Total Posts:389|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

prove to me evolution,the big bang is true..

graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol
Citations?
LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

You seem to have mistaken "evidential threshold for indescribable hyperbeing of metaphysical origin" with "evidential threshold for things that can be observed and tested". You'd understand objections better if you clarified this distinction for yourself.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:06:10 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

You seem to have mistaken "evidential threshold for indescribable hyperbeing of metaphysical origin" with "evidential threshold for things that can be observed and tested". You'd understand objections better if you clarified this distinction for yourself.

so how do we observe the begging of the universe, how do we observe the beginning of life on our planet, how do we observe one species changing in to another ..

besides that I don't accept anything you say unless it measures up to what the bible tells me...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:17:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:06:10 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

You seem to have mistaken "evidential threshold for indescribable hyperbeing of metaphysical origin" with "evidential threshold for things that can be observed and tested". You'd understand objections better if you clarified this distinction for yourself.

so how do we observe the begging of the universe, how do we observe the beginning of life on our planet, how do we observe one species changing in to another ..

besides that I don't accept anything you say unless it measures up to what the bible tells me...

Then I guess we've got to the bottom of why you're asking such stupid questions. Problem solved - you're welcome!
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:21:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:19:30 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:17:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:06:10 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

You seem to have mistaken "evidential threshold for indescribable hyperbeing of metaphysical origin" with "evidential threshold for things that can be observed and tested". You'd understand objections better if you clarified this distinction for yourself.

so how do we observe the begging of the universe, how do we observe the beginning of life on our planet, how do we observe one species changing in to another ..

besides that I don't accept anything you say unless it measures up to what the bible tells me...

Then I guess we've got to the bottom of why you're asking such stupid questions. Problem solved - you're welcome!

no problem...

perhaps you should say the same to the ones who ask you to prove God exists through science and omit the bible...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:25:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:21:12 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:19:30 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:17:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:06:10 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

You seem to have mistaken "evidential threshold for indescribable hyperbeing of metaphysical origin" with "evidential threshold for things that can be observed and tested". You'd understand objections better if you clarified this distinction for yourself.

so how do we observe the begging of the universe, how do we observe the beginning of life on our planet, how do we observe one species changing in to another ..

besides that I don't accept anything you say unless it measures up to what the bible tells me...

Then I guess we've got to the bottom of why you're asking such stupid questions. Problem solved - you're welcome!

no problem...

perhaps you should say the same to the ones who ask you to prove God exists through science and omit the bible...

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 12:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I think the relevant saying goes: "One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.

as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that i will accept go for it...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:29:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:37:58 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

nope don't accept any of that, it doesn't say in the bible we are related to chimps just that we have a common designer, so that would cover the similarities....
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that i will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that i can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that i did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:54:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:29:25 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:37:58 PM, distraff wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

nope don't accept any of that, it doesn't say in the bible we are related to chimps just that we have a common designer, so that would cover the similarities....

There are a whole lot of things that aren't mentioned in the bible such as that water can evaporate and become solid again, that the Earth is round, that fire is not an element but a chemical process, and so on and so on. For something to not to be mentioned in the bible can hardly be seen as a valid argument for it to not be so.
Willows
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:59:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

True, the problem is that when you reverse the situation it becomes ridiculously absurd.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:10:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 12:54:32 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the relevant saying goes: "One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
It might be one thing if evolutionists only said things like "One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.", but unfortunately it's not the case.

The educational system has become somewhat of a dictatorship. Anyone who has had the spiritual encounter leading them to believe in Jesus Christ has to reevaluate their position on evolution (Well, they don't have to, but it's the logical thing to do). There's no way around it. Most biologists have not had that encounter. So they use the no proof theme to dictate to many believers what they need to accept in terms of their science-world view.

We haven't gotten to the point where it's demanded that God doesn't exist, so as of yet it's merely a footstool for intellectual chest-pounding.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that i will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that i can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that i did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.

now all that is very true...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:59:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:58:18 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:56:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

This is so incoherent I can't tell whether it is serious or some form of ritalin-deprived satire.

there is more than a hint of satire in the question...

but the frightening thing is, this is the sort of thread some atheists post..lol

True, the problem is that when you reverse the situation it becomes ridiculously absurd.

it is very true, we cling to what we believe for all sorts of reasons, we decide what is true for us for many reasons and none of our chosen reasons may matter to others...
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that i will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that i can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that i did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:44:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Microwave background and red shifts.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...

Many believe, or theorize to be fair, that the Big Bang is just one of many big bangs.

Humans born without appendices, Jacobson organs etc...

http://listverse.com...
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:49:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
It would seem that you don't understand language.
The HB has always existed, prove otherwise.
Gravity has always existed, prove otherwise.
Now I tell you what to do, hold your breath until some scientist discovers god, but be sure it's a god that is worth discovering like Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah I know you claim to be a muslim oops atheist but if you want to project the idiocy of the godbotherers I couldn't give a fuk. OK?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 3:09:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 2:49:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
It would seem that you don't understand language.
The HB has always existed, prove otherwise.
Gravity has always existed, prove otherwise.
Now I tell you what to do, hold your breath until some scientist discovers god, but be sure it's a god that is worth discovering like Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah I know you claim to be a muslim oops atheist but if you want to project the idiocy of the godbotherers I couldn't give a fuk. OK?

It seems that you don't understand logic.

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

It is easy to make this statement today knowing what what we know today, but if you go back 2000 years and make that statement using the scientific evidence that we have today but obviously did not have 2000 years ago, then your statement would say that everything that you know to be true today would not be true 2000 years ago as 2000 years ago there was not a scrap of evidence to support your claims.

Sounds wacky doesn't it? A truth that is a true today must obviously also have been true 2000 years ago. Bear with me!

In the same token, if someone from 2000 years into the future comes to today making a whole lot of claims for which today's science does not have a scrap of evidence, then by your statement all his claims would be false even though the claims he makes would be true by the science of his time and therefore also be true today!

In conclusion, are you really so deluded to believe that today's science has all the scraps of evidence that it needs for you to make the bold statement: The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is. If so, then you are a theist in your own way for even though you may not believe in God, you do believe in dogma and dogma is exactly what religion is all about.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 3:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 3:09:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:49:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
It would seem that you don't understand language.
The HB has always existed, prove otherwise.
Gravity has always existed, prove otherwise.
Now I tell you what to do, hold your breath until some scientist discovers god, but be sure it's a god that is worth discovering like Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah I know you claim to be a muslim oops atheist but if you want to project the idiocy of the godbotherers I couldn't give a fuk. OK?

It seems that you don't understand logic.

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

It is easy to make this statement today knowing what what we know today, but if you go back 2000 years and make that statement using the scientific evidence
To what scientific evidence do you refer?
that we have today but obviously did not have 2000 years ago,
see above.
then your statement would say that everything that you know to be true today would not be true 2000 years ago as 2000 years ago there was not a scrap of evidence to support your claims.
You seem to have as much trouble with the word evidence as the godbotherers do.
Your capacity for reading comprehension obviously needs some work.

Sounds wacky doesn't it? A truth that is a true today must obviously also have been true 2000 years ago. Bear with me!
And the evidence for any and all gods 2000yrs ago is exactly the same as it is now and it is non existent. You aren't doing so well so far.

In the same token, if someone from 2000 years into the future comes to today making a whole lot of claims for which today's science does not have a scrap of evidence, then by your statement all his claims would be false even though the claims he makes would be true by the science of his time and therefore also be true today!
Your problem seems to be your understanding of how evidence is necessary for the acceptance of truth.

In conclusion, are you really so deluded to believe that today's science
Are you really so deluded to believe that I have ever mentioned science? Oh dear
has all the scraps of evidence that it needs for you to make the bold statement:
Oh dear yet again.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Is the only truth available, unless you can prove the existence of invisible flying pink dragons without supplying any evidence? Can You?
If so, then you are a theist in your own way for even though you may not believe in God, you do believe in dogma and dogma is exactly what religion is all about.
You need quite a large swathe of education before you indulge in any further conversation with me.
But it has been fun, thanks.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 3:42:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 3:32:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 3:09:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:49:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
It would seem that you don't understand language.
The HB has always existed, prove otherwise.
Gravity has always existed, prove otherwise.
Now I tell you what to do, hold your breath until some scientist discovers god, but be sure it's a god that is worth discovering like Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah I know you claim to be a muslim oops atheist but if you want to project the idiocy of the godbotherers I couldn't give a fuk. OK?

It seems that you don't understand logic.

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

It is easy to make this statement today knowing what what we know today, but if you go back 2000 years and make that statement using the scientific evidence
To what scientific evidence do you refer?
that we have today but obviously did not have 2000 years ago,
see above.
then your statement would say that everything that you know to be true today would not be true 2000 years ago as 2000 years ago there was not a scrap of evidence to support your claims.
You seem to have as much trouble with the word evidence as the godbotherers do.
Your capacity for reading comprehension obviously needs some work.

Sounds wacky doesn't it? A truth that is a true today must obviously also have been true 2000 years ago. Bear with me!
And the evidence for any and all gods 2000yrs ago is exactly the same as it is now and it is non existent. You aren't doing so well so far.

In the same token, if someone from 2000 years into the future comes to today making a whole lot of claims for which today's science does not have a scrap of evidence, then by your statement all his claims would be false even though the claims he makes would be true by the science of his time and therefore also be true today!
Your problem seems to be your understanding of how evidence is necessary for the acceptance of truth.

In conclusion, are you really so deluded to believe that today's science
Are you really so deluded to believe that I have ever mentioned science? Oh dear
has all the scraps of evidence that it needs for you to make the bold statement:
Oh dear yet again.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Is the only truth available, unless you can prove the existence of invisible flying pink dragons without supplying any evidence? Can You?
If so, then you are a theist in your own way for even though you may not believe in God, you do believe in dogma and dogma is exactly what religion is all about.
You need quite a large swathe of education before you indulge in any further conversation with me.
But it has been fun, thanks.

All one-liners and not one single argument, is that the best that you can do?

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Is the only truth available, unless you can prove the existence of invisible flying pink dragons without supplying any evidence? Can You?

I don't need to prove the existence of an invisible flying pink dragons to prove that your argument is wrong, I present the Higgs boson, proven to exists 14 March 2013, and the equivalent of an invisible flying pink dragon in the year zero. Your truth is debunked unless you can prove that the Higgs boson did not exist in the year zero. Can you?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 3:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 2:10:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:54:32 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the relevant saying goes: "One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
It might be one thing if evolutionists only said things like "One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.", but unfortunately it's not the case.

The educational system has become somewhat of a dictatorship. Anyone who has had the spiritual encounter leading them to believe in Jesus Christ has to reevaluate their position on evolution (Well, they don't have to, but it's the logical thing to do). There's no way around it. Most biologists have not had that encounter. So they use the no proof theme to dictate to many believers what they need to accept in terms of their science-world view.

We haven't gotten to the point where it's demanded that God doesn't exist, so as of yet it's merely a footstool for intellectual chest-pounding.

I think it is quite correct for the scientific community to oppose the idea of teaching ID/Creationism as if they were scientifically sound theories because they are faith based, not evidence based. ID is no more scientific that flat-earthism, and no-one wants that to be taught in schools!

On the legislative side, many US states have enacted laws that effectively mandate the teaching of ID/Creationism and encourage teaching the notion that evolution is scientifically controversial. It is not the evolutionists camp that are imposing their views - it is the ID/Creationists who are doing that, with the full backing and support of state legislatures. Which side is the David and which is the Goliath is not in doubt, however hard the ID/Creationist camp claims victimhood.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 4:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 3:42:11 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 3:32:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 3:09:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:49:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:41:06 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 2:26:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:46:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:26:26 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/19/2016 12:46:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/19/2016 11:52:24 AM, graceofgod wrote:
please remember, I will ignore any so called evidence I do not personally agree with...

so good luck...

remember if you can make me change my mind, evolution and the big bang must be a lie....

I question your motives in regard to this topic. I am willing to say that the evidence in favour of evolution and the Big Bang is far for complete and that therefore there may still be a few surprises along the road that may change our perception on how it all fits together, but there where the evidence in support of Evolution and the Big Bang is there but not fully complete, there is absolutely NO evidence that life and the universe was created by a creator God. Even if Evolution was disprove, that would not prove God. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to proof the existence of God and not disprove everything else just because it doesn't fit with how you would like for the universe to be.


as in darwin's version has been forgotten due to lack of missing link, then we have the lack of fossil record so the idea of punctuated equilibrium and as for the big bang we seem to think we know what happened after the event but not so good on how or why..

no disproving evolution would not prove God created everything but again I wonder why it seems if it can't be proved by science it cannot be true...

but again if anyone has any evidence for evolution or the big bang that I will accept go for it...

The idea that something is not true because it can not be proven by science is idiotic, on that I can fully agree. By that argument, the Higgs boson was completely untrue until 14 March 2013 when it suddenly whisked into existence when science finally became able to prove it. Does that mean that I did not exists before 14 March 2013? Or does it mean that anyone who said before 14 March 2013 that it didn't exist because Science could not proof it was WRONG?

In my opinion, there is a whole lot more to existence than present day science can currently comprehend.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Your caveman ancestors invented gods and cannot supply evidence of their existence and neither can you.
Your gods don't exist.
Fukin' get over it.

I'm a Theist you idiot, I don't believe in God!

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

So you claim but science has found no evidence that this claim of yours is true which by your own words makes your claim untrue.

In fact, science has proven again and again that your claim is not true by finding evidence to support claims for which no evidence existed until the evidence was found. To use your argument that nothing is true until evidence has been found that it is true, the Higgs boson did not exists before 14 March 2013, gravity did not exist before 1687 and Evolution did not exist before 1859.
It would seem that you don't understand language.
The HB has always existed, prove otherwise.
Gravity has always existed, prove otherwise.
Now I tell you what to do, hold your breath until some scientist discovers god, but be sure it's a god that is worth discovering like Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah I know you claim to be a muslim oops atheist but if you want to project the idiocy of the godbotherers I couldn't give a fuk. OK?

It seems that you don't understand logic.

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.

It is easy to make this statement today knowing what what we know today, but if you go back 2000 years and make that statement using the scientific evidence
To what scientific evidence do you refer?
that we have today but obviously did not have 2000 years ago,
see above.
then your statement would say that everything that you know to be true today would not be true 2000 years ago as 2000 years ago there was not a scrap of evidence to support your claims.
You seem to have as much trouble with the word evidence as the godbotherers do.
Your capacity for reading comprehension obviously needs some work.

Sounds wacky doesn't it? A truth that is a true today must obviously also have been true 2000 years ago. Bear with me!
And the evidence for any and all gods 2000yrs ago is exactly the same as it is now and it is non existent. You aren't doing so well so far.

In the same token, if someone from 2000 years into the future comes to today making a whole lot of claims for which today's science does not have a scrap of evidence, then by your statement all his claims would be false even though the claims he makes would be true by the science of his time and therefore also be true today!
Your problem seems to be your understanding of how evidence is necessary for the acceptance of truth.

In conclusion, are you really so deluded to believe that today's science
Are you really so deluded to believe that I have ever mentioned science? Oh dear
has all the scraps of evidence that it needs for you to make the bold statement:
Oh dear yet again.
The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Is the only truth available, unless you can prove the existence of invisible flying pink dragons without supplying any evidence? Can You?
If so, then you are a theist in your own way for even though you may not believe in God, you do believe in dogma and dogma is exactly what religion is all about.
You need quite a large swathe of education before you indulge in any further conversation with me.
But it has been fun, thanks.

All one-liners and not one single argument, is that the best that you can do?

The idea that a claim is not true because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim is the only truth that there is.
Is the only truth available, unless you can prove the existence of invisible flying pink dragons without supplying any evidence? Can You?

I don't need to prove the existence of an invisible flying pink dragons to prove that your argument is wrong, I present the Higgs boson, proven to exists 14 March 2013, and the equivalent of an invisible flying pink dragon in the year zero. Your truth is debunked unless you can prove that the Higgs boson did not exist in the year zero. Can you?
WTF happened to your science argument, you aren't the sharpest bowling ball on the lanes, but do try harder.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin