiny bit, it would be a disaster. So for me is much easier to believe its something that ordered things to happen like this, perfectly, than to be done by chance, way too many chances there to be true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally not believing in evolution, even if those fossils would be found and many other problems solved so that evolution can be 100% proved, it wouldn't change my belief in God. I mean, God never said that evolution did not happen. I'm truly just against the evolution's main weapon, that everything happened just by a simple coincidence.

Ultimate lol wrote:The organs are the appendix and the gall bladder. There are however a lot of useless things on the body we don't need. A simple google would have gave you these lists.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-useless-body-parts.php
http://www.bloggingwv.com/20-useless-body-parts-why-do-did-we-need-them/
Sure, some are discussable (like your tailbone story) but you can't deny all of them.

Yea, a simple google. But more advanced google would lead you to more scientific stuff that proves importance of those organs. Those lists, formerly even larger lists, by evolutionists are called "organs we don't need" because that way theory of evolution makes more sense. However, a proper name would be, "organs we don't know about". Why? Simple because science did not reveal their purpose yet. All those evolutionists that say things like organs we don't need, organs without we would survive are so ridiculous. I mean I could let my hand be cut off and still survive, or eye or an ear, or even both, I would still survive. It is true we can live without some organs but they do have functions, maybe not vital for our survival but they do have functions as you saw, tailbone, is a pretty vital one in our stage of formation. Now I'll be more detailed.

Appendix. As quickly as 11 weeks after conception, the appendix starts making endocrine cells for the developing fetus. Endocrine cells secrete useful chemicals, such as hormones, and the appendix endocrine cells secrete amines and peptide hormones that help with biological checks and balances as the fetus grows. After birth, the appendix mainly helps the body stave off disease by serving as a lymphoid organ. Lymphoid organs, with their lymphoid tissue, make white blood cells and antibodies. Now if you want to know much more about it I suggest: http://www.livescience.com/10489-appendix-slimy-worthless.html. If not enough you can always research more. Now to Gall-bladder: http://voices.yahoo.com/the-function-importance-gallbladder-in-6423256.html
After these two you mentioned and tailbone, all 3 having important functions in the body all proved by science I don't need to speak more do I? All links I gave you, you always can find scientific proves how did they find that out, because people speak what science has find out. Yet, I just can't stay still when I see that top 10 list. So ridiculous I must say. 1st and 2nd we already said that they have functions and are important. Now, lets take a look on some more. Sinuses? Really? They put sinuses on the list? Sorry but I can't even comment on them because its like you say we won't need fingers because hand alone is quite enough...I know much about sinuses and they are pretty important so I'll let you just google it, cut that one just made me a bit sad that they had guts to put it on the list...Okay as you already got my point here, I'll just comment one more. Plica semilunaris. The little tiny things next to eye. "This part of the eye is known to produce “sleep,” or that weird crust you have in your eyes when you wake up. Thank you plica semilunaris. How could we live without waking up with weird stuff in our eyes?" So this is their reason to put it on the list? To let you know, it is found that the organ is responsible for cleaning the eye, giving it fluid (dry eye, i could imagine where would that go...) and it does eye abduction. So putting things on some lists with reasons same as I would say I can do well with one hand, I don't need two of them is ridiculous. At least, if they had no functions at all, but they all do lol. Even if there is some organ without function, it is more likely to be that we have not found it yet, but there is a function. Why? Because many of organs once that were on the lists we now found to be important as science improved. On the other hand, none is yet proved to be 100% useless.

Ultimate lol wrote:Whell... people could just have tried to burn bodies themselves and found out the tailbone stays? They thought this was special/a sign and therefore wrote about it?
Interesting stuff though

No. Even if they did that, to them it would be nothing but ashes left. Only with modern technology you are able to see those cells. Seeing a cell was not possible in that time. Don't get me wrong here, tailbone can be turned to dust with fire but cells in the ashes stay. To those people that would not be recognized because ashes of a tailbone and ashes of other bones to them were same. Only microscopic analysis can prove it.

Ultimate lol wrote:That is not mutation, that’s cross breading. With mutating I literally mean changing stuff on gene/DNA level. We already engineered a form of corn that grows faster on less food and water and produces more corn. However we don't know yet if these product are 100% safe to eat without side effects. That’s why stuff like that is not around yet. With the emphasis on yet. But we have a number of successful bio engineered products.

I'm gonna leave it at that as its still in the phase of development and testing. I've seen some fruits that were mutated to be larger in size and thus better selling products, but their lack of good taste makes them so bad products. Dunno, maybe they will make it 100% good one day. Will see.

Ultimate lol wrote:Good read, and I'm am willing to admit it is ~95% instead of 98.5. Cause this is still similar. Other than that the article is not very fair in looking at both sides as is is written by someone against evolution in general. He turns things around sometimes. Like with the two chromosomes. He states it like we lost them. While the common ancestor could have that number but the chimps could have gained them. This way he is twisting some of the evidence.

I'll leave it here since your side is not a virgin in twisting too.

**whitelightning31** 2011-12-02, 03:28

i'm not trying to disrupt this thread or anything like that........but i think discussing 'religion' and politics on any forum is destined for regret.

it causes nothing but arguments upon arguments that isnt needed, especially in place where you just wanna 'chill(that's the word i'm looking for?.....it'll have to do for now)'.

you believe what you believe and i say just keep things as simple as that, the poll without any comments here should of been enough to answer your/everybody 'statistics'...well that's my comment for here and i didnt mean to disrupt or anything.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-02, 04:43

whitelightning31 wrote:i'm not trying to disrupt this thread or anything like that........but i think discussing 'religion' and politics on any forum is destined for regret.

it causes nothing but arguments upon arguments that isnt needed, especially in place where you just wanna 'chill(that's the word i'm looking for?.....it'll have to do for now)'.

you believe what you believe and i say just keep things as simple as that, the poll without any comments here should of been enough to answer your/everybody 'statistics'...well that's my comment for here and I didn’t mean to disrupt or anything.

So far I think this was a very adult and civil discussion where both sides took each others believes into account. No hate has gone to either side and the discussion is right on topic. If It would derail out of control it could always be locked. For now we just share inside and knowledge of the other side.

I am sorry for that. I missed even reading it. Now I saw that you quoted it into my text that’s why I accidentally skipped it.

My mistake then. The amount of quotes can get confusing

Ultimate lol wrote:Second of all you decrease your owns statement by stating today’s animals. Of course they are found more and better intact. They have been in the ground for way less time. So erosion, pressure and earth shifts had way less impact on those then the ones that have been there for millions, I repeat millions of years. That’s a lot of time for something to stay preserved. I repeat conditions have to be ideal. and that was mainly in the time of the Dino's due to high volcanic activity and tar pits.

True. But still speaking of millions of years scientific calculations cannot determine so accurately that the conditions could not be met during that middle stage.

The times of volcanic eruptions can be determined pretty accurately with soil layer analyses.

I mean I asked myself a lot of times the question like "Why exactly Dino's time had those conditions met? Why had the Earth to spit fire from its heart exactly at that time and not after.

That whole time period was high in volcanic activity because the earth was still and instable place. Volcanic activity lowered over time till the very occasional eruptions to this day.
As to why the Dino’s when extinct, whenever is was by a big volcano, a meteorite etc. This are all thing that’s will happen on one point or another. It’s not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when”. The Dino’s lived for a long period to this disaster after which thy died of. It was never a matter of chance or coincidence. It was just bound to happen one day.
And it will happen again to. Again not a matter of if but a matter of when. For example the volcano under yellow stone park. If that erupt the earth will become almost uninhabitable. (the volcano is overtime already) And I don’t need to mention what would happen if a meteor would do if it would be big enough.

For me is much easier to believe its something that ordered things to happen like this, perfectly, than to be done by chance, way too many chances there to be true.

This is so dependant on what you see under chance. Most things just happen without you having influence on them. However when these paths meet and are observed by someone not aware of the previous paths it feels to them as chance, while in fact is was likely gonna happen as the paths for the included parties where already set.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally not believing in evolution, even if those fossils would be found and many other problems solved so that evolution can be 100% proved, it wouldn't change my belief in God. I mean, God never said that evolution did not happen. I'm truly just against the evolution's main weapon, that everything happened just by a simple coincidence.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The same go’s for me. If it where somehow proven that there was a higher being or even a “god” I could accept that, but I would not lose my faith in my other believes. I would not be surprised that in coming years both sides can come closer and closer together. If they’ll ever merge? I don’t know. Maybe.

All those evolutionists that say things like organs we don't need, organs without we would survive are so ridiculous. I mean I could let my hand be cut off and still survive, or eye or an ear, or even both, I would still survive. It is true we can live without some organs but they do have functions, maybe not vital for our survival but they do have functions as you saw, tailbone, is a pretty vital one in our stage of formation.

Ok, fair enough. I figured you could take some of the list. However there is still stuff left. I would really like you to explain the use of body hair to me. Or better the use of Wisdom teeth.

No. Even if they did that, to them it would be nothing but ashes left.

Ok, how about normal body decay. Would the tailbone stay intact then?

Ok my time to hit a ball. Let’s see if you can hit this one.
Have you ever heard of ring species? I have always seen this as modern day proof of how evolution works.

Hey, the length of this stuff is becoming readable, Almost down to 1 A4 post per comment Very Happy

**nelynel12** 2011-12-02, 15:43

I like how everyone just ingored that world peace guy for completely insulting atheist. The great religion debate is pointless both the atheist and the religious person walks away pissed off and not a single strand of their beliefschange. With being said I will give my own opinion on the matter. I do not believe in god. Why should we have to worship something? Do we sit there and pray to our parents? The people who actually physically gave us life. On that note if you are religious and try to defend your case by saying "where did we come from? Everything have to come from something. Then you are a hypocrite because as far as I Know you guys believe that god was always there. The thing about religion that I don't like is the fact if I disagree with you I go to a Hell and burn there forever. At least science is okay with being proved wrong. Okay, now as far as jesus goes and most of the bible. Jesus story was used countless times ever since egyptian time. The first "jesus" name was Horus. He had the EXACT characteristics as jesus. Besides a their mothers having different names. Most of the bible can be related to astrology. For example there is a time where the sun stops or looks like it does on a cross shape consolation for three days. Then it rises up. Sounds familiar? Son dies on cross for three days and rises again. That story was use since religion first started. One more thing if jesus did any of those miracles don't you think one historian would right about it? I think so. Well, I am going to stop here I am typing on my phone. So I can't really explain what I want to say perfectly.

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-02, 16:47

Ultimate lol wrote:As to why the Dino’s when extinct, whenever is was by a big volcano, a meteorite etc. This are all thing that’s will happen on one point or another. It’s not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when”. The Dino’s lived for a long period to this disaster after which thy died of. It was never a matter of chance or coincidence. It was just bound to happen one day.
And it will happen again to. Again not a matter of if but a matter of when. For example the volcano under yellow stone park. If that erupt the earth will become almost uninhabitable. (the volcano is overtime already) And I don’t need to mention what would happen if a meteor would do if it would be big enough.

Here you explain everything like it was always meant to be so. So its like it wasn't a coincidence at all. For example you say that Dino's lived for a long period to that disaster. For meteorite as a reason, it must be said that no one can say that meteorite will strike Earth for sure. Chances are not 100% that it will. So using "when" instead of "if" is wrong here. Their number does not matter, because there will always be a chance that meteorite won't hit our Earth. Even this one that scientists say will strike Earth in 2012 is not 100% sure. They try to prepare for it but they also say that their calculations cannot be accurate since they don't know how much energy will it lose on its way, and will that be enough to make an impact or not. For volcano as a reason, you say Earth was unstable at that time, meaning it was not cool as now and chances for volcanic eruptions were much much bigger than they are today. This is true and we also know from scientific view that Earth cools down with time. So the chances for super volcano's to happen were much bigger when the Earth was more hot. Seeing it as this, we can say that chances for a super volcano were bigger in early stage of Dinos, somewhere at their beginning than the chances to happen later when Earth was cooler (or lets say at their end when it apparently did happen). Now it is clear that Dino's had so much luck to survive their early stage with no super volcano that could erase them at once. Now, if we would say it was no coincidence that a super volcano did not happen at their early stage, when they did not spread so much, has no logic in it.

Ultimate lol wrote:This is so dependant on what you see under chance. Most things just happen without you having influence on them. However when these paths meet and are observed by someone not aware of the previous paths it feels to them as chance, while in fact is was likely gonna happen as the paths for the included parties where already set.

Well, speaking of view on things I can say same to you, that you look at them wrong. Good example of this I already gave you in that volcano analysis before. For you it was not a coincidence that volcano happened because it would happen sometimes eventually and kill the dinos, but when you see it from my view, dino's needed quite a chance not to be hit by some volcano in their early stage because Earth was so unstable at that time.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, fair enough. I figured you could take some of the list. However there is still stuff left. I would really like you to explain the use of body hair to me. Or better the use of Wisdom teeth.

Body Hair. http://www.thegeminigeek.com/why-do-we-need-body-hair/ pretty much obvious things. Also if you just look at your hand in whole. Inner part has less hair than outer. Its because outer part is more exposed to harms and needs more protection. So you see that even the ratio of hair attached to our body parts is accurate and not random.

Wisdom Teeth. Simply, they serve for chewing as others too. Reason evolutionists put this on their list is because many people have pain with them, and doctors say that there is no harm in chewing functions if they would be removed. So they simple remove them stating that you have other teeth to take care of everything. Now seeing it as that we can also say that we don't need the last molars too because we have 2 sets of them anyway. One would be enough also. And, it is like that. Truly if you take them out you still have one set of molars and you will be able to chew anything we normally eat today. So its not fair to say so. On the other hand, wisdom teeth creates pain to some people and most doctors say it damages place of other teeth in mouth simply because there is no room for it.
So, why do wisdom teeth cause a substantial number of people problems? Scientists who have researched the subject have discovered that wisdom teeth difficulties have manifested themselves in different ways among human communities at different times. It is now understood that the problem was seldom seen in pre-industrial societies. It has been discovered that the way in which soft foodstuffs have come to be preferred to harder ones, over the last few hundred years in particular, has negatively affected the way the human jaw develops. It has thus been realized that most wisdom teeth troubles emerge as a result of jaw development problems relating to dietary habits.
Also, in some certain percent wisdom teeth are useful when you have to remove some other molars. For example me, I had problems with my molars so 2 of them had to go out. For some time I had empty space inside my mouth that annoyed me when food goes there and I was forced to improvise by trying to find better spot to chew my food. After some time 2 of my wisdom teeth arrived to fill those places. After some time, they slowly moved to the place my former molars were and now I'm like regenerated.
One more thing is that latest studies proved that wisdom teeth contain high amount of stem cells. When located below surface they serve as reservoir for stem cells. If our body needs them, they provide it. These stem cells have been found in tissues such as brain, bone marrow, blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscles, skin and liver. Now speaking of Liver, its the only organ which can regenerate and stem cells take a role in its regeneration. This means that storage of stem cells has purpose, not only in Liver but also in other mentioned organs.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, how about normal body decay. Would the tailbone stay intact then?

Tailbone decomposes like any other bone but cells cannot decompose or in other words die. Reason is because cells can be separated from each other but those cells individually cannot die. Meaning whole body would like vanish but somewhere in the ground those cells would be found, separated. That would be hell of a job even for today's scientists to find in the ground. If it would be easy job, maybe scientists would be able to find some cells of fossils from middle stage too. But for now, searching for some cells in Earth is pain.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok my time to hit a ball. Let’s see if you can hit this one.
Have you ever heard of ring species? I have always seen this as modern day proof of how evolution works.

Of course, ring species are quite famous. First, what is a "ring species" ? When a population of a specific kind of life (rabbits, salamanders, etc.) splits and becomes geographically separated the two separate populations can mutate such that they can no longer interbreed. For example, there are rabbits in some parts of North America that cannot interbreed with rabbits in other parts of North America. Ensatina salamanders moved south from Oregon splitting into two geographically separate groups that cannot interbreed. Believers in evolution say this demonstrates evolution "creating" a new type of life — with "new type" being defined as a type that cannot interbreed with the type of life it originated from.

Interbreeding defines things of the same kind. In our world the inability to interbreed does not define new or different kinds of life. The salamanders are still salamanders.

What happens as living things mutate? They lose genetic information. There has never been an observed increase in information resulting from mutations. A mutation always results in a loss of information. As two geographically separated populations of the same kind experience mutations, and lose different parts of their genetic information, it can result in sufficient genetic differences such that there is no longer a sufficient match in genetic information so as to allow successful breeding. Both populations are still the same kind, but because of a loss in genetic information their genes can no longer combine to create offspring.

Thus, ring species are not an example of evolution, which requires an increase in genetic information. They are an example of a loss of genetic information, a degradation of life, and the opposite of what evolution is supposed to be. There is no support for evolution in ring species. Because ring species show the effects of genetic degradation, they demonstrate we live in a world created by God.

Don't get me wrong, if you still consider this as an evolution, meaning no matter that this is genetic degradation, it is still changing in general and thus considered "evolution" (here its more devolution so you would have to change your definition or word evolution to word "change") then we both agree here, it is. But if we speak of real evolution where one species becomes another like apes becoming humans or fishes becoming some amphibians then reptiles, birds and so on, where we have gain in information, then this is nothing like that.

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-02, 20:24

I love how this has turned from a stagnating discussion about the possibility of God into a full-fledged debate between those who understand Evolution and those who don't. So here are a few points I'd like to make:

1) Nobody debates Evolution for scientific reasons. They debate it because it contradicts their primitive, disproven Creation stories, and because they haven't the slightest idea how it works. Rather than admitting that they don't know, which is what all sensible people do, they twist the truth or even blatantly make stuff up in order to keep their superstitions alive.

This isn't slander, because it's true. And I cite Freedom of Speech on any overzealous admins.

2) The Bible is not the slightest bit trustworthy. It is 66 badly-written books by separate authors who didn't even compare notes. It contradicts both itself and archaeological evidence from the time. It is not verifiable, and does not distinguish between history and myth - of which there is clearly a mixture. To base your arguments on it is foolish.

And from the way Yahweh kills, tortures, manipulates and [insert word that is worse than all of them, but which I'm apparently not allowed to say on a forum with children] people in the Bible, I don't know how anybody can worship him without first denying that the Bible is literally true.

3) There may be a God, there may not be. Based on the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity, I'm inclined to think there isn't one. However, I am not close-minded. If you can offer me physical proof that God exists, I will of course have no choice but to believe it. Note that the existence of the universe is not proof, nor is the Bible or the fact that we don't know everything.

4) If you believe in God, there is no reason not to believe in the Heart of the Cards. Both are superstitious and not supported by fact, though I should say that the Heart of the Cards is a heck of a lot more likely to exist than God, due to its simpler and not based on a contradictory premise.

5) It is only the existence of a literal God that is up for debate. God's existence as a personification of everything bigger than humanity is unquestionable, due it being an abstract concept. This is the "God" that scientists refer to whenever they use the term, just as they refer to "Mother Nature".

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-02, 21:11

Occultdude17 wrote:I love how this has turned from a stagnating discussion about the possibility of God into a full-fledged debate between those who understand Evolution and those who don't. So here are a few points I'd like to make:
1) Nobody debates Evolution for scientific reasons. They debate it because it contradicts their primitive, disproven Creation stories, and because they haven't the slightest idea how it works. Rather than admitting that they don't know, which is what all sensible people do, they twist the truth or even blatantly make stuff up in order to keep their superstitions alive.
This isn't slander, because it's true. And I cite Freedom of Speech on any overzealous admins.
2) The Bible is not the slightest bit trustworthy. It is 66 badly-written books by separate authors who didn't even compare notes. It contradicts both itself and archaeological evidence from the time. It is not verifiable, and does not distinguish between history and myth - of which there is clearly a mixture. To base your arguments on it is foolish.
And from the way Yahweh kills, tortures, manipulates and [insert word that is worse than all of them, but which I'm apparently not allowed to say on a forum with children] people in the Bible, I don't know how anybody can worship him without first denying that the Bible is literally true.
3) There may be a God, there may not be. Based on the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity, I'm inclined to think there isn't one. However, I am not close-minded. If you can offer me physical proof that God exists, I will of course have no choice but to believe it. Note that the existence of the universe is not proof, nor is the Bible or the fact that we don't know everything.
4) If you believe in God, there is no reason not to believe in the Heart of the Cards. Both are superstitious and not supported by fact, though I should say that the Heart of the Cards is a heck of a lot more likely to exist than God, due to its simpler and not based on a contradictory premise.
5) It is only the existence of a literal God that is up for debate. God's existence as a personification of everything bigger than humanity is unquestionable, due it being an abstract concept. This is the "God" that scientists refer to whenever they use the term, just as they refer to "Mother Nature".

Finally, something a person with ADHD can read.
1.) Yeah, evolution cannot be doubted. We see it every year with colds and diseases. But the First Amendment thing does not apply on DN (it is international, 'kay?)
2.) Indeed. If a bearded sandle-wearing guy said that a burning bush was telling him to kill Egypt nowadays, we would have him on pills faster than you can say "Moses". And where is my Book Of Judas? And, yes, YHWH is as unlikable as deities come, even worse than Zeus, the guy who cheats on his wife (the Goddess of Marriage) with everything on two legs.

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-02, 21:48

Potus-Mat wrote:
Occultdude17 wrote:I love how this has turned from a stagnating discussion about the possibility of God into a full-fledged debate between those who understand Evolution and those who don't. So here are a few points I'd like to make:
1) Nobody debates Evolution for scientific reasons. They debate it because it contradicts their primitive, disproven Creation stories, and because they haven't the slightest idea how it works. Rather than admitting that they don't know, which is what all sensible people do, they twist the truth or even blatantly make stuff up in order to keep their superstitions alive.
This isn't slander, because it's true. And I cite Freedom of Speech on any overzealous admins.
2) The Bible is not the slightest bit trustworthy. It is 66 badly-written books by separate authors who didn't even compare notes. It contradicts both itself and archaeological evidence from the time. It is not verifiable, and does not distinguish between history and myth - of which there is clearly a mixture. To base your arguments on it is foolish.
And from the way Yahweh kills, tortures, manipulates and [insert word that is worse than all of them, but which I'm apparently not allowed to say on a forum with children] people in the Bible, I don't know how anybody can worship him without first denying that the Bible is literally true.
3) There may be a God, there may not be. Based on the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity, I'm inclined to think there isn't one. However, I am not close-minded. If you can offer me physical proof that God exists, I will of course have no choice but to believe it. Note that the existence of the universe is not proof, nor is the Bible or the fact that we don't know everything.
4) If you believe in God, there is no reason not to believe in the Heart of the Cards. Both are superstitious and not supported by fact, though I should say that the Heart of the Cards is a heck of a lot more likely to exist than God, due to its simpler and not based on a contradictory premise.
5) It is only the existence of a literal God that is up for debate. God's existence as a personification of everything bigger than humanity is unquestionable, due it being an abstract concept. This is the "God" that scientists refer to whenever they use the term, just as they refer to "Mother Nature".
Finally, something a person with ADHD can read.
1.) Yeah, evolution cannot be doubted. We see it every year with colds and diseases. But the First Amendment thing does not apply on DN (it is international, 'kay?)
2.) Indeed. If a bearded sandle-wearing guy said that a burning bush was telling him to kill Egypt nowadays, we would have him on pills faster than you can say "Moses". And where is my Book Of Judas? And, yes, YHWH is as unlikable as deities come, even worse than Zeus, the guy who cheats on his wife (the Goddess of Marriage) with everything on two legs.

1) I wasn't referring to the First Ammendment, as I'm not from America and have a generally unfavourable impression of the place.

2) Not just two legs.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-03, 01:29

"Religion is like a !@#$. It's fine to have, and fine to be proud of, but don't wave it around in public and don't shove it down my children's throats."

Lincoln said that, I think, and it reflects my views on this topic.

Trololololol...

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-03, 01:34

Resurgence wrote:"Religion is like a !@#$. It's fine to have, and fine to be proud of, but don't wave it around in public and don't shove it down my children's throats."

Lincoln said that, I think, and it reflects my views on this topic.

Trololololol...

Unfortunately, religious people tend to shove it down children's throats quite a bit... and I'm not just talking about their religion...

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-03, 07:00

Occultdude17 wrote:I love how this has turned from a stagnating discussion about the possibility of God into a full-fledged debate between those who understand Evolution and those who don't. So here are a few points I'd like to make
1) Nobody debates Evolution for scientific reasons. They debate it because it contradicts their primitive, disproven Creation stories, and because they haven't the slightest idea how it works. Rather than admitting that they don't know, which is what all sensible people do, they twist the truth or even blatantly make stuff up in order to keep their superstitions alive.
This isn't slander, because it's true. And I cite Freedom of Speech on any overzealous admins.
2) The Bible is not the slightest bit trustworthy. It is 66 badly-written books by separate authors who didn't even compare notes. It contradicts both itself and archaeological evidence from the time. It is not verifiable, and does not distinguish between history and myth - of which there is clearly a mixture. To base your arguments on it is foolish.
And from the way Yahweh kills, tortures, manipulates and [insert word that is worse than all of them, but which I'm apparently not allowed to say on a forum with children] people in the Bible, I don't know how anybody can worship him without first denying that the Bible is literally true.
3) There may be a God, there may not be. Based on the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity, I'm inclined to think there isn't one. However, I am not close-minded. If you can offer me physical proof that God exists, I will of course have no choice but to believe it. Note that the existence of the universe is not proof, nor is the Bible or the fact that we don't know everything.
4) If you believe in God, there is no reason not to believe in the Heart of the Cards. Both are superstitious and not supported by fact, though I should say that the Heart of the Cards is a heck of a lot more likely to exist than God, due to its simpler and not based on a contradictory premise.
5) It is only the existence of a literal God that is up for debate. God's existence as a personification of everything bigger than humanity is unquestionable, due it being an abstract concept. This is the "God" that scientists refer to whenever they use the term, just as they refer to "Mother Nature".

Now why was this needed in any way? You speak as if she does not know here she is talking about. But if you where to read what she is saying you could see she brings up some pretty good points. Now are you just to scared to defend evolution in debate? Couse all you seem to do is insult something she believes in saying that she does not understand. While I bet you never read the Bible and therefore you probably don’t understand.
If you think that god does not exist and evolution is all. Back it up. Don’t spew some random insults. Your welcome to debate with arguments to why you believe something. Those can be backed with articles if you like.
If you are gonna stay like this you are better to leave this topic.

Amy Cool wrote:Here you explain everything like it was always meant to be so. So it’s like it wasn't a coincidence at all.

You’re kinda twisting my words here. I say all this stuff is bound to happen someday. The time and place are undetermined so it’s still “a coincidence” as you like to call it. These moments are not set in stone.

No one can say that meteorite will strike Earth for sure. Chances are not 100% that it will.

Yes, chances are a 100% a meteor will hit us one day, If that’s in 2012 or after thousands of year. We don’t know but a meteorite WILL his us one day. This for the simple fact they hit us before and he can use the term infinity in our argument. Say the chance a meteorite will hit us at any given point is 0,000000001% (for example) then if you repeat this an infinite amount of times it will hit one day. This is of course without the influence of humans. Say we can deflect them or destroy them before it can hit us this of course becomes invalid.

So using "when" instead of "if" is wrong here.

I’ll stick to my when.

For volcano as a reason, you say Earth was unstable at that time, meaning it was not cool as now and chances for volcanic eruptions were much much bigger than they are today. This is true and we also know from scientific view that Earth cools down with time. So the chances for super volcano's to happen were much bigger when the Earth was more hot. Seeing it as this, we can say that chances for a super volcano were bigger in early stage of Dinos, somewhere at their beginning than the chances to happen later when Earth was cooler (or let’s say at their end when it apparently did happen). Now it is clear that Dino's had so much luck to survive their early stage with no super volcano that could erase them at once. Now, if we would say it was no coincidence that a super volcano did not happen at their early stage, when they did not spread so much, has no logic in it.

I’m not quite catching your drift here. Yes volcanic eruptions happen less as the eart cools down. This does not mean they do not happen at all. The super volcano is bound to erupt again. Again it’s a matter of when, not if.
And we don’t know what killed the Dino’s for sure. I just used 2 common scenarios of a meteorite and the volcano’s. Who knows, it could have something entirely different.

Ultimate lol wrote:This is so dependent on what you see under chance. Most things just happen without you having influence on them. However when these paths meet and are observed by someone not aware of the previous paths it feels to them as chance, while in fact is was likely gonna happen as the paths for the included parties where already set.

Well, speaking of view on things I can say same to you, that you look at them wrong.

I never said you looked at it wrong, I just asked how you see chance and explained how I see it.

For you it was not a coincidence that volcano happened because it would happen sometimes eventually and kill the dinos, but when you see it from my view, dino's needed quite a chance not to be hit by some volcano in their early stage because Earth was so unstable at that time.

It was a coincidence. Just one to happen at one time or another.
I never said it could not happen earlier. It could have happen earlier and the dino’s or on that moment not even dino’s could have been extinct then. Maybe a whole new form of animals would have came to be because they were gone sooner. We will never know.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, fair enough. I figured you could take some of the list. However there is still stuff left. I would really like you to explain the use of body hair to me. Or better the use of Wisdom teeth.

[/quote]Body Hair. http://www.thegeminigeek.com/why-do-we-need-body-hair/ pretty much obvious things. Also if you just look at your hand in whole. Inner part has less hair than outer. Its because outer part is more exposed to harms and needs more protection. So you see that even the ratio of hair attached to our body parts is accurate and not random. [/quote]
I do not agree with all points of the article but Ok. You do have to admit though, that the amound of body hair has drastically decreased of human time.

It is now understood that the problem was seldom seen in pre-industrial societies. It has been discovered that the way in which soft foodstuffs have come to be preferred to harder ones, over the last few hundred years in particular, has negatively affected the way the human jaw develops. It has thus been realized that most wisdom teeth troubles emerge as a result of jaw development problems relating to dietary habits.

Now how is this not evolution? Or surroundings change and our body is changing accordingly. Not needing the wisdom teeth anymore. I bet in a few dozens of years, wisdom teeth will not grow anymore.

Also, in some certain percent wisdom teeth are useful when you have to remove some other molars. For example me, I had problems with my molars so 2 of them had to go out. For some time I had empty space inside my mouth that annoyed me when food goes there and I was forced to improvise by trying to find better spot to chew my food. After some time 2 of my wisdom teeth arrived to fill those places. After some time, they slowly moved to the place my former molars were and now I'm like regenerated.

Your body can only do this when it’s young. Also, losing those teeth would never happen like that in nature so they cannot be for that purpose.

One more thing is that latest studies proved that wisdom teeth contain high amount of stem cells. When located below surface they serve as reservoir for stem cells. If our body needs them, they provide it. These stem cells have been found in tissues such as brain, bone marrow, blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscles, skin and liver. Now speaking of Liver, its the only organ which can regenerate and stem cells take a role in its regeneration. This means that storage of stem cells has purpose, not only in Liver but also in other mentioned organs.

I think a designed body could have found a better place to store stem cells than teeth we often remove.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok my time to hit a ball. Let’s see if you can hit this one.
Have you ever heard of ring species? I have always seen this as modern day proof of how evolution works.

Interbreeding defines things of the same kind. In our world the inability to interbreed does not define new or different kinds of life. The salamanders are still salamanders.

Not true. A good comparison is dogs. They can come in all shapes and sizes, but guess what? Most of them can still interbreed even though they are totally different. So they are of the same kind: Dogs. However in this case. The creature changed so much over generations that when they finally meet. They are not alike enough anymore to interbreed. This makes them separate species. And they do not degrade. They can still interbreed with the step that can before them. And they can with the one before that. They just can’t connect on the end because they are different. Not because both “degraded” differently.

Thus, ring species are not an example of evolution, which requires an increase in genetic information. They are an example of a loss of genetic information.

Why do you think they lose genetic information? They adapt to their new environments. Gain new appearances and are optimised for where they life

Don't get me wrong, if you still consider this as an evolution, meaning no matter that this is genetic degradation, it is still changing in general and thus considered "evolution"

If you environment requires for a species to have less of something to thrive better then yes, I still consider that evolution. Just like human wisdom teeth and our decrease in hair.

**IGiveYouLifePoints** 2011-12-03, 08:19

Well, since this topic is for people to voice their opinions....

I am an agnostic. In my prospective, I do not know if God exists or does not. Although I did find the majority of the posts in here very intriguing.

I guess I just need to have a reason to believe in a God. Which currently, I don't see a reason for.

Although I know my post is merely just an opinion and hardly relating to the current debate - I believe that each one of us have the freedom to believe in what they want no matter if it is right, wrong, or neither.

Although the sound of reincarnation does sound nice.... >.> Except like 3 of the 6 realms you can be born into after you die...

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-03, 11:55

Occultdude17 wrote:I love how this has turned from a stagnating discussion about the possibility of God into a full-fledged debate between those who understand Evolution and those who don't. So here are a few points I'd like to make
1) Nobody debates Evolution for scientific reasons. They debate it because it contradicts their primitive, disproven Creation stories, and because they haven't the slightest idea how it works. Rather than admitting that they don't know, which is what all sensible people do, they twist the truth or even blatantly make stuff up in order to keep their superstitions alive.
This isn't slander, because it's true. And I cite Freedom of Speech on any overzealous admins.
2) The Bible is not the slightest bit trustworthy. It is 66 badly-written books by separate authors who didn't even compare notes. It contradicts both itself and archaeological evidence from the time. It is not verifiable, and does not distinguish between history and myth - of which there is clearly a mixture. To base your arguments on it is foolish.
And from the way Yahweh kills, tortures, manipulates and [insert word that is worse than all of them, but which I'm apparently not allowed to say on a forum with children] people in the Bible, I don't know how anybody can worship him without first denying that the Bible is literally true.
3) There may be a God, there may not be. Based on the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity, I'm inclined to think there isn't one. However, I am not close-minded. If you can offer me physical proof that God exists, I will of course have no choice but to believe it. Note that the existence of the universe is not proof, nor is the Bible or the fact that we don't know everything.
4) If you believe in God, there is no reason not to believe in the Heart of the Cards. Both are superstitious and not supported by fact, though I should say that the Heart of the Cards is a heck of a lot more likely to exist than God, due to its simpler and not based on a contradictory premise.
5) It is only the existence of a literal God that is up for debate. God's existence as a personification of everything bigger than humanity is unquestionable, due it being an abstract concept. This is the "God" that scientists refer to whenever they use the term, just as they refer to "Mother Nature".

Ultimate said it all. Like this, only what you can get here is being ignored.

Ultimate lol wrote:Yes, chances are a 100% a meteor will hit us one day, If that’s in 2012 or after thousands of year. We don’t know but a meteorite WILL his us one day. This for the simple fact they hit us before and he can use the term infinity in our argument.

1. We cannot say that something will happen again just because it happened before if the circumstances are not identical. And in time, it is obvious that they are not the same.

Ultimate lol wrote:Say the chance a meteorite will hit us at any given point is 0,000000001% (for example) then if you repeat this an infinite amount of times it will hit one day. This is of course without the influence of humans. Say we can deflect them or destroy them before it can hit us this of course becomes invalid.

2. Infinity also cannot be used into calculation here since we know that Earth's time is finite - Black Hole must do its job one day. Since that will happen one day for sure Earth could be sucked before Meteorite strikes it.
3. I'll stick to my "if" here Smile

Ultimate lol wrote:I’m not quite catching your drift here. Yes volcanic eruptions happen less as the eart cools down. This does not mean they do not happen at all. The super volcano is bound to erupt again. Again it’s a matter of when, not if.
And we don’t know what killed the Dino’s for sure. I just used 2 common scenarios of a meteorite and the volcano’s. Who knows, it could have something entirely different.

Fair enough. Indeed it is hard to go into more details there since mankind has not found 100% evidence what it was.

Ultimate lol wrote:This is so dependent on what you see under chance. Most things just happen without you having influence on them. However when these paths meet and are observed by someone not aware of the previous paths it feels to them as chance, while in fact is was likely gonna happen as the paths for the included parties where already set.

Ultimate lol wrote:I never said you looked at it wrong, I just asked how you see chance and explained how I see it.

Oh I misunderstood it then, my bad. My view on chance is exactly how it is described in math. But, I understood what you wanted to tell me with your view on chance.

Ultimate lol wrote:It was a coincidence. Just one to happen at one time or another.
I never said it could not happen earlier. It could have happen earlier and the dino’s or on that moment not even dino’s could have been extinct then. Maybe a whole new form of animals would have came to be because they were gone sooner. We will never know.

Pretty much true.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, fair enough. I figured you could take some of the list. However there is still stuff left. I would really like you to explain the use of body hair to me. Or better the use of Wisdom teeth.

Ultimate lol wrote:I do not agree with all points of the article but Ok. You do have to admit though, that the amound of body hair has drastically decreased of human time.

Yes, I admit that. I also agree with that kind of evolution, when things change slightly due to environment. When I said I'm against evolution in general I have forgot to define what part of evolution I disagree. I will also come on that later but yea, on this kind I totally agree. It is proven. No argues there from me. In my Book nothing conflicts with this.

Ultimate lol wrote:Now how is this not evolution? Or surroundings change and our body is changing accordingly. Not needing the wisdom teeth anymore. I bet in a few dozens of years, wisdom teeth will not grow anymore.

Okay, it is kind of evolution. But, about wisdom teeth not growing anymore, only time can show. Also maybe science will show more useful research on those teeth. Who knows.

Ultimate lol wrote:Your body can only do this when it’s young. Also, losing those teeth would never happen like that in nature so they cannot be for that purpose.

I think a designed body could have found a better place to store stem cells than teeth we often remove.

Again, science is not over with research on them. We will see this. There were also other organs which could not be explained before but now they can. So maybe we need a bit more science for it.

Ultimate lol wrote:Not true. A good comparison is dogs. They can come in all shapes and sizes, but guess what? Most of them can still interbreed even though they are totally different. So they are of the same kind: Dogs. However in this case. The creature changed so much over generations that when they finally meet. They are not alike enough anymore to interbreed. This makes them separate species. And they do not degrade. They can still interbreed with the step that can before them. And they can with the one before that. They just can’t connect on the end because they are different. Not because both “degraded” differently.

I will come to this at the end.

Ultimate lol wrote:Why do you think they lose genetic information? They adapt to their new environments. Gain new appearances and are optimised for where they life

One of reasons. Lets say this, 2 dogs, they go separate ways. On their way they lose some of their genetic information. Still they can interbreed. But after some longer time when their generic information is so different they cannot. Now if you have a number 100 for example. Due to surrounding one loses odd numbers and other loses even. So at the end they have all different numbers no matter that they started same. Now if you take as fact that not whole genetic information has to be different but certain amount of it, yea environment could cause different loses of information so that they cannot interbreed. Now lets take why they can interbreed with the ones before them, well the ones before them are going same paths, for example they go path where they lose even numbers. Each generation will have common numbers while generations of separate ways don't have to. Only question is, to which level will they be able to interbreed. At some certain point number of common information will be so different that its not enough to interbreed. So question is can 10th generation interbreed with the 1st? We know it can with 9th or 8th for example but 1st? Another question is, why all articles I find about ring species don't provide information like those "do they gain or lose genetic information". Scientists know it but in those articles its not written. So why don't they provide more details of them? I mean when I'm not so informed about it but I want to know, why is it so hard to find those facts...

Now, speaking of Dinos and Ring species, all trying to prove evolution and happening by chance, let me conclude in what we agree for now and in what we still can discuss.

We came to Dino time because one of my arguments against evolution was missing fossil record of middle stage. You defended it good by stating that there are accurate proofs of middle stage not having good conditions for fossils. Still that was only proof of fossils not existing at that time which suggests that living things between dinos and today could exist but still is not proving their existence during that time. Ring species on the other side speak of slight changes over time due to different surroundings and at the end one species becomes so different that they can be called different species because they cannot interbreed with each other. That is true, they change a lot. However, ring species are used to prove evolution in general meaning if slight changes could occur then it is probably that even larger changes can occur in the same way like fishes becoming amphibians or amphibians becoming reptiles and so on.

Now question that I am asking my self for some time. If ring species suggest that larger changes occur in the same way, meaning all things evolved from one cell types to humans, all by needing to adapt to environment, then why is fossil record of the ones in between still missing? Okay, you defended yourself in Dino time but what is with whole timeline? I mean look at it, from one cell living things up to humans thats quite a lot of time. And again, all those organisms are found but their evolutions in between are missing. I mean I see fish, I see amphibian I see many of them but all of them have high changes, if evolution is right then what is with those missing ones, I mean we know that things cannot evolve that fast like today you are fish tomorrow you are amphibian, many stages come in between. Still, they are missing. Same record through whole timeline. Now, taking as argument fossils not having ideal conditions to be preserved at those times cannot be taken in account. There are way too many different living things that all those in between can be declared as not having ideal conditions when they are spread all over the timeline. Thats too many coincidences and conditions cannot change so frequently. That was Darwins greatest problem and he said that himself. It is testified that volcanic times were great for preserving and Dino's were already mammals, all species before had also volcanic ground and that is why we found so many fossils from that time, meaning conditions were good. However, again all of them have high changes and we miss the ones in between. I want to say with all this that conditions for fossil preservation change much less than living things. That is logical since Earth's state is changing slower than living things on it, if we compare how living things changed and how earth changed in the timeline. So, with this evolution, on higher scale I disagree.

**Prince Vegeta** 2011-12-03, 12:20

ok amy and ultimate kep the topic mature and NOT insulting other religions but im getting really pissed that some people are pretty much insulting my brliefs
you don't see me saying "DIE ATHIEST GO TO HELL" that wouldn't be very christian of me
but please atleast respect it that means you
POTUS
OCCULTDUDE17
RESURGENCE
NELYNEL12
im sorry guys but the way you speaked about my religion and my belief to God really pissed me off
just don't do that again srsly
i don't like it and it's just really insulting to me
im telling you as a friend *potus and nel*
to the rest don't be talking smack about God i respect him and you should respect my decisions and errbody elses because you don't see me going "if you don't believe your going to hell" so please guys

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-03, 13:05

Axel VIII wrote: ok amy and ultimate kep the topic mature and NOT insulting other religions but im getting really pissed that some people are pretty much insulting my brliefs
you don't see me saying "DIE ATHIEST GO TO HELL" that wouldn't be very christian of me
but please atleast respect it that means you
POTUS
OCCULTDUDE17
RESURGENCE
NELYNEL12
im sorry guys but the way you speaked about my religion and my belief to God really pissed me off
just don't do that again srsly
i don't like it and it's just really insulting to me
im telling you as a friend *potus and nel*
to the rest don't be talking smack about God i respect him and you should respect my decisions and errbody elses because you don't see me going "if you don't believe your going to hell" so please guys

If you cannot defend your beliefs, you do not deserve to have them.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-03, 13:18

Define defend, because the statement is coming off like you are denouncing everybody who holds a belief purely on faith or hope or emotion. I hold these things in as high a regard as rationality.

Are these beliefs stupid? Maybe. Are they groundless? Yes. But you cannot deny anybody the right to possess them, because they are founded purely on their faith.

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-03, 13:21

Resurgence wrote:Define defend, because the statement is coming off like you are denouncing everybody who holds a belief purely on faith or hope or emotion. I hold these things in as high a regard as rationality.
Are these beliefs stupid? Maybe. Are they groundless? Yes. But you cannot deny anybody the right to possess them, because they are founded purely on their faith.

While faith is in itself flawed, I do not mean that. I mean that, unless they can defend their beliefs, be it in YHWH being a good guy in The Bible, be it in the nature of Good or Evil, be it in the discussion of best pony, they have no right to hold them. If they refuse to discuss their beliefs, if they run away when an opposing force appears, then they have no right to opine.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-03, 13:25

Potus-Mat wrote:
Resurgence wrote:Define defend, because the statement is coming off like you are denouncing everybody who holds a belief purely on faith or hope or emotion. I hold these things in as high a regard as rationality.
Are these beliefs stupid? Maybe. Are they groundless? Yes. But you cannot deny anybody the right to possess them, because they are founded purely on their faith.
While faith is in itself flawed, I do not mean that. I mean that, unless they can defend their beliefs, be it in YHWH being a good guy in The Bible, be it in the nature of Good or Evil, be it in the discussion of best pony, they have no right to hold them. If they refuse to discuss their beliefs, if they run away when an opposing force appears, then they have no right to opine.

I'll meet you half-way. Refusal to discuss the backing behind their beliefs does not forbid a person from having them.

It does mean they should just shut the !@#$ up when a discussion regarding said beliefs comes up.

This topic will get out of hand...

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-03, 13:31

Resurgence wrote:
Potus-Mat wrote:
Resurgence wrote:Define defend, because the statement is coming off like you are denouncing everybody who holds a belief purely on faith or hope or emotion. I hold these things in as high a regard as rationality.
Are these beliefs stupid? Maybe. Are they groundless? Yes. But you cannot deny anybody the right to possess them, because they are founded purely on their faith.
While faith is in itself flawed, I do not mean that. I mean that, unless they can defend their beliefs, be it in YHWH being a good guy in The Bible, be it in the nature of Good or Evil, be it in the discussion of best pony, they have no right to hold them. If they refuse to discuss their beliefs, if they run away when an opposing force appears, then they have no right to opine.
I'll meet you half-way. Refusal to discuss the backing behind their beliefs does not forbid a person from having them.
It does mean they should just shut the !@#$ up when a discussion regarding said beliefs comes up.
This topic will get out of hand...

True, people who see this topic and do not post anything are entitled to their beliefs, as they have yet to engage the enemy. People who enter, make a few blanket statements, and run away, however, do not.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-03, 14:55

First of all I think we achieved allot already and am happy that we agreed to a point on a lot of subjects. And that we agreed to disagree on some others. I am also thankful for the serious other side of the story. There are not a lot of people with which you can discuss this subject seriously.
Now back to the discussion.

Amy Cool wrote:1. We cannot say that something will happen again just because it happened before if the circumstances are not identical. And in time, it is obvious that they are not the same.
Ultimate lol wrote:Say the chance a meteorite will hit us at any given point is 0,000000001% (for example) then if you repeat this an infinite amount of times it will hit one day. This is of course without the influence of humans. Say we can deflect them or destroy them before it can hit us this of course becomes invalid.
2. Infinity also cannot be used into calculation here since we know that Earth's time is finite - Black Hole must do its job one day. Since that will happen one day for sure Earth could be sucked before Meteorite strikes it.
3. I'll stick to my "if" here

Ok, infinity is a bit high set I guess. Still if you would take the whole lifetime of earth into account (billions of years) then chances of a meteor are still gonna be only slightly less then a 100%. If you count the amount of meteorites that his the earth over its lifetimes its just to often to ignore. The last big impact was no more then 50.000 years ago, not a world destroying one but huge none the less.
But I,m fine if you stick to if, chances we will know either way in our lifetime are there but not huge (excluding 2012).
Also or earth is more likely to end with the death (or the extending fase) of our sun than a black hole I think

Ultimate lol wrote:I never said you looked at it wrong, I just asked how you see chance and explained how I see it.

Amy Cool wrote:Oh I misunderstood it then, my bad. My view on chance is exactly how it is described in math. But, I understood what you wanted to tell me with your view on chance.

Ok, like I though you can have different viewpoints on the term.

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, fair enough. I figured you could take some of the list. However there is still stuff left. I would really like you to explain the use of body hair to me. Or better the use of Wisdom teeth.

Ultimate lol wrote:Now how is this not evolution? Or surroundings change and our body is changing accordingly. Not needing the wisdom teeth anymore. I bet in a few dozens of years, wisdom teeth will not grow anymore.

Amy Cool wrote:Okay, it is kind of evolution. But, about wisdom teeth not growing anymore, only time can show. Also maybe science will show more useful research on those teeth. Who knows.

Ultimate lol wrote:Your body can only do this when it’s young. Also, losing those teeth would never happen like that in nature so they cannot be for that purpose.

I think a designed body could have found a better place to store stem cells than teeth we often remove.

Amy Cool wrote:Again, science is not over with research on them. We will see this. There were also other organs which could not be explained before but now they can. So maybe we need a bit more science for it.

The science research will probably be completed in our lifetimes so yes. I do hope we will see. Very Happy

Ultimate lol wrote:Why do you think they lose genetic information? They adapt to their new environments. Gain new appearances and are optimised for where they life

Amy Cool wrote:One of reasons. Lets say this, 2 dogs, they go separate ways. On their way they lose some of their genetic information. Still they can interbreed. But after some longer time when their generic information is so different they cannot. Now if you have a number 100 for example. Due to surrounding one loses odd numbers and other loses even. So at the end they have all different numbers no matter that they started same. Now if you take as fact that not whole genetic information has to be different but certain amount of it, yea environment could cause different loses of information so that they cannot interbreed. Now lets take why they can interbreed with the ones before them, well the ones before them are going same paths, for example they go path where they lose even numbers. Each generation will have common numbers while generations of separate ways don't have to. Only question is, to which level will they be able to interbreed. At some certain point number of common information will be so different that its not enough to interbreed.

Ok, I see how you see the situation.

Amy Cool wrote:why all articles I find about ring species don't provide information like those "do they gain or lose genetic information". Scientists know it but in those articles its not written. So why don't they provide more details of them? I mean when I'm not so informed about it but I want to know, why is it so hard to find those facts...

Ok, now I see why you can’t make a conclusive call on the subject and had to assume some factors.
Because the information about the actual genetic chance is not stated you assume there is a degration.
I don’t think there is degration, I think it just changes into something new. Sometimes adding things, sometimes removing. But the base material does not get more or less.
To me it just not make sense something would have “less” genetic material. That would mean that everything that came from another would be less then the former.
If I’m getting the wrong idea, tell me. But this is what I’m getting from what you are saying.

Amy Cool wrote:let me conclude in what we agree for now and in what we still can discuss.

We came to Dino time because one of my arguments against evolution was missing fossil record of middle stage. You defended it good by stating that there are accurate proofs of middle stage not having good conditions for fossils. Still that was only proof of fossils not existing at that time which suggests that living things between dinos and today could exist but still is not proving their existence during that time. Ring species on the other side speak of slight changes over time due to different surroundings and at the end one species becomes so different that they can be called different species because they cannot interbreed with each other. That is true, they change a lot. However, ring species are used to prove evolution in general meaning if slight changes could occur then it is probably that even larger changes can occur in the same way like fishes becoming amphibians or amphibians becoming reptiles and so on.

Well said. I agree all stated here is as we discussed.

Amy Cool wrote:Now question that I am asking myself for some time. If ring species suggest that larger changes occur in the same way, meaning all things evolved from one cell types to humans, all by needing to adapt to environment, then why is fossil record of the ones in between still missing? Okay, you defended yourself in Dino time but what is with whole timeline? I mean look at it, from one cell living things up to humans thats quite a lot of time. And again, all those organisms are found but their evolutions in between are missing. I mean I see fish, I see amphibian I see many of them but all of them have high changes, if evolution is right then what is with those missing ones, I mean we know that things cannot evolve that fast like today you are fish tomorrow you are amphibian, many stages come in between. Still, they are missing. Same record through whole timeline. Now, taking as argument fossils not having ideal conditions to be preserved at those times cannot be taken in account. There are way too many different living things that all those in between can be declared as not having ideal conditions when they are spread all over the timeline. That’s too many coincidences and conditions cannot change so frequently. That was Darwins greatest problem and he said that himself. It is testified that volcanic times were great for preserving and Dino's were already mammals, all species before had also volcanic ground and that is why we found so many fossils from that time, meaning conditions were good. However, again all of them have high changes and we miss the ones in between. I want to say with all this that conditions for fossil preservation change much less than living things. That is logical since Earth's state is changing slower than living things on it, if we compare how living things changed and how earth changed in the timeline. So, with this evolution, on higher scale I disagree.

I see why you disagree, stuff like this is better to prove with hard fossils. At this subject I’d like 2 say 2 things, 1 of those I stated before.
On fossils before the dino’s I’d like for one part to fall back on my previous statement. That smaller fossil in combination with an increased instable and more shifting earth makes them far harder to be preserved.
On my second point I like to say something about found fossils in general.
Say we have 2 similar creatures. For this example a shark. We have sharks now and we had shark like creature in prehistoric times. Now these two are pretty different from then to now. Now say we never found any fossils except for the very first one and one of a today’s shark. Both would like quite alien from each other and maybe we would no even see the similarities. It is because we have a lot of multiple sharks from different times we know he came from the old on to the current one. Because we have a lot we could see procedural changes in it and the difference between the start and the end does not seem so odd anymore. So when we have the fossils nobody notices even though the changes are there. But when we have 2 similar fossils (but obvious difference) from to far away periods but no reverence from in between it just feels to alien and we refuse to draw a line.
In short. I feel that we often overlook the animals where there was a change but they do not stand out due to the only small changes due to many steps while if you look from the first to the last the change is there. This in comparison to the once we only have the first in the last.

We are a bit long again, but I think we can successfully cross some subjects off again Smile

**T3RCX** 2011-12-03, 15:08

For those of you discussing evolution, I suggest you make clear distinctions between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."

Microevolution is the scientifically observed phenomenon of physiological and genetic adaptation occurring within a species through several generations. There are many examples of this, such as Galapagos Finches or Peppered Moths.

Macroevolution is the theory that microevolutionary changes can build up over long periods of time and result in a distinctly new species arising from the cumulative genetic changes in a pre-existing species.

They are indeed similar qualitatively, but there are differences in the underlying assumptions of each such that it is important to clearly define exactly which kind you are referring to in a debate setting.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-03, 15:19

T3RCX wrote:For those of you discussing evolution, I suggest you make clear distinctions between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."

Microevolution is the scientifically observed phenomenon of physiological and genetic adaptation occurring within a species through several generations. There are many examples of this, such as Galapagos Finches or Peppered Moths.

Macroevolution is the theory that microevolutionary changes can build up over long periods of time and result in a distinctly new species arising from the cumulative genetic changes in a pre-existing species.

They are indeed similar qualitatively, but there are differences in the underlying assumptions of each such that it is important to clearly define exactly which kind you are referring to in a debate setting.

You're welcome to join the discussion on this and other points if you like. It might look like Amy and I are the only ones discussing but I think we are both open to added intelligent input.

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-04, 00:44

DISCLAIMER: The following comment contains NO vulgar language, and is NOT an insult aimed at any members of Duel Network. Anybody taking offense at it has no case against me.

1) I am being asked to "defend Evolution in a debate, rather than throwing insults". Okay, that's a perfectly reasonable request. If you can present a valid reason why Evolution doesn't work, I will debate it. Note, however, that the following arguments do not qualify:

- "There's no evidence" (Evolution is THE most well-proven theory in science, and every aspect of modern Biology supports it).

- "There are no transitional fossils" (yes there are, Google will supply you with a full list).

- "Evolution is just a theory" (in science, a theory is the most solid type of fact there is. If you debate me without first Googling the complete definition, I will ridicule you).

- "Genesis 1 and 2" (the Bible is not evidence).

- "There are gaps in the fossil record" (of course there are gaps, moron).

- "Microevolution is correct, macroevolution is not" (macro is simply lots of micros over a prolonged time period, just as a walk from New York to Boston is made up of many single steps).

- "Evolution can't be disproven" (a rabbit in Precambrian rock layers or a croco-duck fossil would disprove Evolution instantly).

- "There's a conspiracy amongst scientists" (it's called GETTING AN EDUCATION).

- "So-and-so says Evolution is wrong, and they have a PhD" (I don't care, they are not in this debate).

2) Apparently I "insulted your God".

FACT: In the Bible, Yahweh condones or commits the following acts:

- Genocide (e.g. Flooding the world and killing all the firstborns of Egypt. What did those children do to deserve death? Why not kill Pharaoh instead? And think how many babies and animals drowned in that flood).

- Torture (e.g. Hell. Anybody who does not accept Jesus will be condemned to eternal torture in the Lake of Fire, with no hope of redemption. What is the point of that? If somebody is truly evil, why not just obliterate them? The Bible is never clear on whether unbaptised babies go to Hell).

- The "R" word (e.g. Deuteronomy, chapters 22 onwards. Many examples of God proclaiming obscene and barbaric laws about the victims of this. Numbers contains an example where, after their battle with the Moabites, the Israelites get to keep their young girls as slaves. Do you really think those girls had any say in what happened next?).

- Tampering with free will (e.g. Pharaoh. Exodus specifically states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would say "No", giving God an excuse to send more plagues).

If you believe that the Bible is literally true, and worship the God it portrays, then I have zero respect for you. If you worship a similar-yet-not God, who really bears no resemblance to the tyrant of the Old and New Testaments except for having a son who is also called Jesus, then you have no reason to defend the Biblical God's actions because he has nothing to do with you.

And, frankly, you should find him as disgusting as I do.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-04, 01:44

I actually do find the God portrayed in the Old Testament as the most enjoyable character in the Bible.

He's basically a tyrant, a dictator, bur unlike all other of his kind, he is truly omnipotent. There is literally no other option than to obey him. In that case, when facing odds that are truly impossible to overcome, is it not obvious that you venerate this being? He plays favorites, everything to him is a game, and as a mere pawn, it is your duty to get on his good side to make sure you win. He is truly the ultimate Chess master. The universe is his plaything, his personal theater, and he orchestrates the play to hi liking. Every plot, every character, every tragedy, triumph, and success was arranged because he preferred this person or this conclusion to the other.

Isn't that... cool? I just found that so interesting, and so enjoyable. Of course, the Bible is not the most perfect example of literature written well, but if you use your imagination, expanding on the concept is pretty fun.

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-04, 01:53

Resurgence wrote:I actually do find the God portrayed in the Old Testament as the most enjoyable character in the Bible.
He's basically a tyrant, a dictator, bur unlike all other of his kind, he is truly omnipotent. There is literally no other option than to obey him. In that case, when facing odds that are truly impossible to overcome, is it not obvious that you venerate this being? He plays favorites, everything to him is a game, and as a mere pawn, it is your duty to get on his good side to make sure you win. He is truly the ultimate Chess master. The universe is his plaything, his personal theater, and he orchestrates the play to hi liking. Every plot, every character, every tragedy, triumph, and success was arranged because he preferred this person or this conclusion to the other.
Isn't that... cool? I just found that so interesting, and so enjoyable. Of course, the Bible is not the most perfect example of literature written well, but if you use your imagination, expanding on the concept is pretty fun.

Normally, I like these characters (Anti-Spiral, for example). What I do not like about YHWH, however, is that, even though he is an absolute *EXPLETIVE*, every still worships him as a being of peace and love. "That ain't right", for lack of a better term.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-04, 02:04

If you're referring to the people in real life, that is a problem. But if you mean the people in the Bible, I find that brilliant. He's a terrible Lord and a terrible deity, yet the fact that he is so much more powerful than anyone means he can force his double standards without anything challenging him.

He's basically standing on a pedestal, announcing, daring anybody to challenge his existence as a being of love, and of course, nothing can challenge him.

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-04, 03:05

Resurgence wrote:If you're referring to the people in real life, that is a problem. But if you mean the people in the Bible, I find that brilliant. He's a terrible Lord and a terrible deity, yet the fact that he is so much more powerful than anyone means he can force his double standards without anything challenging him.

He's basically standing on a pedestal, announcing, daring anybody to challenge his existence as a being of love, and of course, nothing can challenge him.

I might find it entertaining, except that the Bible is poorly written and focuses on the most inane stuff. It's like it was written by 66 autistic 12-year-olds in separate rooms (no disrespect to anybody who has autism).

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-04, 06:16

I would say you are half way there in usefully participating here.

Occultdude17 wrote:
Note, however, that the following arguments do not qualify:

- "There's no evidence" (Evolution is THE most well-proven theory in science, and every aspect of modern Biology supports it).

Why? With what? Elaborate in any form to support what you are saying.

Occultdude17 wrote:
- "There are no transitional fossils" (yes there are, Google will supply you with a full list).

Could you make a small list of obvious examples?

Occultdude17 wrote:
- "Genesis 1 and 2" (the Bible is not evidence).

Occultdude17 wrote:
- "There are gaps in the fossil record" (of course there are gaps, moron).

The way how Amy states it, as in "It can't be written by a man" can be seen as evidence.
Not saying that it is, just saying it can be.

Occultdude17 wrote:
- "Evolution can't be disproven" (a rabbit in Precambrian rock layers or a croco-duck fossil would disprove Evolution instantly).

Elaborate

Occultdude17 wrote:
- "So-and-so says Evolution is wrong, and they have a PhD" (I don't care, they are not in this debate).

We can use articles by people who have written on a subject. Their opinions can matter just as much as ours.

Occultdude17 wrote:
2) Apparently I "insulted your God".

I have not read the full Bible so I will not comment on this. I would like to know if you did.

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-04, 09:34

@Occultdude17, while our beliefs are subjective, we try to cover them in objective view as much as possible. Despite that you did not read my posts, I've read yours and they are still nothing but a subjective view, "I hate religion" is what we get when sum up all your posts in this topic. So, I don't feel need to go into discussion with you about it, you are free to hate and no one here can forbid you that. Only reason why me and Ultimate can discuss with each other is that we both listen and speak, and you on the other side cannot go as far as just to read (not to mention try to understand) before you say something. No offense though.

Ultimate lol wrote:First of all I think we achieved allot already and am happy that we agreed to a point on a lot of subjects. And that we agreed to disagree on some others. I am also thankful for the serious other side of the story. There are not a lot of people with which you can discuss this subject seriously.
Now back to the discussion.

I second that Smile

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, infinity is a bit high set I guess. Still if you would take the whole lifetime of earth into account (billions of years) then chances of a meteor are still gonna be only slightly less then a 100%. If you count the amount of meteorites that his the earth over its lifetimes its just to often to ignore. The last big impact was no more then 50.000 years ago, not a world destroying one but huge none the less.
But I,m fine if you stick to if, chances we will know either way in our lifetime are there but not huge (excluding 2012).
Also or earth is more likely to end with the death (or the extending fase) of our sun than a black hole I think

Yep, can be seen like that too.

Ultimate lol wrote:I think a designed body could have found a better place to store stem cells than teeth we often remove.

Like you said, lets hope the research will be done in our lifetimes and give us some enlightening about that Smile

Ultimate lol wrote:Ok, now I see why you can’t make a conclusive call on the subject and had to assume some factors.
Because the information about the actual genetic chance is not stated you assume there is a degration.
I don’t think there is degration, I think it just changes into something new. Sometimes adding things, sometimes removing. But the base material does not get more or less.
To me it just not make sense something would have “less” genetic material. That would mean that everything that came from another would be less then the former.
If I’m getting the wrong idea, tell me. But this is what I’m getting from what you are saying.

Well, if I would say it is degradation 100% that would be untrue. Of course, it could also be adding information, I don't know it exactly. But, lets say its both for now, it makes more sense as you said it.

Ultimate lol wrote:I see why you disagree, stuff like this is better to prove with hard fossils. At this subject I’d like 2 say 2 things, 1 of those I stated before.
On fossils before the dino’s I’d like for one part to fall back on my previous statement. That smaller fossil in combination with an increased instable and more shifting earth makes them far harder to be preserved.

Still, so many fossils found from very small living things, all living in that period of very instable Earth, before even Dino's time came, suggest that taking that as an argument is questionable.

Ultimate lol wrote:On my second point I like to say something about found fossils in general.
Say we have 2 similar creatures. For this example a shark. We have sharks now and we had shark like creature in prehistoric times. Now these two are pretty different from then to now. Now say we never found any fossils except for the very first one and one of a today’s shark. Both would like quite alien from each other and maybe we would no even see the similarities. It is because we have a lot of multiple sharks from different times we know he came from the old on to the current one. Because we have a lot we could see procedural changes in it and the difference between the start and the end does not seem so odd anymore. So when we have the fossils nobody notices even though the changes are there. But when we have 2 similar fossils (but obvious difference) from to far away periods but no reverence from in between it just feels to alien and we refuse to draw a line.
In short. I feel that we often overlook the animals where there was a change but they do not stand out due to the only small changes due to many steps while if you look from the first to the last the change is there. This in comparison to the once we only have the first in the last.

Good point, can also be seen like that.

Since you can give good points in this discussion I would like to know from someone like you, how does evolution explain life. I mean, at some point, by chance, things had to come together to form a life isnt it?

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-04, 10:42

Wow, we closed the whole previous discussion. cheers

Since you can give good points in this discussion I would like to know from someone like you, how does evolution explain life. I mean, at some point, by chance, things had to come together to form a life isnt it?

Now to answer your question and maybe start a new discussion. Smile

First of all, evolutions stats from the first life form. As far as I know the actual start of live is not part of evolution.
Of course there are some theories as to how it work which I will try to explain to the best of my abilities.

For life on earth I know 2 theories. For live in general 1 of those drops.

For life on earth there are theories that the first 1 cell organisms could have come with meteorites. enclosed in the in a sleep state. when landed on earth the started to develop. However if you say life in general that case would drop as that life had to come from somewhere to.

If I remember all correctly, plant type life came firs. Now don't think modern day plant but think something that lives the same way that plant do. Turning CO2 into another product for development. They cam as a response to the high amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the high amount of volcanic activity. one of the by-products of this process was 02 or oxygen. Science considers these 2 part of the magic 3 needed to form life: Water and oxygen. The third one is heat of energy. this comes from volcanic under water raptures. spewing out large amounts of hot material heating water.
Due to all these factors being present a chemical reaction could take place. creating the first carbon based life form. these were one cell only and merely turned the O2 and C back into CO2.
Now as time passes different cells formed turning other material into other stuff. And more complex life form start to develop combing some of these functions, becoming more efficient.
From this point evolution slowly start to kick in. The creatures striving to be more and more efficient in what they are doing. It becomes a survival of the fittest and only the best developed survive and continue.

This is all from the top of my head atm though. I'll have to read in to go more into detail and to see if I remembered correctly.
Other users can add to this or elaborate if they want.

**Resurgence** 2011-12-04, 12:01

I just realized that the OP mentioned 'proof' of the existence (and non-existence) of God.

I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that there could possibly exist definitive, perfect proof for or against the existence of God (or any deity)...

No offense, but that idea is just absurd, and at the risk of sounding conceited, childish...

Trolololololol.

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-04, 15:50

Resurgence wrote:I just realized that the OP mentioned 'proof' of the existence (and non-existence) of God.
I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that there could possibly exist definitive, perfect proof for or against the existence of God (or any deity)...
No offense, but that idea is just absurd, and at the risk of sounding conceited, childish...
Trolololololol.

I already posted a way to discover the existence (or non-existence) of a deity. Or at least prove that it is impossible to do so.

Amy Cool wrote:Since you can give good points in this discussion I would like to know from someone like you, how does evolution explain life. I mean, at some point, by chance, things had to come together to form a life isnt it?

I shall consider my knowledge to suffice to answer this.
Random chance.
Let us say you have a box of Lego's. If you shake the box, do you get one of those little Lego people? Of course not! However, if you have millions of years to shake the box, eventually, some of the Lego's connect, correct? Considering that one Lego (let us say one of those two-by-two ones), in relative position to another, has 90 different ways to connect to that the other...
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis rotation, it would connect once every 90 degrees.
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis shift, at any point in which it does not connect to Lego B, it would enter another rotation situation with theoretical Lego C (hey, there are plenty of Lego's in this box, remember?), and so on for Lego D, Lego E, ad absurdum, thus making the case of shifts irrelevant.
So, given that both Lego's are rotation randomly on all Axes they would each have 729000 different positions, for a total of 531441000000 different possibilities, 90 of which would result in connection. So, once every 5904900000 vibrations of the box, two Lego's would connect. Eventually, these structures would combine to become larger structures, correct?
Now, these larger structures are analogous to RNA, which, in coming in contact with random nucleotides, duplicate. Eventually, a lipid bubble, which has undergone a similar random connection, encases one of these RNA strands. Thus, the first cell is born, and life begins.

**Prince Vegeta** 2011-12-04, 16:41

Potus-Mat wrote:
Resurgence wrote:I just realized that the OP mentioned 'proof' of the existence (and non-existence) of God.
I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that there could possibly exist definitive, perfect proof for or against the existence of God (or any deity)...
No offense, but that idea is just absurd, and at the risk of sounding conceited, childish...
Trolololololol.
I already posted a way to discover the existence (or non-existence) of a deity. Or at least prove that it is impossible to do so.
Amy Cool wrote:Since you can give good points in this discussion I would like to know from someone like you, how does evolution explain life. I mean, at some point, by chance, things had to come together to form a life isnt it?
I shall consider my knowledge to suffice to answer this.
Random chance.
Let us say you have a box of Lego's. If you shake the box, do you get one of those little Lego people? Of course not! However, if you have millions of years to shake the box, eventually, some of the Lego's connect, correct? Considering that one Lego (let us say one of those two-by-two ones), in relative position to another, has 90 different ways to connect to that the other...
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis rotation, it would connect once every 90 degrees.
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis shift, at any point in which it does not connect to Lego B, it would enter another rotation situation with theoretical Lego C (hey, there are plenty of Lego's in this box, remember?), and so on for Lego D, Lego E, ad absurdum, thus making the case of shifts irrelevant.
So, given that both Lego's are rotation randomly on all Axes they would each have 729000 different positions, for a total of 531441000000 different possibilities, 90 of which would result in connection. So, once every 5904900000 vibrations of the box, two Lego's would connect. Eventually, these structures would combine to become larger structures, correct?
Now, these larger structures are analogous to RNA, which, in coming in contact with random nucleotides, duplicate. Eventually, a lipid bubble, which has undergone a similar random connection, encases one of these RNA strands. Thus, the first cell is born, and life begins.

i understood nothing!

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-04, 20:05

I had resolved to keep my comments card-game related, as my other posts tend to be inappropriate on a forum that children frequent (ironic, given that the original Manga/Anime was not child-friendly). However, I feel it's equally important to protect children from indoctrination, so I'm going to rebut all of your points - in such a way that you have to be willfully ignorant to not understand them.

1) What evidence? Fair question. To understand it, we must examine the definition of "Theory". A theory is an explanation of some feature in the physical world that A) Can be disproved with a simple, reproducible test; B) Is supported by physical evidence; C) Describes the mechanism by which it works; and D) Predicts the results of our experiments.

For instance, we theorise that the Earth goes around the Sun. A) If we found planets/comets/asteroids moving in orbits inconsistent with a Heliocentric Solar System, the theory would be disproved. We would then have to either abandon it entirely, or modify it to fit the evidence. B) We have astronomical data consistent with the theory. C) General Relativity currently provides the most accurate description of how gravity and motion work. D) Our calculations based on the Sun's mass, position, distance, etc. suggest that the planets should have the orbits they currently occupy.

For Evolution (and I'm going to do this backwards, because we're starting with an "unconfirmed" theory):

D) Evolution predicts that organisms will develop mutations, and that any organism unfit for its environment will die out. It also predicts some method of storing information about what traits an organism has. And let's not forget that older fossils should be found lower in the Earth's crust than newer ones, although that now puts Geology's head on the chopping block too.

C) Organisms develop mutations through changes at the genetic level (e.g. chemicals, viruses, radiation, errors in copying during cell division). Any changes that stop the organism from breeding are not passed on, while those that beneficial, redundant, or just harmful-but-not-fatal-before-breeding will be passed on. When the environment changes or a competition for food/mates arises, the organisms best suited will usually have more offspring.

B) We can observe mutations developing all the time. DNA stores information about the organism's traits. We find invertebrates throughout the fossil record, but only find fish and dinosaurs in the upper layers - this is consistent with our model of how animals evolved. Also notice how most genetic illnesses don't start killing you until later in life, consistent with the 2nd-to-last sentence of B.

A) Ducks did not evolve from modern-day crocodiles. Crocodiles and dinosaurs both descend from primitive archosaurs, and birds evolved from small predatory dinosaurs. Finding a fossil that is a direct transition between crocodiles and ducks would disprove this model, and force us to modify our tree of life to fit it. And if no model could be found that matched all the fossils, including our "croco-duck", then Evolution would have to be abandoned.

Rabbits did not exist in the Precambrian. The conditions could not support mammalian life-forms without technology. The Precambrian is also far enough in the past that no rabbits could fall down a fissure in the rock and get trapped in an earlier layer. Finding a rabbit fossil there would imply that rabbits are the ancestors of all other animals, and would shed doubt upon the Precambrian environment. Evolution, Genetics, Paleontology and Geology all contradict this result, and would have to be abandoned. Medicine would follow soon after, due to its reliance on Biology.

Finding a fossil to disprove Evolution wouldn't be hard if one existed. The fact that every fossil supports the theory is what makes it stronger.

2) Transitional fossils. Technically every fossil is a transitional fossil, unless its species went extinct with no descendants. However, here are some glaringly obvious examples that I can remember off the top of my head:

Basilosaurus (primitive whale), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur with wings and feathers), Australopithecus (primitive human), Cynognathus (reptile with hair, looks sort of like a dog), Hyracotherium (primitive, 1 foot-tall horse with 5 toes), Hylonomus (ancestor of reptiles).

3) The Bible could very easily have been written by humans, and almost certainly was. It's certainly attributed to humans. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John supposedly wrote it all down, didn't they? Why couldn't they have made it up too? It is unreasonable to consider "God wrote it" as evidence.

4) The reason there are gaps in the fossil record is because fossilization is a very rare process. Animals have to be trapped under sedimentary rock and left there for at least 100,000 years. If you consider all the possible ways and places an animal can die, you wouldn't expect many of them to become fossilized. Only over millions of years will you get enough fossils to put in all the museums.

5) If somebody has written an article saying "Evolution is wrong", I suggest you check the "Controversy" section of their Wikipedia page before believing them. It is a sad fact that about 5% of scientists are crackpots, and only the crackpots don't believe in Evolution. How any of them got their PhDs is a mystery to me.

6) Quite honestly, I have not read the ENTIRE Bible. I have read enough to ensure that I am not taking any of my examples out of context. Reading the whole thing is on my to-do list, trust me. That said, I can't think of a context where it is acceptable to... graphic content, it's in Hosea 13:16.

7) Yes, I do hate the God of the Bible. He's the epitome of evil and perverted behaviour, and it sickens me that people worship and defend this monster. My opinion of his character has no connection to my lack of belief in him, nor with my acceptance of Evolution as fact.

8 ) No, I didn't read your post. I never said I did. This was more of a general statement to anybody looking to re-ignite a debate that scientists settled decades ago, as well as a chance to smack down anybody claiming that God=Morality.

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-04, 20:19

Axel VIII wrote:
Potus-Mat wrote:
Resurgence wrote:I just realized that the OP mentioned 'proof' of the existence (and non-existence) of God.
I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that there could possibly exist definitive, perfect proof for or against the existence of God (or any deity)...
No offense, but that idea is just absurd, and at the risk of sounding conceited, childish...
Trolololololol.
I already posted a way to discover the existence (or non-existence) of a deity. Or at least prove that it is impossible to do so.
Amy Cool wrote:Since you can give good points in this discussion I would like to know from someone like you, how does evolution explain life. I mean, at some point, by chance, things had to come together to form a life isnt it?
I shall consider my knowledge to suffice to answer this.
Random chance.
Let us say you have a box of Lego's. If you shake the box, do you get one of those little Lego people? Of course not! However, if you have millions of years to shake the box, eventually, some of the Lego's connect, correct? Considering that one Lego (let us say one of those two-by-two ones), in relative position to another, has 90 different ways to connect to that the other...
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis rotation, it would connect once every 90 degrees.
- On an X, Y, or Z-Axis shift, at any point in which it does not connect to Lego B, it would enter another rotation situation with theoretical Lego C (hey, there are plenty of Lego's in this box, remember?), and so on for Lego D, Lego E, ad absurdum, thus making the case of shifts irrelevant.
So, given that both Lego's are rotation randomly on all Axes they would each have 729000 different positions, for a total of 531441000000 different possibilities, 90 of which would result in connection. So, once every 5904900000 vibrations of the box, two Lego's would connect. Eventually, these structures would combine to become larger structures, correct?
Now, these larger structures are analogous to RNA, which, in coming in contact with random nucleotides, duplicate. Eventually, a lipid bubble, which has undergone a similar random connection, encases one of these RNA strands. Thus, the first cell is born, and life begins.
i understood nothing!

Of course you did not. I set it to Miss Cool's level. Were I to set it to your level, it would read more like...
"Imagine you have a box of Lego's. If you shake the box, eventually, some of them will connect. Eventually, many will connect. These larger constructs are life."

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-04, 20:37

Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-04, 21:01

vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-04, 21:07

Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

Well just keep in mind kids use this forum. We can have intelligent racey debates, just don't bring in touchy/inappropriate subject matter it is fine.

I do dislike when people try and force their beleifs on others... it isn't fair...

**Halberdier** 2011-12-04, 23:03

If god exists, then why do all the smart people not believe in him?

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-04, 23:09

Halberdier wrote:If god exists, then why do all the smart people not believe in him?

Because, A book can also be...

Spoiler:

**Halberdier** 2011-12-04, 23:15

So what you're saying is, people who believe in god can't read?

That's terrible! We must help them!

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-04, 23:23

Halberdier wrote:So what you're saying is, people who believe in god can't read?

That's terrible! We must help them!

Maybe they read too much?

**Halberdier** 2011-12-04, 23:33

Who could read while the book was on their head? Preposterous.

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-04, 23:44

Halberdier wrote:Who could read while the book was on their head? Preposterous.

Well, you could read it OR use it as a hat. You are not restricted to one.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 00:13

Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

logically speaking a god must exist, potus said some things like that and i imagine he explained atleast one of the 5 proofs of god, (incase he didnt most involve the absurdity of infinite regression, think chicken and egg) which god you choose to believe in and what that entails is your own choice, in terms of gods existance in my opinion, you believe he does or did exist, or your simply being ignorant

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-05, 01:20

S.S. Anaconda wrote:
Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

logically speaking a god must exist, potus said some things like that and i imagine he explained atleast one of the 5 proofs of god, (incase he didnt most involve the absurdity of infinite regression, think chicken and egg) which god you choose to believe in and what that entails is your own choice, in terms of gods existance in my opinion, you believe he does or did exist, or your simply being ignorant

Logically speaking, that is incorrect. The world does not need God. Science explains where the universe, humanity and morality came from, and does not require divine intervention. Furthermore, God defies logic on many levels, due to his contradictory attributes.

In fact, let's set up a scenario to prove that God is contradictory. God is claimed to be:

Omnipotent - able to do anything.

Omniscient - knows everything.

Omnibenevolent - is entirely good.

Unchanging - none of these traits can change.

Now let's pick an act of evil, say... child abuse. God is all-powerful, so he can stop any acts of child abuse from occurring. He's all-knowing, so he knows when it occurs. He's omnibenevolent, so he will choose to stop child abuse when he can. And he's unchanging, so he can't change his nature.

The logical conclusion is that child abuse cannot exist, but the evidence contradicts this. And there are some forms of child abuse that are not "character building", so there's no excuse for letting them occur. We accept as a given that child abuse is in fact evil, so that means the 4 traits we assigned to God are inherently paradoxical, and 1 or more of them must be false.

**DarkRiku** 2011-12-05, 02:36

Occultdude17 wrote:
S.S. Anaconda wrote:
Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

logically speaking a god must exist, potus said some things like that and i imagine he explained atleast one of the 5 proofs of god, (incase he didnt most involve the absurdity of infinite regression, think chicken and egg) which god you choose to believe in and what that entails is your own choice, in terms of gods existance in my opinion, you believe he does or did exist, or your simply being ignorant

Logically speaking, that is incorrect. The world does not need God. Science explains where the universe, humanity and morality came from, and does not require divine intervention. Furthermore, God defies logic on many levels, due to his contradictory attributes.

In fact, let's set up a scenario to prove that God is contradictory. God is claimed to be:

Omnipotent - able to do anything.

Omniscient - knows everything.

Omnibenevolent - is entirely good.

Unchanging - none of these traits can change.

Now let's pick an act of evil, say... child abuse. God is all-powerful, so he can stop any acts of child abuse from occurring. He's all-knowing, so he knows when it occurs. He's omnibenevolent, so he will choose to stop child abuse when he can. And he's unchanging, so he can't change his nature.

The logical conclusion is that child abuse cannot exist, but the evidence contradicts this. And there are some forms of child abuse that are not "character building", so there's no excuse for letting them occur. We accept as a given that child abuse is in fact evil, so that means the 4 traits we assigned to God are inherently paradoxical, and 1 or more of them must be false.

I like what this person is saying in regards to what you are saying.

http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-god-why-evil.html

How in the world did we go from people not believing in him to now saying he is Evil? That would almost sound like admitting God exist. Unless you are saying the idea of us people who believe in him.

I would really like to know why I can't use the Bible, of much of it I still need to read, as proof God exist. I haven't seen it debunked yet.

I can't force anyone to my beliefs but can we keep things civilized at least? All I see is too much anger. At least Ultimate LOL and Amy are staying nice to each other.

Besides my faith in God, which I hold as the top regard towards him, I also still ask how was the beginning created, how come so many people who come back from death end up sharing similar experiences (I am not seeing the whole cope with death the body puts you through if you are technically dead and you can't feel your body to begin with because of it.(Hope that doesn't sound too confusing)), and what about your thoughts on brilliant scientists who are also Christans?

I hope we can keep the flames down. I can't recall ever bashing for people not believing.

**nsanejokr** 2011-12-05, 03:12

DarkRiku wrote:How in the world did we go from people not believing in him to now saying he is Evil? That would almost sound like admitting God exist. Unless you are saying the idea of us people who believe in him.

He's saying God as a character, or if he were to exist, is evil. He's not stating in a sense that God truly exists. It would be on the level of saying any other character, like Voldemort from Harry Potter, is evil. Making such an assertion doesn't mean that a person making it actually believe that Voldemort exists, at least not physically anyway.

I would really like to know why I can't use the Bible, of much of it I still need to read, as proof God exist. I haven't seen it debunked yet.

I have yet to actually see the Bible used as "proof" without running into the circular reasoning fallacy. If you have a way to beat that hurdle then make a case.

I also still ask how was the beginning created

Nobody can tell you, because nobody honestly knows. However, just because nobody knows doesn't warrant that you can say, "A deity did it." Even if someone could make an assertion, there's no logical way that you can establish the Judeo-Christian God as the one that made it happen.

how come so many people who come back from death end up sharing similar experiences

The power of suggestion.

(I am not seeing the whole cope with death the body puts you through if you are technically dead and you can't feel your body to begin with because of it.

We gain experience details though the brain. Even if we can't feel out body, are brain will still be working and most likely in extraordinary ways. So long as at least some parts of the brain are still activated, it's possible to have images and experiences processed while someone is "technically" dead.

what about your thoughts on brilliant scientists who are also Christans?

There were, and probably still are, scientists in the opinion that racially-driven eugenics is a fantastic idea. Therefore, if your logic is that Christianity can be viewed as built on a sound basis solely on the fact a brilliant scientist is a Christian you would be forced to also accept that such eugenics is a good idea.

I would rather also skip the problem of Evil argument. It might be a decent argument as a critique on a fundamentalist conception of deity, but not against every conception of deity.

Sponsored content

Do you believe?