Poll: How did human life come about?

[Crono]

Evolutional theory is absolutely dependant on the faulty assumption that if two organisms are similar, they must be directly related. Look at the use of fossils to support revolutionary theory: a scientist says that one organism (now a fossil; let?s call this organism ?A?) from x number of years ago is the ancestor of another organism (now a fossil; let?s call this organism ?B?) from x ? y number of years ago. But unless both organisms were observed when they were alive, and their progeny were observed, you cannot say that B is of the same lineage of A, no matter how similar they are. Use common sense, and you can easily see why this is true.

?Well what about genetic evidence??, you might say. It?s the same general principle. Those that claim that genetic similarity between species implies relation are wrong. It?s a fundamental logical fallacy to make that assumption. To use a metaphor, just because two computer applications have similar code and structures doesn?t mean that one app is a new version of the other. They could be written by the same programmer, and/or written in the same programming language. They could be very similar indeed (especially to someone who doesn?t know programming that well), but still be completely independently created programs.

Morphological similarities- same exact thing. Families and trees are artificial groupings based on morphological similarities, and morphological similarities, again, do not prove relationship between species. You cannot say A and B are related just because they are similar in features.

Evolution is completely based on a bad foundation. Evolutionists (yes, I can use that word if you?re going to call me a ?creationist?) really like to complicate the issue by adding complex theories on top and pointing to various papers and studies done. But when buying a building, do you look at the rest of the building if the foundation is bad? No, the foundation is essential to the integrity of the entire building. Evolution is entirely based on a false assumption, and the type of evolution that we are talking about here, macroevolution, has never been observed, PERIOD. Microevolution has been observed, but that is really genetic variation within a type of organism, and really is just a form of adaptation. You never see (or will see) a monkey turn into a human, or a human evolve into something that isn?t a human (unless scientists decide to play God and mess around with human DNA, but that is something else entirely, which requires intelligence, and not randomness).


"Homology: The word homologous is from the Ancient Greek for 'agree'- ?µ????e??, eg. homologous chromosomes 'agree' with each other.

In genetics, homology is measured by comparing protein or DNA sequences. Two homologous genes share a high sequence identity or similarity, supporting the hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. Sequence homology may also indicate common function. Sequence regions that are homologous may also be called conserved. Homologous sequences can be classified into two subtypes: orthologous or paralogous.

In evolutionary biology, Homology is used to describe structures that are alike due to common ancestry." - Wikipedia

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

I think Shadow9d9 is Steeplerot's 2nd account, and Steeplerot is on a 2 week vacation right now. I know that in P&N, Steeplerot pulls the same tactic on most everyone. Following posters around flamebaiting and insulting and then screaming and crying foul about personal attacks whenever someone takes the bait and/or gets sick of the wreckage it makes of any attempt at serious discussion. Lately, he's been doing it in a pathetically transparent attempt to try to goad me into doing something that will get me banned which, not coincidentally, is why he's on his second 2 week stretch just since the new year.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? "

Sure. I never claim such. I only claim to have an opinion of such. An opinion only requires a reasonable conclusion from reasonable evidence. I have repeated this many times, but you don't seem to get it.

Theoretically, you could have somehow assumed that somehow I had intimate knowledge of the writers from 2000 years ago and I had scoured the world for enough evidence to actually present a case to the world of my knowledge. That would be ridiculously foolish to assume. This is a poll and thread on opinions. I stated my opinion. When it was made clear that somehow, despite whatever foolishness, somehow you thought I was stating a concluded fact, I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES in MULTIPLE POSTS that this is my opinion and that you need to learn to accept the opinions of others. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The irony is strong that you keep hammering in personal attacks when you have made multiple attacks on me and I never on you. Let's go through them "bigot," "asshole," "stfu(multiple times)." And I called you arrogant? Yep, thanks for lecturing me on personal attacks!

I'm gonna say it one last time. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to be secure in your opinion. There is a difference. Get. a. clue.
And those attacks I supposedly made against you were my opinions, and I think they're quite factual even. So by your own logic, you can't say anything bad about me for having them, or even complain. Or are you saying that I'm not entitled to MY opinions?

All attacks are opinions.. they are still attacks.
You are entitled to have a poor opinion of someone, but attacking them with it is often frowned upon and marks someone as immature. Being that this is private property, ATOT reps would have every right to remove you for it.

I also have the right to call you out on the fact that you have personally name called and attacked me at least double the amount that you could possible claim an attack on you, all the while claiming that you have the high road.

I have the right to be "secure" in my opinion. When I hear something that proves otherwise, I will hear it. I have yet to hear it. Til then, I will keep this opinion. That is how it works usually.

What other way would you like it?



Now, since you have managed to divert attention from your claim. Let's try this again.

""when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? " "

I only claimed to have an opinion that the bible is the largest con in history. An opinion can be an alternate viewpoint. It is in NO way a claim to have the "right" answer. That is what is called a FACT. I claimed no such fact. I continue to say it is my opinion. That in itself shows that I do not believe it to be a fact.

Now, if you claimed, "no it is not!" and I responded, "you are wrong.", then THAT could be construed as me saying that others are wrong. If I have done so, please quote me and I will amend my opinion.

So I challenge you again, PROVE IT. Quote me where I said any other view is wrong.

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Vic (pages ago)
Maybe this is a case of -- once again -- people on the internet shooting BS out of their asses without even realizing what their statements mean or imply.

So you can't quote me. Didn't think so. Don't make a claim if you can;t back it up!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

I think Shadow9d9 is Steeplerot's 2nd account, and Steeplerot is on a 2 week vacation right now. I know that in P&N, Steeplerot pulls the same tactic on most everyone. Following posters around flamebaiting and insulting and then screaming and crying foul about personal attacks whenever someone takes the bait and/or gets sick of the wreckage it makes of any attempt at serious discussion. Lately, he's been doing it in a pathetically transparent attempt to try to goad me into doing something that will get me banned which, not coincidentally, is why he's on his second 2 week stretch just since the new year.

Steeplerot is indeed someone on P&N.. I am not him though.. good attempt to...

1. Not accept my challenge to back yourself up.

Thinly veiled make an attack on me or slander.

Sad and pathetic.

My wife just read my sig and said "what kind of warped logic is that?" Luckily people can read it and see your level of competence.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

Nope. If you can't stay up with the debate, then don't get involved. He keeps claiming I am forcing my opinion on others. He claimed I was a bigot/asshole/etc etc for having an opinion that differed from his own. I have been trying to explain that an opinion does not equal fact. Simple.

The crux of the problem was his response to my initial statement, immortalized in my sig.

Obviously, you're not keeping up with the debate either. My position was that you're a bigot/asshole/etc etc because you hold that opinion about the Christian religion and not other religions. That makes you factually and actually a bigot, and not just opinionated, as in a racist is not opinionated but is a bigot because he hates certain races and not others. That was my response to your initial statement, not what's "immortalized" in your sig.
That's the crux of my problem with you, which you have never addressed in many pages of your trolling stupidity against me here (to the point where you have thoroughly disrupted the conversation for others, which is what Mo0o was complaining about when you shot him down), and I really wish you could "keep up" with this simple point here, instead of constantly dancing around it.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Crono
Evolutional theory is absolutely dependant on the faulty assumption that if two organisms are similar, they must be directly related. Look at the use of fossils to support revolutionary theory: a scientist says that one organism (now a fossil; let?s call this organism ?A?) from x number of years ago is the ancestor of another organism (now a fossil; let?s call this organism ?B?) from x ? y number of years ago. But unless both organisms were observed when they were alive, and their progeny were observed, you cannot say that B is of the same lineage of A, no matter how similar they are. Use common sense, and you can easily see why this is true.

?Well what about genetic evidence??, you might say. It?s the same general principle. Those that claim that genetic similarity between species implies relation are wrong. It?s a fundamental logical fallacy to make that assumption. To use a metaphor, just because two computer applications have similar code and structures doesn?t mean that one app is a new version of the other. They could be written by the same programmer, and/or written in the same programming language. They could be very similar indeed (especially to someone who doesn?t know programming that well), but still be completely independently created programs.

Morphological similarities- same exact thing. Families and trees are artificial groupings based on morphological similarities, and morphological similarities, again, do not prove relationship between species. You cannot say A and B are related just because they are similar in features.

Evolution is completely based on a bad foundation. Evolutionists (yes, I can use that word if you?re going to call me a ?creationist?) really like to complicate the issue by adding complex theories on top and pointing to various papers and studies done. But when buying a building, do you look at the rest of the building if the foundation is bad? No, the foundation is essential to the integrity of the entire building. Evolution is entirely based on a false assumption, and the type of evolution that we are talking about here, macroevolution, has never been observed, PERIOD. Microevolution has been observed, but that is really genetic variation within a type of organism, and really is just a form of adaptation. You never see (or will see) a monkey turn into a human, or a human evolve into something that isn?t a human (unless scientists decide to play God and mess around with human DNA, but that is something else entirely, which requires intelligence, and not randomness).


"Homology: The word homologous is from the Ancient Greek for 'agree'- ?µ????e??, eg. homologous chromosomes 'agree' with each other.

In genetics, homology is measured by comparing protein or DNA sequences. Two homologous genes share a high sequence identity or similarity, supporting the hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. Sequence homology may also indicate common function. Sequence regions that are homologous may also be called conserved. Homologous sequences can be classified into two subtypes: orthologous or paralogous.

In evolutionary biology, Homology is used to describe structures that are alike due to common ancestry." - Wikipedia

If you admit microevolution exists, are you admitting that its possible to create a phylogenetic tree based on this microevolutionary steps within a species? Or is that also not possible despite the fact taht we know how mutations occur and a general rate of mutation... And we also know speciation can be observed in nature. Where 1 species diverge into two impatible species and this evidence can be seen genetically as well. You say the assumption that homologous sequences do not necessarily come from the same ancestor, which I suppose is possible but thats like saying when you see a bunch of dots arrayed in a straight line, the function graphing those dots isn't necessarily a line but some polynomial function.

The fact of the matter is, we can experimentally mutate sequences of DNA/RNA and make accurate phylogenetic trees based on evolutionary/phylogenetic theory.

And I'm not sure why you mentioned sequence homology. You haven't really made an arguement, just reiterated what sequence homology means

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

I think Shadow9d9 is Steeplerot's 2nd account, and Steeplerot is on a 2 week vacation right now. I know that in P&N, Steeplerot pulls the same tactic on most everyone. Following posters around flamebaiting and insulting and then screaming and crying foul about personal attacks whenever someone takes the bait and/or gets sick of the wreckage it makes of any attempt at serious discussion. Lately, he's been doing it in a pathetically transparent attempt to try to goad me into doing something that will get me banned which, not coincidentally, is why he's on his second 2 week stretch just since the new year.

Steeplerot is indeed someone on P&N.. I am not him though.. good attempt to...

1. Not accept my challenge to back yourself up.

Thinly veiled make an attack on me or slander.

Sad and pathetic.

My wife just read my sig and said "what kind of warped logic is that?" Luckily people can read it and see your level of competence.

I'm not so sure. Claiming a 3rd person behind the monitor is laughing at someone here on AT is an all-too-common Steeplerot tactic. You do spell a bit better than he does though.

I'm curious why you get the idea that I need to accept any challenge to back myself up from you. The burden has been on you the entire time, and you've just been dancing around it while making vague threats that I should be banned or "removed" by "ATOT reps" when all I ever did do you was factually point out that your opinion is a bigoted one. Waahhh...

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

kwanza? in the soviet union? my ass.

You didn't know they have Muslims in the soviet union?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

kwanza? in the soviet union? my ass.

...or maybe i'm thinking of a different Muslim holiday.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

kwanza? in the soviet union? my ass.

You didn't know they have Muslims in the soviet union?

Huh? Muslims don't celebrate kwanza. It's not even really a religious holiday.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

If I recall, you are 15 years old. I can remember when I was 15...I thought that I knew everything. It has taken a number of decades for me to realize just how little that I did know.

That is soooo fvcking true!!! I don't know what it is but at 15 you know everything. I know I did. ...and you know what? someone on a different message board old me the EXACT same thing you just said.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

I believe that everything was guided by God. Whether it took 10, 000 years or millions of years for life on Earth to promulgate and evolve is besides the question.

Here's a snippet of how non-believers usually argue when confronted with a question of God and his hand in creating the universe:
1) Darwin's Theory of Evolution proves with a mind numbing amount of evidence, that human life, or all life on Earth took place over millions of years through Natural Selection and Inheritance.
2) Therefore, the church's belief that life evolved over 10, 000 years is completel rubbish
3) Therefore, there is no such thing as a Prime Being or God or Jesus or any of that sort of thing.

The thing that gets me is that the 10, 000 year counter point by non-Christians is absolutely baseless. As a staunch believer of evolution as well as being a life long Christian it pains me to hear this argument over and over. Nowhere in the Bible does it state 10, 000 years. Therefore, when they argue that it can't possibly happen over 10, 000 years, I would agree with them and tell them that their arguments are based on some 100 yr old dead bishop, that came up with a number, in a time period where they couldn't even wipe their asses with toilet paper.

I rest my rant...i mean case.

lol.

My choice is #2 ish. I believe that God had a hand in everything. The processes that govern life, nourish it, destroy it...he had a role in coming up with everything. He may not have literally created people out of his bare hands but he created a process called evolution, biological reactions, DNA synthesis, and on and on and on.

I think evolution reinforces the existence of a divine being. Life created by abiogenises would mean that the laws of physics were written in a way that allows molecules to spontaneously organize into life and eventually something as magnificent as a human being over time through evolution.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

Correct. Also, down is up, and every conspiracy theory you ever heard is true.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Crono
Evolutional theory is absolutely dependant on the faulty assumption that if two organisms are similar, they must be directly related.

Wrong, it is not between two organisms but between the entire phylogenetic tree. You mention fossils but you forget about transitional fossils.

Well what about genetic evidence??, you might say. It?s the same general principle. Those that claim that genetic similarity between species implies relation are wrong. It?s a fundamental logical fallacy to make that assumption. To use a metaphor, just because two computer applications have similar code and structures doesn?t mean that one app is a new version of the other.

Bad analogy. If Excel 2007 shares code with Excel 98, and has new code to accommodate new user demand and some old code removed that was no longer used then Excel is evolving ....but that is also a bad analogy because computer code does not spontaneously change through generations and does not have variation, genetic code does.

again, do not prove relationship between species. You cannot say A and B are related just because they are similar in features.

Yes it does. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

...and it is not just similar features.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

It is a combination of many things including how those features have changed with time.

Evolution is completely based on a bad foundation. Evolutionists (yes, I can use that word if you?re going to call me a ?creationist?) really like to complicate the issue by adding complex theories on top and pointing to various papers and studies done. But when buying a building, do you look at the rest of the building if the foundation is bad? No, the foundation is essential to the integrity of the entire building.

You can tell me one of two things:

A. You feel that you and religious groups are more qualified to make claims about life on earth than tens of thousands of biologists who have spent most of their lives studying life on earth and all agree that the diversity of life is generated by evolution. This is because these well qualified people somehow overlooked an aspect that seems very obvious to you other people that don't think evolution occurred.

B. These scientist are twisting the facts because of some conspiracy to discredit the biblical creation story.

Its like this: Imagine every gynecologist for some reason starts saying that 2+2=5 when it is well established in the mathematician community that 2+2=4, and they claim that mathematicians are wrong because they are overlooking some variable that is only apparent to gynecologists, and that their addition theory has a poor foundation.

Evolution is entirely based on a false assumption,

Yeah, thats a key part of the scientific method, assume without reason. The medcine you take was developed by scientists who assumed that dumping this molecule into your system would cure your illness.

and the type of evolution that we are talking about here, macroevolution, has never been observed, PERIOD.

Lots of things in science were proven to be true without being observed visually in real time. Macroevolution HAS been observed through genetics and transitional fossils. Don't forget Darwin's finches. Please read this so you can educate yourself

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Microevolution has been observed, but that is really genetic variation within a type of organism, and really is just a form of adaptation.

...and what do you call it when these adaptations become so extreme that the two organisms are unable to breed with each other? (which BTW makes them separate species)

You never see (or will see) a monkey turn into a human, or a human evolve into something that isn?t a human (unless scientists decide to play God and mess around with human DNA, but that is something else entirely, which requires intelligence, and not randomness).

You will never see combat footage from the Peloponnesian War, but somehow we know it happened. It's called evidence.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
John never made that request. I believe what you are thinking of is when Peter was walking with Jeus, looking over his shoulder and seeing John, asked Jesus about the fate of the one that had betrayed Him. And Christ replied, something like "What is it to you if he remains alive until I return. I have never quite understood how John fitted into this, but John died also.

According to the last few verses of the Gospel of John, he was granted this. To remain on earth until the second coming. Also, Matthew 16:28.

I believe that if you will check, you will find that you are wrong about Enoch and Elijah.

I've double checked, and still seem to be right. Everyone on this Earth must die as some time, even those two, before they could be resurrected. Enoch and the entire city were translated, as well as Elijah. However, this doesn't mean they don't die. Everyone must die at some time. Everyone.

EDIT: Oh, Moses is on that list of translated beings also.

Also, I guess I should clarify what I mean by dying. I don't mean buried and all that, so in that since yes, Enoch, Elijah, and Moses have not died. However, even though they're not on the Earth, they can still die and eventually must die.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding on what we meant by dying.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

yeah, wikipedia just told me it was definately not kwanza, lol.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

I think Shadow9d9 is Steeplerot's 2nd account, and Steeplerot is on a 2 week vacation right now. I know that in P&N, Steeplerot pulls the same tactic on most everyone. Following posters around flamebaiting and insulting and then screaming and crying foul about personal attacks whenever someone takes the bait and/or gets sick of the wreckage it makes of any attempt at serious discussion. Lately, he's been doing it in a pathetically transparent attempt to try to goad me into doing something that will get me banned which, not coincidentally, is why he's on his second 2 week stretch just since the new year.

Steeplerot is indeed someone on P&N.. I am not him though.. good attempt to...

1. Not accept my challenge to back yourself up.

Thinly veiled make an attack on me or slander.

Sad and pathetic.

My wife just read my sig and said "what kind of warped logic is that?" Luckily people can read it and see your level of competence.

I'm not so sure. Claiming a 3rd person behind the monitor is laughing at someone here on AT is an all-too-common Steeplerot tactic. You do spell a bit better than he does though.

I'm curious why you get the idea that I need to accept any challenge to back myself up from you. The burden has been on you the entire time, and you've just been dancing around it while making vague threats that I should be banned or "removed" by "ATOT reps" when all I ever did do you was factually point out that your opinion is a bigoted one. Waahhh...

You shouldn't need to answer a challenge, you just need to back up your claims. You claimed something that doesn't exist.

An opinion isn't bigoted unless I show intolerance for someone.

I am not intolerant to people that like the bible.. my own wife is christian, as I said. I show no animosity towards them. I have done or said nothing to harm or possibly cause harm to any christian and harbor no ill will toward them.

You are trying to attack me because you don't like it. You seem to desperately want to link me to being hateful while you yourself are the one who name called and continue to be aggressive toward my opinion. THAT is called intolerance, and that is what a bigot does.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

I think Shadow9d9 is Steeplerot's 2nd account, and Steeplerot is on a 2 week vacation right now. I know that in P&N, Steeplerot pulls the same tactic on most everyone. Following posters around flamebaiting and insulting and then screaming and crying foul about personal attacks whenever someone takes the bait and/or gets sick of the wreckage it makes of any attempt at serious discussion. Lately, he's been doing it in a pathetically transparent attempt to try to goad me into doing something that will get me banned which, not coincidentally, is why he's on his second 2 week stretch just since the new year.

Steeplerot is indeed someone on P&N.. I am not him though.. good attempt to...

1. Not accept my challenge to back yourself up.

Thinly veiled make an attack on me or slander.

Sad and pathetic.

My wife just read my sig and said "what kind of warped logic is that?" Luckily people can read it and see your level of competence.

I'm not so sure. Claiming a 3rd person behind the monitor is laughing at someone here on AT is an all-too-common Steeplerot tactic. You do spell a bit better than he does though.

I'm curious why you get the idea that I need to accept any challenge to back myself up from you. The burden has been on you the entire time, and you've just been dancing around it while making vague threats that I should be banned or "removed" by "ATOT reps" when all I ever did do you was factually point out that your opinion is a bigoted one. Waahhh...

Oh, and please quote where I suggested you should be banned or removed. You have a serious comprehension/conspiracy problem.

You also seem to have conspiracy issues with Steeplerot. I am sure if he is reading that he is enjoying your insanity. Perhaps I should send him a message.. I am sure he'd be honored that you are so stuck on him.

(edited- sent him a msg for you... explaining your fixation on him.)

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

From a philosophical standpoint you could not prove to me that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny DON'T exists. You can only prove if things DO exists and that is what we believe by default. Being agnostic is one thing, but coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists is flawed. You cannot prove a negative. I'm not saying go hope for a tooth fairy, I'm saying don't try to claim that you have proof it doesn't exist.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

From a philosophical standpoint you could not prove to me that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny DON'T exists. You can only prove if things DO exists and that is what we believe by default. Being agnostic is one thing, but coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists is flawed. You cannot prove a negative. I'm not saying go hope for a tooth fairy, I'm saying don't try to claim that you have proof it doesn't exist.

Agreed. Even Dawkins doesn't say that God DEFINITELY does not exist but rather has a very very low probability of existing

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

And here is where you wannabelievers prove that you're completely ignorant about this book of fiction which you let run your lives. The 10,000 year number is wrong, it's 4,500 to 6,000 years and not "outdated". The BIBLE ITSELF provides that number. If you had ever bothered to read it and understand it this little work of fiction creates a very nice timeline of events. Starting with Adam and Eve there's a long and complete list of who begat whom. And the bible also generously provides (make that "foolishly invents") the ages of these people at the key events in their lives. The bible tells you when they were born, what they did, who they begat and how long they all lived. It wasn't calculated out of thin air, the names, numbers and dates were provided by the bible itself. And it's not "outdated". It has not changed because the bible has not changed. It's still the same pack of lies and it still continues to prove itself false. The only people who fail to understand that are the ones who are truly ignorant about the book. Let me repeat this again since you keep trying to ignore this most pertinant fact: The bible provides the timeline and the timeline is false

The world itself is not 4,500-6.000 years old. We know that for a fact
Mankind has not been around for 4,500-6,000 years. We know that for a fact
There was no worldwide flood 3,500 years ago. We know that for a fact
The population of the earth wasn't wiped out except for one family 3,500 years ago and then repopulate from the same DNA. We know that for a fact.

Your most holy piece of fiction proves itself wrong from the very first chapter. It's not a church elder who invented some calculations and it's not an outdated set of numbers. They're the very numbers that come from the book. To believe the book you MUST believe the numbers. If you don't you're rejecting the entire book. If that's the case, congratulations. You just took the first step on the long road of evolution where hopefully you'll grow a brain.

 

[40sTheme]

A God created human beings, but he made animals and allowed them to evolve. Humans did not evolve; they are innovative; not adaptive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

From a philosophical standpoint you could not prove to me that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny DON'T exists. You can only prove if things DO exists and that is what we believe by default. Being agnostic is one thing, but coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists is flawed. You cannot prove a negative. I'm not saying go hope for a tooth fairy, I'm saying don't try to claim that you have proof it doesn't exist.

Of course you can prove that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny don't exist. Who puts the money under the pillow, the presents under the tree, and hides the painted eggs in the yard? It's not one of those 3, is it? So yes, you can prove a negative. The reason you can't prove that God doesn't exist is because (1) the concept (God) is not well-defined, and (2) the functions of the concept fall in areas outside the range of human knowledge and experience.