# The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution



## TheGreatKing

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God. 

*The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


----------



## there4eyeM

Again, attributing 'creation' to 'God' in such a simplistic fashion is tantamount to accusing 'God' of being idiotic and/or perverse with all the mistakes.


----------



## TheGreatKing

there4eyeM said:


> Again, attributing 'creation' to 'God' in such a simplistic fashion is tantamount to accusing 'God' of being idiotic and/or perverse with all the mistakes.


Lol. The sick calls the doctor sick. TOE is simplistic and stupid and crazy all at the same time. Only because of the pressure of the devil people have accepted this stupid lie. To deny this theory does not need brains, it needs power. That I have got.


----------



## tyroneweaver

There is nothing even close to anything showing this so called evolution.
If it crawled out of the ocean....it should be still crawling out of the ocean.


----------



## TheGreatKing

tyroneweaver said:


> There is nothing even close to anything showing this so evolution.
> If it crawled out of the ocean....it should be still crawling out of the ocean.


You said it Sir, you said the truth!


----------



## frigidweirdo

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?

And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....


----------



## Mac1958

Civilizations have always believed in gods.

Various civilizations, various gods.
.


----------



## TheGreatKing

frigidweirdo said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
Click to expand...


Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.


----------



## TheGreatKing

Mac1958 said:


> Civilizations have always believed in gods.
> 
> Various civilizations, various gods.
> .


As I said before, don't go astray in other arenas. ID is true. Established. That is the only purpose of this thread so far. Whether the ID was done by this God or another, or many together is irrelevant now.


----------



## frigidweirdo

TheGreatKing said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.
Click to expand...


You can't even prove God exists, so...........

basically, I think I'll leave you to your fantasies, I can see you're not open to debate.


----------



## frigidweirdo

TheGreatKing said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilizations have always believed in gods.
> 
> Various civilizations, various gods.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, don't go astray in other arenas. ID is true. Established. That is the only purpose of this thread so far. Whether the ID was done by this God or another, or many together is irrelevant now.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


Crazy deluted fuck


----------



## sealybobo

frigidweirdo said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
Click to expand...

Don't forget cataracks and short sighted people. God makes a shitty eyeball


----------



## frigidweirdo

sealybobo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget cataracks and short sighted people. God makes a shitty eyeball
Click to expand...


Don't I know it. Left eye has perfect vision, right eye, I can read extremely huge letters, that's about it.


----------



## sealybobo

frigidweirdo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget cataracks and short sighted people. God makes a shitty eyeball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't I know it. Left eye has perfect vision, right eye, I can read extremely huge letters, that's about it.
Click to expand...

Well if your right eye offends you pluck it out


----------



## TheGreatKing

I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.


You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.

So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas


----------



## frigidweirdo

TheGreatKing said:


> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.



I'm sure you have.

And I've proven I'm God, so bow down and pray to me.


----------



## sealybobo

frigidweirdo said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you have.
> 
> And I've proven I'm God, so bow down and pray to me.
Click to expand...

Come on now we all know God only visited once and he only talked to

Moses
Jesus
Mohammad
Joseph Smith

Or Scientology or jehovas are right.

Or none of them are right


----------



## TheGreatKing

sealybobo said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
Click to expand...


Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.


----------



## Moonglow

TheGreatKing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
Click to expand...

You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..


----------



## TheGreatKing

Moonglow said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..
Click to expand...


Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.


----------



## Moonglow

TheGreatKing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.
Click to expand...

God is not a person...


----------



## NYcarbineer

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



So you believe that long ago before there were, say, horses, somewhere in an empty field, fully formed horses appeared out of nowhere, magically, 

and that is how all creatures, including man, got here?


----------



## NYcarbineer

TheGreatKing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
Click to expand...


Go research and read every scientific work done on evolution and then get back to us.  That's the evidence.


----------



## guno

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


Gravity is "*just a theory*." The Earth orbiting the Sun is "*just a theory*." By definition, a scientific *theory* is a hypothesis which has withstood rigorous testing and is well-supported by the facts. There is overwhelming evidence for biological *evolution*, *just *as there is overwhelming evidence for gravity.

bible god no so much


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....



*Perspective. *

I know a young man who turned 19 the other day, I was over at his house to celebrate his birthday. He has down's syndrome and probably won't live to see 30. I say this in all sincerity, I learn more from him in 30 minutes than I learn from asswipes here in a year. He is a beautiful person with a beautiful soul and he touches the lives of everyone who meets him and spends some time with him... does he look funny? Yes. Does he sound and act different? Yes. Does he have a health condition? Of course. But he is still a beautiful person with a beautiful soul. And I am sure the same can be said for many you call "humans with defects."

One of the most inspirational people I've ever known, passed away last month. She had muscular dystrophy and was confined to a wheelchair. She was in her 40s... doctors said she wouldn't live past her teens. She was an Accounting professor at a private college. She became a CPA and had her own business. She won Miss Wheelchair Alabama. She was funny and witty, and she simply didn't know the meaning of "I can't!" She had her own custom van which she drove all over the south. When we first met, she jokingly told me she liked "long walks on the beach." An incredibly amazing person despite her disability. 

I hate to break this to you, but you probably have your share of defects. I doubt that you are a perfect human being. So what makes you believe your defects are okay and others aren't? I think it's about perspective... God puts these people here to teach us and show us about life. I've presented just two personal examples of people you would find "damaged" but I've gained more from them than I could ever gain from you. My life is far more enriched knowing them than it would ever be in knowing you. And I'm not alone... when my friend passed away, the family was overwhelmed with the outpouring of sympathy from thousands and thousands of people who's lives she had touched. It was truly amazing.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Go research and read every scientific work done on evolution and then get back to us. That's the evidence.



And what you will find over and over again, is ZERO evidence for any evolution beyond genus taxon. Adaptive changes that spawn new species? Yep... all over the place. Examples of one type of organism becoming another type? Nadda. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Theories? Out the ass!  Facts? NONE!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go research and read every scientific work done on evolution and then get back to us. That's the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you will find over and over again, is ZERO evidence for any evolution beyond genus taxon. Adaptive changes that spawn new species? Yep... all over the place. Examples of one type of organism becoming another type? Nadda. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Theories? Out the ass!  Facts? NONE!
Click to expand...


So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?


----------



## guno

NYcarbineer said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go research and read every scientific work done on evolution and then get back to us.  That's the evidence.
Click to expand...

And when science discovers new evidence, it tests the hypothesis and may update the theroy based on the testing and findings. The testing is trying to get a null hypothesis ( trying to show that the hypothesis is false)


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?



Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_


----------



## there4eyeM

TheGreatKing said:


> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.


Being as you are thoroughly and entirely convinced, and given that you will convince no one else, your contributions here are futile.


----------



## Boss

guno said:


> And when science discovers new evidence, it tests the hypothesis and may update the theroy based on the testing and findings. The testing is trying to get a null hypothesis ( trying to show that the hypothesis is false)



If that is the case we can completely dismiss Darwinian Evolution.


----------



## guno

TheGreatKing said:


> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.


this  may help


----------



## Boss

Ahh... here we go with the attacks on religion.... *So* fucking predictable!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
Click to expand...


Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?

So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:


----------



## PredFan

You cannot argue with an OP who is that much of an idealogue.


----------



## guno

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
Click to expand...

or that other primates share 98 percent of our DNA


----------



## guno

tyroneweaver said:


> There is nothing even close to anything showing this so called evolution.
> If it crawled out of the ocean....it should be still crawling out of the ocean.


Coming form someone who thinks god lives on a planet kolob and you get your own planet to live on when you die and you have to wear magical underwear, i can see why you do not understand science


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
Click to expand...


I believe you have *ZERO* scientific evidence to prove that happened. 

As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility. 

I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?


----------



## Boss

guno said:


> or that other primates share 98 percent of our DNA



We share 58% of our DNA with bananas... are we mostly bananas?


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?



The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have *ZERO* scientific evidence to prove that happened.
> 
> As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?
Click to expand...


All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
Click to expand...


You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...

you simply don't want to believe that either happened.


----------



## guno




----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution. .
Click to expand...


lol, on the other hand, it's the mortal enemy of every religion based theory.


----------



## guno

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
Click to expand...

Belief verses fact


----------



## NYcarbineer

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
Click to expand...


Apparently to test your ability to believe the unbelievable.  aka Faith.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have *ZERO* scientific evidence to prove that happened.
> 
> As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?
Click to expand...


Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
Click to expand...


It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved. 

When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.



It's EXACTLY how Science works.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.



What else would they be composed of?


----------



## rightwinger

Evolution is a FACT

God is a THEORY


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a THEORY



YOU are a theory.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a THEORY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are a theory.
Click to expand...


I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
Click to expand...


The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
Click to expand...


You're a scientist by profession?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
Click to expand...


Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?


----------



## tyroneweaver

guno said:


>


Coming from someone who refuses to accept as scripture what your mind cannot understand.....we're not surprised.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have *ZERO* scientific evidence to prove that happened.
> 
> As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?
Click to expand...

Did a creator "poof into existence"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even prove God exists, so...........
> 
> basically, I think I'll leave you to your fantasies, I can see you're not open to debate.
Click to expand...

…along with facts and the truth.


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
Click to expand...

Why? Is it the first time anyone has ever shown you the evidence? I suspect youve already seen/heard the evidence and You didnt grasp or believe any of it.

In other word the facts go over your ignorant God fearing head


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... _well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_?  You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?
> 
> So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have *ZERO* scientific evidence to prove that happened.
> 
> As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did a creator "poof into existence"?
Click to expand...

They can't believe the cosmos have always existed but this God creature they can't even prove exists lives forever


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.
Click to expand...

Now it's a person?


----------



## sealybobo

Moonglow said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not a person...
Click to expand...

Even better. There is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Perspective. *
> 
> I know a young man who turned 19 the other day, I was over at his house to celebrate his birthday. He has down's syndrome and probably won't live to see 30. I say this in all sincerity, I learn more from him in 30 minutes than I learn from asswipes here in a year. He is a beautiful person with a beautiful soul and he touches the lives of everyone who meets him and spends some time with him... does he look funny? Yes. Does he sound and act different? Yes. Does he have a health condition? Of course. But he is still a beautiful person with a beautiful soul. And I am sure the same can be said for many you call "humans with defects."
> 
> One of the most inspirational people I've ever known, passed away last month. She had muscular dystrophy and was confined to a wheelchair. She was in her 40s... doctors said she wouldn't live past her teens. She was an Accounting professor at a private college. She became a CPA and had her own business. She won Miss Wheelchair Alabama. She was funny and witty, and she simply didn't know the meaning of "I can't!" She had her own custom van which she drove all over the south. When we first met, she jokingly told me she liked "long walks on the beach." An incredibly amazing person despite her disability.
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but you probably have your share of defects. I doubt that you are a perfect human being. So what makes you believe your defects are okay and others aren't? I think it's about perspective... God puts these people here to teach us and show us about life. I've presented just two personal examples of people you would find "damaged" but I've gained more from them than I could ever gain from you. My life is far more enriched knowing them than it would ever be in knowing you. And I'm not alone... when my friend passed away, the family was overwhelmed with the outpouring of sympathy from thousands and thousands of people who's lives she had touched. It was truly amazing.
Click to expand...

So God made her defective to teach us a lesson? Nice


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,
> 
> something you denied was possible.
Click to expand...


I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it."  ...Something you deny is possible. 

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life. 

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,
> 
> something you denied was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it."  ...Something you deny is possible.
> 
> Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.
> 
> I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.
Click to expand...


You would like to recreate 5 billion years of Evolution in a lab?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,
> 
> something you denied was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it."  ...Something you deny is possible.
> 
> Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.
> 
> I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.
Click to expand...


Science goes with the best explanation.  It does not engage in a binary exercise where everything not indisputably proven must then be considered the equivalent of anything not proven.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...


Science doesn't conclude.  Science is the practice of asking questions about what we don't know. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science is over... it's work is done. You are now practicing Faith in a Belief. 

Proof, in terms of what you believe, is totally subjective. What you may find as proof, I may find meaningless. I often like to use the O.J. Simpson trial to demonstrate this point... the jury had the proof he was guilty, they simply didn't believe the proof. 

In essence, Science can't prove anything, it merely presents a prediction of probability of possibilities. WE use that to draw conclusion... to say we have "proven" something. Science has nothing to do with our faith.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude. .
Click to expand...


Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

*Ask a Question*
*Do Background Research*
*Construct a Hypothesis*
*Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
*Communicate Your Results*


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Science goes with the best explanation.



No, it quite simply DOESN'T.  In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around _"going with the best explanation"_ of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh for chrissakes...
> 
> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> 
> *Ask a Question*
> *Do Background Research*
> *Construct a Hypothesis*
> *Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
> *Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
> *Communicate Your Results*
Click to expand...


"Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science goes with the best explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it quite simply DOESN'T.  In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around _"going with the best explanation"_ of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.
Click to expand...


So a scientific theory is the opposite of the best explanation that science has for any given question?  WTF?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh for chrissakes...
> 
> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> 
> *Ask a Question*
> *Do Background Research*
> *Construct a Hypothesis*
> *Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
> *Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
> *Communicate Your Results*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.
Click to expand...


Science is a human act, dumbass.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh for chrissakes...
> 
> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> 
> *Ask a Question*
> *Do Background Research*
> *Construct a Hypothesis*
> *Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
> *Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
> *Communicate Your Results*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is a human act, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Now you're confusing yourself.  Science is conducted by humans, it's not a human act. You can't say, _"I am going to science you up some facts today!" _ You may go conduct Science and conclude a fact... but Science has nothing to do with what you conclude or any other actions you take as a human. Your analyzing of data and conclusion could be flawed. That's why you call what you do a THEORY.


----------



## PK1

TheGreatKing said:


> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind.


---
It's amazing how science ignorant you are. Stupid calling others stupid. LOL.

Science provides evidence, and with sufficient supporting evidence, we can decide if claiming "proof" is justifiable. 
There is tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, both biological and physical.

What "proof" is there for claiming "_*God did it"*_?
Any evidence at all ??????????
.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science goes with the best explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it quite simply DOESN'T.  In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around _"going with the best explanation"_ of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a scientific theory is the opposite of the best explanation that science has for any given question?  WTF?
Click to expand...


That's not what I said. 

Do you know how many scientific theories have proved to be wrong?  And not just wrong but sometimes not even in the same ball park as correct. It's because Science continues to ask questions and doesn't conclude answers. Science doesn't give one solitary shit that you've drawn your own conclusions. If you wish to abandon Science and have faith in your conclusions, that's up to you... not Science... it keeps on working whether you like it or not.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> There is tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, both biological and physical.



There is tons of evidence supporting micro-evolution. Small adaptive changes over time to produce new species within a genus taxa. There is exactly NO evidence to support macro-evolution. There are theories... yes!  But Science has never been able to demonstrate change in organisms across genera lines. In fact, the more Science discovers about mitochondria, the more we realize this theory has some serious flaws.


----------



## TheGreatKing

Thank u for yr mountains of irrelevant chatter. That is what I expected. U can not prove stupidity to be true. I declare myself victor again.


----------



## TheGreatKing

BTW I am a very great fan of Science and KNOW that Science and other cultural revolutions in the modern world are the offshoots of Religion. And most of the top Scientists and other leaders in various fields of the world yesterday and today like Newton, Picasso, Pope John Paul II, Bill Gates, Prince Charles, Mark Zuckerberg and your truly self are the parts of Lord Jesus Christ, I being the highest amongst them. There is nothing wrong with Science. It is just that TOE is not science; it is nonsense of the devil. God bless you all.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
Click to expand...


Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, both biological and physical.
> 
> 
> 
> There is tons of evidence supporting micro-evolution. Small adaptive changes over time to produce new species within a genus taxa. There is exactly NO evidence to support macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

---
You're confused scientifically, again. 
*Speciation*, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
In the *longer timeframe *across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level. 
Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting *patterns* of speciation across taxonomy groups.

If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?
.


----------



## The Great Goose

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sealybobo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you have.
> 
> And I've proven I'm God, so bow down and pray to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on now we all know God only visited once and he only talked to
> 
> Moses
> Jesus
> Mohammad
> Joseph Smith
> 
> Or Scientology or jehovas are right.
> 
> Or none of them are right
Click to expand...


They're all wrong, I'm God.


----------



## PK1

The Great Goose said:


> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.


---
You must be kidding, right?

.


----------



## The Great Goose

PK1 said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You must be kidding, right?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No! I don't take Darwin's theory of evolution for granted. No.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.


----------



## The Great Goose

Matthew said:


> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.


Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?


----------



## ScienceRocks

The Great Goose said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?
Click to expand...


Doubled my life span
Makes sure my food is clean. The understanding of food born diseases is one reason why this is so.
Allows me to drive a car. This allows me to travel long distances that would take days or weeks before them.
Allows me to talk over the internet to people thousands of miles away.
Increases my standards of life


----------



## ScienceRocks

What has god done for you lately?


----------



## The Great Goose

Matthew said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubled my life span
> Makes sure my food is clean. The understanding of food born diseases is one reason why this is so.
> Allows me to drive a car. This allows me to travel long distances that would take days or weeks before them.
> Allows me to talk over the internet to people thousands of miles away.
> Increases my standards of life
Click to expand...

Yes yes, but has it done anything else?


----------



## The Great Goose

Matthew said:


> What has god done for you lately?


Nothing good.


----------



## Dr Grump

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



There is no proof god exists either....shrug....


----------



## PK1

The Great Goose said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be kidding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! I don't take Darwin's theory of evolution for granted. No.
Click to expand...

---
Ok, then.
The TOE (theory of evolution) does *not* theorize that an elephant or ANY other species today grew from a pig.
TOE theorizes that ALL current species evolved from a *common ancestor*, whether that speciation process took thousands of years or millions of years.
.


----------



## The Great Goose

Matthew said:


> What has god done for you lately?


Wait no i misread! God has done everything forme lately. I have a roof over my head and food. I have the envy of bigots and the admiration of everyone else. He kept me safe from the mob and two conspiracies for 4 years. 4 long years.

God has helped me HEAPS lately.


----------



## The Great Goose

PK1 said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be kidding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! I don't take Darwin's theory of evolution for granted. No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Ok, then.
> The TOE (theory of evolution) does *not* theorize that an elephant or ANY other species today grew from a pig.
> TOE theorizes that ALL current species evolved from a *common ancestor*, whether that speciation process took thousands of years or millions of years.
> .
Click to expand...

The world hasn't been around that long.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?
Click to expand...


No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.  

95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find *ZIPPOLA!*


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> You're confused scientifically, again.
> *Speciation*, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
> In the *longer timeframe *across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level.
> Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting *patterns* of speciation across taxonomy groups.
> 
> If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?



I am not confused scientifically.... apparently YOU are. 

You are taking a THEORY that hasn't been substantiated with facts and trying to make that the fact. You support the theory of macro-evolution on the back of micro-evolution. Science doesn't work that way. We don't piggyback one theory on top of another. Every theory has to stand on it's own merit and macro-evolution simply doesn't do that. 

The reason you have been trying in vain to prove this theory for nearly 100 years without success is found in the DNA mitochondria. This is something people like Darwin knew absolutely nothing about.. it had not been discovered. Each living organism contains a DNA molecule which is operated by the mitochondria. The mitochondria of each genus has it's own specific combination of amino acids and enzymes which make it function and nothing else works. Mutations can only happen within the parameters of the mitochondria and it's affiliated amino acids and enzymes and this restricts the organism to the genera in which it belongs. 

In short... that means you can have MICRO-evolution... you can't have MACRO-evolution.


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....



Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL  

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof. 

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.


----------



## Yarddog

tyroneweaver said:


> There is nothing even close to anything showing this so called evolution.
> If it crawled out of the ocean....it should be still crawling out of the ocean.


Well honestly, there are cases of this and more than the videoo I just posted


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.
> 
> 95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find *ZIPPOLA!*
Click to expand...


No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops. 

Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
Click to expand...


So you need no physical proof of God, but demand a perfect fossil trail to accept evolution? Hey, whatever works for you.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you need no physical proof of God, but demand a perfect fossil trail to accept evolution? Hey, whatever works for you.
Click to expand...


Well living organisms are physical... unlike God.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.
> 
> 95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find *ZIPPOLA!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops.
> 
> Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.
> 
> 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution
Click to expand...


Sorry but not a single one of those 12 examples show evolution happening across genus taxa. Each one is a SPECULATION made by people who want to prove Darwin's theory. It's akin to saying... look at this, it looks like something is happening... but that's NOT SCIENCE. The layman's observation of things on the surface are very often not validated by actual science. As a matter of fact, that is precisely WHY Science was invented and became very popular among humans. 

Wayyy back.... Men looked up into the sky which they noticed was moving around them.... they SPECULATED... just as you are doing here... that what appeared to be logical was the explanation... that the universe was revolving around the Earth. But Science dispelled that belief... things were not as they appeared. 

Now, let's go back to your apology for the fossil record.  You just posted a link to fossils from millions of years ago... setting that aside, where are all the fossils of things in transition from one genera to another? Showing me something that looks "almost like" a whale and claiming it was something in transition of becoming a whale is not proof. I need to see the transition as it happened... the original state, the next stage, the stage after that, the stage after that, on and on until a new genera is born.  I don't see that, I see ONE example and a SPECULATION. Of course, you run to your apology... the fossil record is incomplete... we can't possibly find all the fossils... well, seems like that's convenient that we can't find ANY evidence in the fossil record whatsoever to support your speculation. All the billions of species of life and you can't find the supporting evidence for ANY transition from one genus to another?  Nope...the fossil record repeatedly shows species coming into existence suddenly and leaving suddenly.


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused scientifically, again.
> *Speciation*, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
> In the *longer timeframe *across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level.
> Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting *patterns* of speciation across taxonomy groups.
> 
> If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confused scientifically.... apparently YOU are.
> 
> You are taking a THEORY that hasn't been substantiated with facts and trying to make that the fact. You support the theory of macro-evolution on the back of micro-evolution. Science doesn't work that way. We don't piggyback one theory on top of another. Every theory has to stand on it's own merit and macro-evolution simply doesn't do that.
> ...
> Mutations can only happen within the parameters of the mitochondria and it's affiliated amino acids and enzymes and this restricts the organism to the genera in which it belongs.
Click to expand...

---
*You believe in pseudoscience* of the YE (young earth) creationist variety,
LOL!
The scientific community does *not* have 2 theories of evolution.
*Speciation* explains species differentiation across all taxonomy classes. It's the time scale that creationists dispute and focus on the term "macroevolution" as if it's a different theory.

In trying to mislead non-scientific readers, you imply that DNA mutations can only happen within the mitochondria, which harbor only a small percentage of the DNA in a eukaryotic cell; most DNA is in the cell nucleus.
What a quack job you are!
.


----------



## Vandalshandle

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



I have to admit that you are compelling truth that evolution is not a universal. You remain in the childhood fairy tale stage that most of us outgrew by the time we were four.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused scientifically, again.
> *Speciation*, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
> In the *longer timeframe *across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level.
> Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting *patterns* of speciation across taxonomy groups.
> 
> If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confused scientifically.... apparently YOU are.
> 
> You are taking a THEORY that hasn't been substantiated with facts and trying to make that the fact. You support the theory of macro-evolution on the back of micro-evolution. Science doesn't work that way. We don't piggyback one theory on top of another. Every theory has to stand on it's own merit and macro-evolution simply doesn't do that.
> ...
> Mutations can only happen within the parameters of the mitochondria and it's affiliated amino acids and enzymes and this restricts the organism to the genera in which it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> *You believe in pseudoscience* of the YE (young earth) creationist variety,
> LOL!
> The scientific community does *not* have 2 theories of evolution.
> *Speciation* explains species differentiation across all taxonomy classes. It's the time scale that creationists dispute and focus on the term "macroevolution" as if it's a different theory.
> 
> In trying to mislead non-scientific readers, you imply that DNA mutations can only happen within the mitochondria, which harbor only a small percentage of the DNA in a eukaryotic cell; most DNA is in the cell nucleus.
> What a quack job you are!
> .
Click to expand...


See the fruit fly experiments... DNA mutations do not result in producing new amino acids and enzymes to enable a new genus. This is not pseudoscience or YEC... this is science and is backed by nearly 100 years of research. 

Yes, there ARE two variations of evolution theorized. Time scale is irrelevant because it doesn't matter how much time you devote to it, a mitochondria DNA can't produce a new amino acid to create a new genus through mutation or any other means. Adaptive changes over time can create new species within a genus taxon and that's ALL you have any evidence to support at this time. The Macro argument simply piggybacks on this evidence to claim that these small adaptive changes over time eventually result in new genera... but the mitochondria doesn't cooperate with that theory. 

The main problem here is, you are clinging to a theory from 1859... when a cell was thought to be as complicated as a ping pong ball. It's largely observatory nonsense that science has disproved through the discovery of DNA and years of experiments. Yet you are clinging to it like a religious belief.... ironically, while criticizing the beliefs of others.


----------



## Old Rocks

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm

A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, named_Megaconus mammaliaformis_, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of _Nature_.

"We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in _Megaconus_. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.

Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, _Megaconus_ is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,_Megaconus_ co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.

*From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.

From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.*


----------



## Boss

Old Rocks said:


> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm
> 
> A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, named_Megaconus mammaliaformis_, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of _Nature_.
> 
> "We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in _Megaconus_. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.
> 
> Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, _Megaconus_ is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,_Megaconus_ co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.
> 
> *From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.
> 
> From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.*



A LOT of words to explain away a total LACK of evidence to support your SPECULATIVE theory. 

I explained earlier, DNA is not a friend to macro-evolution theory. It's is probably the strongest scientific argument to date which dispels such a theory because the mitochondria is unable to reproduce without a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes which it cannot randomly produce through mutations or any other means. 

Yes, the layman who doesn't understand genetics may think that it's compelling that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps... it means absolutely nothing from a science perspective. That 2% is very important. We also share 58% of our DNA with a banana... it doesn't mean we have a common ancestor with a banana. I don't care how many billions  of years you want to go back... we just don't. Period.  

Yet... that is fundamentally what you are trying to say with this theory... that ALL life came from some ubiquitous single cell life form billions of years ago. You don't have the science to support that, you can't support that idea with science and so you proceed to attack people who point that out to you with the same fanatical zeal as the religious folk you seem to despise.


----------



## Old Rocks

So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?


----------



## Boss

Old Rocks said:


> So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?



I sure have... you need that for a degree in a field of science. 

You've posted not a damn thing from any genetic biologist in terms of scientific evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist... all you have are speculative theories that are untested and unproved at this time. Your archaeologists and paleontologists keep finding things that look like other things and you keep building your case based on how things appear.... that's specifically why science was invented, to dispel the conventional wisdom of things being as they appear, and examining evidence objectively without regard for common beliefs. 

In short... You have abandoned Science. You are now practicing a faith-based belief.  Congratulations!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,
> 
> something you denied was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it."  ...Something you deny is possible.
> 
> Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.
> 
> I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.
Click to expand...

If you were in a room with real scientists they'd give you tons of evidence/reasons/facts why evolution is basically a scientific fact. No anti evolution scientist is taken seriously.

But you know that doesn't disprove your generic God which isn't in any holy book I know of.


----------



## Old Rocks

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure have... you need that for a degree in a field of science.
> 
> You've posted not a damn thing from any genetic biologist in terms of scientific evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist... all you have are speculative theories that are untested and unproved at this time. Your archaeologists and paleontologists keep finding things that look like other things and you keep building your case based on how things appear.... that's specifically why science was invented, to dispel the conventional wisdom of things being as they appear, and examining evidence objectively without regard for common beliefs.
> 
> In short... You have abandoned Science. You are now practicing a faith-based belief.  Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Boss, old boy, you sure are full of shit. A degree in what discipline? Phrenology? 

Determining Divergence Times of the Major Kingdoms of Living Organisms with a Protein Clock | Science

*Abstract*
Amino acid sequence data from 57 different enzymes were used to determine the divergence times of the major biological groupings. Deuterostomes and protostomes split about 670 million years ago and plants, animals, and fungi last shared a common ancestor about a billion years ago. With regard to these protein sequences, plants are slightly more similar to animals than are the fungi. In contrast, phylogenetic analysis of the same sequences indicates that fungi and animals shared a common ancestor more recently than either did with plants, the greater difference resulting from the fungal lineage changing faster than the animal and plant lines over the last 965 million years. The major protist lineages have been changing at a somewhat faster rate than other eukaryotes and split off about 1230 million years ago. If the rate of change has been approximately constant, then prokaryotes and eukaryotes last shared a common ancestor about 2 billion years ago, archaebacterial sequences being measurably more similar to eukaryotic ones than are eubacterial ones.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude.  Science is the practice of asking questions about what we don't know. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science is over... it's work is done. You are now practicing Faith in a Belief.
> 
> Proof, in terms of what you believe, is totally subjective. What you may find as proof, I may find meaningless. I often like to use the O.J. Simpson trial to demonstrate this point... the jury had the proof he was guilty, they simply didn't believe the proof.
> 
> In essence, Science can't prove anything, it merely presents a prediction of probability of possibilities. WE use that to draw conclusion... to say we have "proven" something. Science has nothing to do with our faith.
Click to expand...

Evolution is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.

Funny a believer in generic God and supposed scientist would argue against such a well substantiated scientific theory.

You defend organized religion even though you don't believe any of them. Typical theist. You don't care those other faiths are wrong you have a unholy alliance not to attack each other.

Christians Jews Mormons think you are full of shit. You think they are. Muslims think you all are fos. Mormons think you all are wrong.

But you defend each other because ultimately you share the same delusion.


----------



## sealybobo

A theist would rather hear you're praying to the wrong God then they like to hear that there is no God at all. A lot different to say your bs is wrong but mine is right than to say it's all. Bs.

For example Jews agree with me Mary wasn't a virgin and Jesus wasn't the son of man. But they keep quiet because the moses stories are fake too.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science goes with the best explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it quite simply DOESN'T.  In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around _"going with the best explanation"_ of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

We still go with the best explanation until a better one comes along. What is you hypothesis?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else would they be composed of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that there is no reason  a chemical reaction could not  have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,
> 
> something you denied was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it."  ...Something you deny is possible.
> 
> Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.
> 
> I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.
Click to expand...

50% of population believes in evolution and 99% of scientists believe I evolution. You fall in with the nuts


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.
> 
> In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.
> 
> That is not how science works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's EXACTLY how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't conclude. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh for chrissakes...
> 
> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> 
> *Ask a Question*
> *Do Background Research*
> *Construct a Hypothesis*
> *Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
> *Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
> *Communicate Your Results*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.
Click to expand...

Everything a scientist does in the natural world is a human act. What other kinds of acts are there?


----------



## sealybobo

The Great Goose said:


> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.


But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you? 

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be kidding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! I don't take Darwin's theory of evolution for granted. No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Ok, then.
> The TOE (theory of evolution) does *not* theorize that an elephant or ANY other species today grew from a pig.
> TOE theorizes that ALL current species evolved from a *common ancestor*, whether that speciation process took thousands of years or millions of years.
> .
Click to expand...

Did God get tired of trilobites and replace them with dinosaurs? Because they ruled before dinosaurs even existed. Or do creationists doubt this too? 

And did God get bored with dinosaurs and the millions of other species that went extinct?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
Click to expand...

We didn't know jupitar was there till we saw it. You're speculating a hypothesis based on ignorance. You can't believe there isn't is what you go by. Same way cavemen did


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm
> 
> A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, named_Megaconus mammaliaformis_, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of _Nature_.
> 
> "We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in _Megaconus_. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.
> 
> Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, _Megaconus_ is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,_Megaconus_ co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.
> 
> *From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.
> 
> From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A LOT of words to explain away a total LACK of evidence to support your SPECULATIVE theory.
> 
> I explained earlier, DNA is not a friend to macro-evolution theory. It's is probably the strongest scientific argument to date which dispels such a theory because the mitochondria is unable to reproduce without a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes which it cannot randomly produce through mutations or any other means.
> 
> Yes, the layman who doesn't understand genetics may think that it's compelling that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps... it means absolutely nothing from a science perspective. That 2% is very important. We also share 58% of our DNA with a banana... it doesn't mean we have a common ancestor with a banana. I don't care how many billions  of years you want to go back... we just don't. Period.
> 
> Yet... that is fundamentally what you are trying to say with this theory... that ALL life came from some ubiquitous single cell life form billions of years ago. You don't have the science to support that, you can't support that idea with science and so you proceed to attack people who point that out to you with the same fanatical zeal as the religious folk you seem to despise.
Click to expand...

Why does the  scientific community disagree with your logic then?


----------



## The Great Goose

sealybobo said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?
> 
> Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story
Click to expand...

Poofed?


----------



## sealybobo

The Great Goose said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?
> 
> Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poofed?
Click to expand...

You tell me. If there was a first human, was it a child or adult?


----------



## sealybobo

The Great Goose said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?
> 
> Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poofed?
Click to expand...

So I Google "how did God make man?" And the answer is he made man out of dust. Then it says he made the earth and dust out of nothing then made Eve out of Adams rib. So if you believe in one of the main religions you must believe this.

You aren't alone. 50% of Americans believe like you do. But interesting 99% of scientists believe in evolution. The people who know the most disagree with religion.

What better word than poofed would you use? Do you think your religious belief sounds better than poofed?


----------



## idb

Since God was invented by Man does that count as Intelligent Design?
I suspect not...it wasn't one of our better ideas.


----------



## sealybobo

Matthew said:


> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.


Same people who doubt evolution despite mountains of evidence believe their religion with zero evidence it is real.

That's all I need to know.

But I'm glad they challenge it. We advance faster when we are challenged.

I just don't like theists blocking research because of their bias


----------



## sealybobo

The Great Goose said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?
Click to expand...

Ask everyone in a hospital.

Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?


----------



## Nosmo King

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.


----------



## The Great Goose

sealybobo said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask everyone in a hospital.
> 
> Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?
Click to expand...

I wish we could go back because science is the devil's tool.


----------



## Boss

Nosmo King said:


> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.



What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method. 

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival. 

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist. 

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!


----------



## frigidweirdo

The Great Goose said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask everyone in a hospital.
> 
> Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish we could go back because science is the devil's tool.
Click to expand...


Then go be Amish or something like that, live with no electricity and none of the modern stuff. It's doable.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
Click to expand...

1. Yes the truth is better than the myth

2. It'd be more amazing if we were the only mammals but we are not


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
Click to expand...

Who made God?


----------



## sealybobo

The Great Goose said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?
> 
> Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poofed?
Click to expand...

No wonder cavemen were able to come up with the god hypothesis before science was invented. No evidence or proof is necessary


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made God?
Click to expand...

He will say God has always existed. He and cavemen could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

The cosmos just exist. Always have always will. 

We are a way for the universe to know itself. We are the brains. And we aren't alone. There are trillions of other planets with intelligence and trillions more without


----------



## Nosmo King

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
Click to expand...

I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.



How is one different from the other?



rightwinger said:


> Who made God?



Made? Explain.


----------



## Boss

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
Click to expand...


Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?


----------



## rightwinger

If there is a God....why did he create his animals over 500 million years ?
Couldn't he make up his mind?
Why would God have to rely on trial and error?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
Click to expand...


February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.  While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way. 

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.  Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
Click to expand...


You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed



Nothing has explained the exact moment of creation. I seem to have trouble accepting some idiot on a message board's pontification of their faith-based beliefs being passed of as science. 

I asked you to explain "made God" and you ignored my question. Why?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
Click to expand...

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's in the fossil record, carefully dated using radioactivity, the release of particles from radioactive isotopic decay, which works like a very precise clock. Rocks from volcanic eruptions (igneous rocks) buried near a fossil carry certain amounts of radioactive material, unstable atomic nuclei that emit different kinds of radiation, like tiny bullets. The most common is Uranium-235, which decays into Lead-207. Analyzing the ratio of Uranium-235 to Lead-207 in a sample, and knowing how frequently Uranium-235 emits particles (its half-life is 704 million years, the amount half a sample decays into Lead), scientists can get a very accurate measure of the age of a fossil.

But evidence for evolution is also much more palpable, for example in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug. This isin-your-face evolution, species mutating at the genetic level and adapting to a new environment (in this case, an environment contaminated with antibiotics). The proof of this can be easily achieved in the laboratory, by comparing original strands of bacteria with those subjected to different doses of antibiotics. It's simple and conclusive, since the changes in the genetic code of the resistant mutant can be identified and studied.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing has explained the exact moment of creation. I seem to have trouble accepting some idiot on a message board's pontification of their faith-based beliefs being passed of as science.
> 
> I asked you to explain "made God" and you ignored my question. Why?
Click to expand...

Made God

The assumption is evolution is invalid because they can't explain the exact moment of creation.....yet accept a God who has always been a as a reasonable alternative


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.  While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.
> 
> The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.  Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.
> 
> Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.
> 
> Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.
Click to expand...


Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species.  I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief. 

But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Made God
> 
> The assumption is evolution is invalid because they can't explain the exact moment of creation.....yet accept a God who has always been a as a reasonable alternative



Still no explanation for "made God" here. Why can't you answer?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.  While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.
> 
> The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.  Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.
> 
> Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.
> 
> Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species.  I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief.
> 
> But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.
Click to expand...

Does evolution really need to be such a stumbling block for so many? Is it really that bad that we descended from monkeys? [_Formally, we didn't "descend from monkeys" but shared a common ancestor with monkeys in the past. In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor_].  Behind this strong resistance to evolution there is a deep dislike for a scientific understanding of how nature works. The problem seems to be related to the age-old God-of-the-Gaps agenda, that the more we understand of the world the less room there is for a God.


----------



## sealybobo

It seems reasonable to look for something that the USA, Turkey, and Cyprus have in common that makes people not accept evolution.   


_Yet even as creationists keep trying to undermine modern science, modern science is beginning to explain creationism scientifically. And it looks like evolution—the scientifically uncontested explanation for the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth, emphatically including human life—will be a major part of the story. Our brains are a stunning product of evolution; and yet ironically, they may naturally pre-dispose us against its acceptance._


----------



## sealybobo

What are these features of the human brain that evolved to favor religion over evolution? What are the seven reasons that cause our brains to pre-dispose us against accepting evolution? Here they are:


·  Biological Essentialism

·  Teleological Thinking

·  Overactive Agency Detection

·  Dualism

·  Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales

·  Group Morality and Tribalism

·  Fear and the Need for Certainty


----------



## Nosmo King

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?
Click to expand...

Plenty of need for science to answer the questions.  And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance.  But don't let God teach science!  And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Does evolution really need to be such a stumbling block for so many? Is it really that bad that we descended from monkeys? [_Formally, we didn't "descend from monkeys" but shared a common ancestor with monkeys in the past. In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor_]. Behind this strong resistance to evolution there is a deep dislike for a scientific understanding of how nature works. The problem seems to be related to the age-old God-of-the-Gaps agenda, that the more we understand of the world the less room there is for a God.



_*In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor*_

Not "in fact" ....in THEORY.  Stop trying to make your faith-based belief into a fact please.


----------



## Boss

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of need for science to answer the questions.  And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance.  But don't let God teach science!  And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!
Click to expand...


Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?


----------



## Nosmo King

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of need for science to answer the questions.  And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance.  But don't let God teach science!  And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?
Click to expand...

I did not say God is a myth.  I said Genesis is a myth.


----------



## Boss

Nosmo King said:


> I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.



Have you proven it is? Where's your evidence? 

And why do you keep jumping from one inane point to another? This all started when you decided you didn't want to talk about science but instead, religious philosophy. I pointed out you were abandoning science to talk about philosophy as if that somehow compensates for your lack of science... you denied this and proceeded to continue talking about philosophy and not science. You spoke as if you have all the answers and no question remains... things are myths and people are arrogant, God shouldn't teach science. I point this out and suddenly you claim you do still need science to answer questions but then you go right back to philosophizing. Then you want to nit pick about God isn't a myth but Creation as told in Genesis is.... but you don't KNOW that... it's only your OPINION. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.  

Still sitting silently on the table is this notion that life somehow originated from a single living cell that popped into existence out of nowhere through random chemical reaction. And that one magical cell produced trillions and trillions of various forms of interdependent and interconnected life through a process of evolution. When asked to support your theory with science you run back to philosophy and start espousing your opinions again.


----------



## Nosmo King

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you proven it is? Where's your evidence?
> 
> And why do you keep jumping from one inane point to another? This all started when you decided you didn't want to talk about science but instead, religious philosophy. I pointed out you were abandoning science to talk about philosophy as if that somehow compensates for your lack of science... you denied this and proceeded to continue talking about philosophy and not science. You spoke as if you have all the answers and no question remains... things are myths and people are arrogant, God shouldn't teach science. I point this out and suddenly you claim you do still need science to answer questions but then you go right back to philosophizing. Then you want to nit pick about God isn't a myth but Creation as told in Genesis is.... but you don't KNOW that... it's only your OPINION. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.
> 
> Still sitting silently on the table is this notion that life somehow originated from a single living cell that popped into existence out of nowhere through random chemical reaction. And that one magical cell produced trillions and trillions of various forms of interdependent and interconnected life through a process of evolution. When asked to support your theory with science you run back to philosophy and start espousing your opinions again.
Click to expand...

I am relying on science for answers.  The musings of some Bronze Age philosopher as accounted in the mythological Book of Genesis provides no answers for the origin of life.

I want the truth too.  But I can't find it in the fairie tale told in Genesis.  I believe truth comes by way of empirical evidence and the scientific method, not mythology.

Every culture has produced a creation myth.  Why oh why would the actual truth be found in the Judeo-Christian mythology and not in the mythology of other cultures? 

I am not dismissing God as a myth, but the stories made up to explain God to Bronze Age man ring more of myth than science, superstition more than fact and intellectual shallowness rather than proofs provided by the scientific method.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is one different from the other?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made? Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.  While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.
> 
> The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.  Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.
> 
> Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.
> 
> Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species.  I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief.
> 
> But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.
Click to expand...

I found a great article that explains why it's so hard for a religious brain like yours to believe in evolution.

_The evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us.  Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance._


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What are these features of the human brain that evolved to favor religion over evolution? What are the seven reasons that cause our brains to pre-dispose us against accepting evolution? Here they are:



All due respect to your opinion.... I don't accept the theory of macro-evolution because there is no scientific evidence supporting it at this time. I've pointed out numerous times, micro-evolution happens all the time, we have clear indisputable evidence of it. But micro-evolution is merely life adapting to changes. Sometimes, life cannot adapt to changes fast enough and it becomes extinct. It simply doesn't spawn an entirely new genera of life, DNA doesn't allow it. You do not have any scientific evidence to support this theory but you continue to present it as fact, and you pretend that it's a well-established fact that most people accept. It's simply not.


----------



## Boss

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you proven it is? Where's your evidence?
> 
> And why do you keep jumping from one inane point to another? This all started when you decided you didn't want to talk about science but instead, religious philosophy. I pointed out you were abandoning science to talk about philosophy as if that somehow compensates for your lack of science... you denied this and proceeded to continue talking about philosophy and not science. You spoke as if you have all the answers and no question remains... things are myths and people are arrogant, God shouldn't teach science. I point this out and suddenly you claim you do still need science to answer questions but then you go right back to philosophizing. Then you want to nit pick about God isn't a myth but Creation as told in Genesis is.... but you don't KNOW that... it's only your OPINION. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.
> 
> Still sitting silently on the table is this notion that life somehow originated from a single living cell that popped into existence out of nowhere through random chemical reaction. And that one magical cell produced trillions and trillions of various forms of interdependent and interconnected life through a process of evolution. When asked to support your theory with science you run back to philosophy and start espousing your opinions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am relying on science for answers.  The musings of some Bronze Age philosopher as accounted in the mythological Book of Genesis provides no answers for the origin of life.
> 
> I want the truth too.  But I can't find it in the fairie tale told in Genesis.  I believe truth comes by way of empirical evidence and the scientific method, not mythology.
> 
> Every culture has produced a creation myth.  Why oh why would the actual truth be found in the Judeo-Christian mythology and not in the mythology of other cultures?
> 
> I am not dismissing God as a myth, but the stories made up to explain God to Bronze Age man ring more of myth than science, superstition more than fact and intellectual shallowness rather than proofs provided by the scientific method.
Click to expand...


Well, but I keep on asking you for this "empirical evidence" to support the notion that all life emerged from a common single cell.... I keep getting philosophical pablum. Your opinions on which philosophy is a myth and fairy tale is not science. 

Now, here is the scientific long and short of it... you don't have the scientific evidence to support your abiogenesis theory at this time. So, in THAT regard, it's just as much mythology as anything you criticize.


----------



## sealybobo

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> 
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of need for science to answer the questions.  And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance.  But don't let God teach science!  And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say God is a myth.  I said Genesis is a myth.
Click to expand...

God is a hypothesis unable to leap into the realm of theory because there is zero physical scientific evidence for it.  So go ahead and say it.  God is a myth we made up.  If not we figured it out without any help from the big guy upstairs.  And he has yet to make himself seen.

Not to mention we now know what part of the brain invented god.


----------



## sealybobo

The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all

*1. You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against it.*

*2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.*

*3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.*

*4. You think mutations are always negative.*

*5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.*

*6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.*

*7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.*

*8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.*

*9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes” evolution.*

*10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.*


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are these features of the human brain that evolved to favor religion over evolution? What are the seven reasons that cause our brains to pre-dispose us against accepting evolution? Here they are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All due respect to your opinion.... I don't accept the theory of macro-evolution because there is no scientific evidence supporting it at this time. I've pointed out numerous times, micro-evolution happens all the time, we have clear indisputable evidence of it. But micro-evolution is merely life adapting to changes. Sometimes, life cannot adapt to changes fast enough and it becomes extinct. It simply doesn't spawn an entirely new genera of life, DNA doesn't allow it. You do not have any scientific evidence to support this theory but you continue to present it as fact, and you pretend that it's a well-established fact that most people accept. It's simply not.
Click to expand...

*You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.*

At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes _can_ occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very _large_ changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I found a great article that explains why it's so hard for a religious brain like yours to believe in evolution.
> 
> _The evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us.  Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance._



The thing is, I am not religious and I believe in natural selection because there is scientific evidence to support it. BUT... Natural selection is no friend to macro-evolution.


----------



## sealybobo

_For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don’t. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we’ll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers.  _

_But theists insists evolution is anti-religious. But it’s not; it’s just anti-your-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs._

_But unless they are the narrowest of fundamentalists, this simply is not true. There is no greater proof of this than Pope John Paul II—who, one must admit, was a deeply religious man—saying that evolution was an established fact. Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham’s claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong._


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> *You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.*
> 
> At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes _can_ occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very _large_ changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.



Again... that is NOT science... that is in fact the reason Science was invented.... so that we don't speculate based on how things logically seem they should be. What you continue to do is ABANDON science in favor of a faith-based belief. 

There has never been any evidence that one genera produced another genera of life.  Ever.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found a great article that explains why it's so hard for a religious brain like yours to believe in evolution.
> 
> _The evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us.  Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am not religious and I believe in natural selection because there is scientific evidence to support it. BUT... Natural selection is no friend to macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

If macro evolution offends your religious beliefs, and clearly it does, that's religious enough.  

*You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.*

At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes _can_ occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very _large_ changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.

Why does it bother you?  Why does it bother you that you are related to an aunt?  How do you think human's got here?  And what scientific evidence do you have that we are not related to bugs and birds and frogs?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.*
> 
> At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes _can_ occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very _large_ changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... that is NOT science... that is in fact the reason Science was invented.... so that we don't speculate based on how things logically seem they should be. What you continue to do is ABANDON science in favor of a faith-based belief.
> 
> There has never been any evidence that one genera produced another genera of life.  Ever.
Click to expand...

You clearly are being willfully ignorant now.  

And if you don't think one genera split off into two different genera, what do you think happened and what evidence do you have?  The scientific community have a lot of reasons why they believe what they believe and they disagree with you.  

When I believed in God, I imagined he planted a fish seed and bird and reptile and aphibian and mammal seed but what possible reason do I have to believe this?  The fact that we don't know how life got started doesn't add any credibility to your hypothesis when 99% of science disgrees with your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis hasn't even made it to the level of basic theory.  Am I right?  Or can you show me a peer reviewed report where the scientific community thinks your hypothesis has any credibility.

Don't think for a second science hasn't already discussed your hypothesis at great lengths.  For whatever reasons they believe we all came from one source, not many.  No god didn't plant millions of seeds.  A bird seed, a pig seed, a dog seed, a human seed, a cat seed, a stingray seed, a scorpion seed, a whale seed, etc.

You do believe whales once walked, right?  

The evolution of whales


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?
> 
> One word: arrogance.
> 
> They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal.  We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.
> 
> Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth.  Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them.  They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis.  With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.
> 
> Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.
> 
> So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.
> 
> Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not abandon science.  I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position.  If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.
> 
> And you're right.  There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life.  It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture.  It takes science to prove how when and why life began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of need for science to answer the questions.  And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance.  But don't let God teach science!  And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?
Click to expand...

Now you got it.  AND, we know when and why our primitive ancestors made up god back when they didn't know any better.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> If macro evolution offends your religious beliefs, and clearly it does, that's religious enough.



I don't have religious beliefs, remember? We've had this conversation before. 

Macro-evolution is fine as a theory it's just not supported by science. It's possible that it someday will be, but as of now, all the science seems to contradict it... DNA doesn't allow evolution to happen across genus taxon. Maybe there is a way it can and we've not discovered it yet? I can't answer for what we don't know... I can only go by what science supports. 

What offends me is people who present macro-evolution as if it were proven scientific fact when I know better.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Now you got it. AND, we know when and why our primitive ancestors made up god back when they didn't know any better.



No we don't.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found a great article that explains why it's so hard for a religious brain like yours to believe in evolution.
> 
> _The evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us.  Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am not religious and I believe in natural selection because there is scientific evidence to support it. BUT... Natural selection is no friend to macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


I'm reading this article and it's reminding me of people like you.  Say you are not religious but some reason evolution bothers you.  So does the big bang, right?  

It is well-known that people’s opinions in this area are highly sensitive to small changes in question wording. The most careful polling available suggests that the percentage of people who accept young-Earth Creationism (YEC) is actually between 10-20%.  If support for some form of anti-evolutionism hovers around fifty percent, but the percentage of young-Earthers is way smaller than that, then we seem to have two options. Either an awful lot of people are just confused about the consequences of their religious beliefs, or it is not just fundamentalists who have a problem with evolution. 


YEC and intelligent design (ID) are different dialects of the same language and separate cultures nevertheless. Nearly all of the people I met at ID conferences were quite religious, but they were also contemptuous of YEC. They were not fundamentalists, and on many occasions they lamented the fact that YEC makes Christianity look foolish. Plainly, there is a large contingent of people who are not fundamentalists, but who also have a problem with evolution.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You clearly are being willfully ignorant now.
> 
> And if you don't think one genera split off into two different genera, what do you think happened and what evidence do you have?



Hold on a minute... where is it in the scientific method that someone has to present a better explanation or else your speculation stands? I don't have to explain what happened in order to state that you have no evidence to support your speculations. 



sealybobo said:


> The scientific community have a lot of reasons why they believe what they believe and they disagree with you.



I really don't care about what the scientific community believes or if the agree with me... that's not a science argument, that's an opinion. 



sealybobo said:


> The fact that *we don't know* how life got started doesn't add any credibility to your hypothesis when 99% of science disgrees with your hypothesis.



What? We don't know? I thought everything came from a single cell through evolution and everyone smart agreed? First, you claimed that was a matter of fact, now your saying the fact is, we don't know. And WHAT hypothesis are you talking about? I've not presented one. 



sealybobo said:


> For whatever reasons they believe we all came from one source, not many.



What? We're back to *KNOWING* again?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I'm reading this article and it's reminding me of people like you. Say you are not religious but some reason evolution bothers you. So does the big bang, right?



You should stop reading trash. No... I said that I believe in micro-evolution because there's scientific evidence to support it. I don't believe in macro-evolution because there is no science to support it. How many times do I need to clarify this? 

I'm not sure I am convinced there was ever a Big Bang. I don't believe in Singularities because they defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.... that's MATH and MATH doesn't lie. Again.. it is POSSIBLE that one day we will discover something we don't know now... I can't say what the future holds, I can only go by what we can support with science today. By the way... Stephen Hawking says there was never a Big Bang.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You do believe whales once walked, right?



Nope.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If macro evolution offends your religious beliefs, and clearly it does, that's religious enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have religious beliefs, remember? We've had this conversation before.
> 
> Macro-evolution is fine as a theory it's just not supported by science. It's possible that it someday will be, but as of now, all the science seems to contradict it... DNA doesn't allow evolution to happen across genus taxon. Maybe there is a way it can and we've not discovered it yet? I can't answer for what we don't know... I can only go by what science supports.
> 
> What offends me is people who present macro-evolution as if it were proven scientific fact when I know better.
Click to expand...


Like the article says.  You can believe I can walk ten blocks but  you can't believe I can walk 100.  That's the difference between micro and macro.

I read this article on why evolution bothers so many theists.  Even ones who aren't fundamentalists such as yourself.  I cut it down to this:

From 1910-1914 a series of pamphlets was published by prominent Protestant scholars. These pamphlets were known as “The Fundamentals,” and were hostile to the theory of evolution.  Evolution as Darwin presented it was almost entirely unacceptable to Christian scholars in the decades after Darwin. They had specifically religious objections to the non-teleological nature of the theory, and to the conflicts between Darwin and the Bible.  The idea that a non-teleological process produced humanity only as an afterthought, is what bothers religious people.  You want to think you are special.   

Evolution challenges the Bible, refutes the argument from design, exacerbates the problem of evil, and strongly challenges any notion that humanity plays a central role in creation. These are _not_ small points. 

_Evolution is an important part of science, and the basis upon which our understanding of biology is founded. It’s like the Periodic Table in chemistry, or Newton’s Laws in physics; without it, biology makes no sense. And we know biology makes sense. _


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading this article and it's reminding me of people like you. Say you are not religious but some reason evolution bothers you. So does the big bang, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should stop reading trash. No... I said that I believe in micro-evolution because there's scientific evidence to support it. I don't believe in macro-evolution because there is no science to support it. How many times do I need to clarify this?
> 
> I'm not sure I am convinced there was ever a Big Bang. I don't believe in Singularities because they defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.... that's MATH and MATH doesn't lie. Again.. it is POSSIBLE that one day we will discover something we don't know now... I can't say what the future holds, I can only go by what we can support with science today. By the way... Stephen Hawking says there was never a Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs, when now viewed at a distance from the future, although as they arose the developing changes would be deemed microevolution.


----------



## sealybobo

The earliest known genus, _Hyracotherium_ (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a browsing herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. The preferred evolutionary explanation is that as its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland (which we can reconstruct through pollen and seed records), selective pressure acted so that the animal become a fast grazer (as recorded by dentition changes etc.). Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, _Equus_.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do believe whales once walked, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

The scientific community says you are wrong.  You sure you're a scientist?  What IT?

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[16] While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[17] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a newgenus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[18] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do believe whales once walked, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.  The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.  Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.  While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "_fact_ of evolution".


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do believe whales once walked, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

"macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim._Differences between species_ in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all _have the same genetic properties as variation within species_: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. _The degree of reproductive isolation between populations,_ whether prezygotic or postzygotic, _varies from little or none to complete_. Thus, _reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations_.

Boss, you are a cherry picking believer in god who just so happens to not believe in evolution or the big bang.  How coincidental.


----------



## rightwinger

21st century Anericans denying evolution is the same as denying the earth is round or denying global warming


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> 21st century Anericans denying evolution is the same as denying the earth is round or denying global warming


There is something seriously wrong with them. I'm fascinated and I'm trying to connect the dots.

Republican voters, brainwashed, gullible, believing the greatest bullshit story ever told, liars, ignorant......etc.

Then they ask why we care or why we attack their religions. They don't even see the problem with their ignorance.

You explain to

And don't you love how in ten years they'll say they never denied evolution or climate change. So infuriating! They'll claim it was the symantics of global WARMING they had a problem with but of course pollution is a problem. They will flip flop faster than you can say flip flop.

Or now they get micro but are unsure about macro. Oh gimme a break! Took em long enough


----------



## Syriusly

Arguing 'evolution' with those who have 'faith' that evolution cannot have possibly have happened is a waste of time.

It is exactly the same thing as arguing whether God is real or not- they take it on faith that evolution cannot possibly have happened because it would contradict what they believe about their God.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Syriusly, it is like arguing the need for tax dollars to maintain our infrastructure, invest in science to keep this nation in the lead and the need to educate our children. We're debating people that hate civilization and probably wouldn't care if it was abolished all together. Of course, the same people see themselves as superior to other human beings and wrap themselves in a flag. It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> Arguing 'evolution' with those who have 'faith' that evolution cannot have possibly have happened is a waste of time.
> 
> It is exactly the same thing as arguing whether God is real or not- they take it on faith that evolution cannot possibly have happened because it would contradict what they believe about their God.


And they aren't ready to give that up.

This is why boss fascinates me. He doesn't believe any of the organized religions but believes in God still regardless. So I'm curious why evolution bothers him. If I were a theist who believed in evolution I would just believe God planet the life seed and let it grow. Evolution doesn't disprove God.

So why does evolution bother boss? I think what offends him is that he's just another animal. Can't believe he's related to bird and snakes

Another possibility is that we weren't the smartest creature. We were just the better breeders. Maybe the Neanderthals were smarter but didn't breed like rabbits.

And interesting smarter humans are less religious.

People who are moderately religious are like mildly retarded people are. Isis being full blown retard


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do believe whales once walked, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

For the record can you tell us all your theory on how snakes got here? Sounds like you believe that all snakes today come from an original snake but how did the first snake get here?

You sound like you believe all birds come from one original bird, but how did the first bird vet here?

Are all mammals related or are humans unique? Do you believe all other mammals are related?

I need to hear your theory so we can test it on the bullshit meter. You know to us its going to sound like magical thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

Matthew said:


> Syriusly, it is like arguing the need for tax dollars to maintain our infrastructure, invest in science to keep this nation in the lead and the need to educate our children. We're debating people that hate civilization and probably wouldn't care if it was abolished all together. Of course, the same people see themselves as superior to other human beings and wrap themselves in a flag. It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense.


There's two types. The rich corporations politicians media and churches control the message and way too many people are denying global warming worrying about trannys and illegals and tax breaks for the rich. Who's controlling the message? 

Then there's the dumb American sheep who buy into it.

So don't ask me why I hate a lie they use to hold us back.

America was great when the government represent all of us not trickle down


----------



## sealybobo

I ask boss these questions and watch him make up a creation story right in front of your eyes. It'll be like going back in time when the first priest was born. He didn't have any evidence either but people didn't know science back then either


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.


Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact. 



sealybobo said:


> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.



Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men. 

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced. 

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
Click to expand...

I want to hear your counter theory to macroevolution


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
Click to expand...

My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
Click to expand...

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution
Click to expand...

They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?


----------



## rightwinger

sealybobo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
> Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?
Click to expand...

I thought God made us 6000 years ago

Think of all the evolution that can occur in 6000 years


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?



Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant?  These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument. 

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution. 

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.


----------



## sealybobo

No


Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant?  These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.
> 
> In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.
> 
> However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.
Click to expand...

No door is shut boss. What is your counter theory? If we knew it we could point out where you are confused


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"



No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin. 

Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
> Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God made us 6000 years ago
> 
> Think of all the evolution that can occur in 6000 years
Click to expand...

Not much. For example we were modern man 6000 years ago. Not much has changed in that time. 600,000? Big difference. No fruitfly experiment can replicate that


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
Click to expand...


I'm afraid all the screeching you do to promote your gods is a poor substitute for facts. 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin.
> 
> Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.
Click to expand...

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid all the screeching you do to promote your gods is a poor substitute for facts.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Click to expand...

And he won't tell us his theory because it'll expose his nonsensical magical reasons why macro evolution makes him uncomfortable.

Let me guess, the he won't feel special if he's related to a frog.

He told me earlier he doesn't believe whales walked on land at one time.

He cherry picks the science he likes. Throws away mountains of facts.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant?  These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.
> 
> In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.
> 
> However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.
Click to expand...

You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution

Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin.
> 
> Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution today is not the same as it was in 1900 or even 1999. We know a lot more now.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility



No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science. 

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory? 

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct. 

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith. 

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
Click to expand...

Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant?  These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.
> 
> In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.
> 
> However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution
> 
> Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred
Click to expand...


Well I have already said that MICRO-evolution happens... we need look no further than the silver fox or polar bear for an example. It's MACRO-evolution that has no basis in science. It's a speculative theory piggybacking on MICRO-evolution and arguing that it's just time... but it's not just time. Certain things must happen for a new genus of life to emerge, they don't just happen over time.... not thousands of years, not billions of years. 

Since 1859, we have discovered DNA and mitochondria. We understand how these things work now... we didn't know that in 1859. Now, DNA and mitochondria don't just up and decide to change one day... that would be akin to "magic" happening. What must happen is the amino acids and enzymes for a new strand of DNA have to be produced by the mitochondria somehow. We theorized this may happen through mutations over many generations but the fruit flies dispelled that theory. Billions of generations, not one single new amino acid or enzyme produced... and that HAS to happen for the DNA to become something else. Without explaining how this happens, you cannot support a theory of MACRO-evolution... MICRO-evolution is a fact... it happens all the time. DNA is versatile enough to adapt and change, creating new species of life. It does not ever create new *genera* of life... it simply can't.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.



Yes... people do *believe* in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant?  These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.
> 
> In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.
> 
> However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution
> 
> Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have already said that MICRO-evolution happens... we need look no further than the silver fox or polar bear for an example. It's MACRO-evolution that has no basis in science. It's a speculative theory piggybacking on MICRO-evolution and arguing that it's just time... but it's not just time. Certain things must happen for a new genus of life to emerge, they don't just happen over time.... not thousands of years, not billions of years.
> 
> Since 1859, we have discovered DNA and mitochondria. We understand how these things work now... we didn't know that in 1859. Now, DNA and mitochondria don't just up and decide to change one day... that would be akin to "magic" happening. What must happen is the amino acids and enzymes for a new strand of DNA have to be produced by the mitochondria somehow. We theorized this may happen through mutations over many generations but the fruit flies dispelled that theory. Billions of generations, not one single new amino acid or enzyme produced... and that HAS to happen for the DNA to become something else. Without explaining how this happens, you cannot support a theory of MACRO-evolution... MICRO-evolution is a fact... it happens all the time. DNA is versatile enough to adapt and change, creating new species of life. It does not ever create new *genera* of life... it simply can't.
Click to expand...

Swing and a miss on your part

Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
Click to expand...

Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... people do *believe* in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!
Click to expand...

What about a duck billed platipus?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.
Click to expand...

What created spiritual nature?

Classic line from boss"this is not science, this is what I believe"


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Swing and a miss on your part
> 
> Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution



Again.... You are not supporting your theory.... you are asking ME for a counter theory. That is simply not how Science works. There is nothing in the Scientific Method about pulling shit like this. 

Over and over and over again, throughout history... mankind has looked around at the universe and made speculations based on how things appeared to be.  When Chris Columbus was trying to get funding to sail around the globe, he was laughed at by people who said... you're going to sail off the edge of the Earth! He said... No, I believe the Earth is round... they laughed again.... Impossible! They said... if the Earth was round the water would all run off!  You see... people justified what they believed to be true because it seemed to be the way things were. 

And this is exactly WHY we invented Science.... so that we can objectively ask questions and evaluate testing of hypothesis through experiments and with mathematics and such. With the Enlightenment, we began to LEARN that things aren't always as they appear to be. Just because it makes sense in your mind that everything had to evolve from some single cell of life doesn't mean a thing... it's your belief, that's all. It's you speculating based on how things appear to be.... but that's NOT SCIENCE! 

So you continue to point to your speculation and charge that if I can't formulate some better explanation, that MUST be true!  It's no different than when people believed the Earth was flat.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What created spiritual nature?



Explain what you mean by that?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.



You're going on Ignore because every thread you engage in, you repeat the same tired old lines. I'm extremely bored with you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created spiritual nature?
> 
> Classic line from boss"this is not science, this is what I believe"
Click to expand...


I made a thread once, it was, if the universe was created by God, because you believe the universe is so complex it HAD to have been created by higher being, then who created God? 

And basically it came down to the same fob offs that are being presented here.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What about a duck billed platipus?



What about him?


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swing and a miss on your part
> 
> Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.... You are not supporting your theory.... you are asking ME for a counter theory. That is simply not how Science works. There is nothing in the Scientific Method about pulling shit like this.
> 
> Over and over and over again, throughout history... mankind has looked around at the universe and made speculations based on how things appeared to be.  When Chris Columbus was trying to get funding to sail around the globe, he was laughed at by people who said... you're going to sail off the edge of the Earth! He said... No, I believe the Earth is round... they laughed again.... Impossible! They said... if the Earth was round the water would all run off!  You see... people justified what they believed to be true because it seemed to be the way things were.
> 
> And this is exactly WHY we invented Science.... so that we can objectively ask questions and evaluate testing of hypothesis through experiments and with mathematics and such. With the Enlightenment, we began to LEARN that things aren't always as they appear to be. Just because it makes sense in your mind that everything had to evolve from some single cell of life doesn't mean a thing... it's your belief, that's all. It's you speculating based on how things appear to be.... but that's NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> So you continue to point to your speculation and charge that if I can't formulate some better explanation, that MUST be true!  It's no different than when people believed the Earth was flat.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the classic dodge
Don't hold me to standards I demand of you

There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution

Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... people do *believe* in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Those are the sciences behind macro evolution. So glad you poo poo those sciences without studying them all in depth.

Now neither have I but I have no bias or reason to doubt. Macro evolution doesn't contradict or offend my belief. I had no prior belief. I certainly won't hear arguments from people who believe in magic spiritual supernatural non physical gods who put us here for some special reason. 

Eventually you'll drop this dumb argument and fall back on God planted the initial seed that created all life. That fits your generic God theory but points out you're no better than a whale, who used to walk on land. Everyone knows that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a duck billed platipus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about him?
Click to expand...

Stuck in between a mammal and duck


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> I made a thread once, it was, if the universe was created by God, because you believe the universe is so complex it HAD to have been created by higher being, then who created God?
> 
> And basically it came down to the same fob offs that are being presented here.



Explain what you mean by "created God?"  

I believe the universe is so finely-tuned that it couldn't have been produced by random chance and mathematics supports me on that... which is why many are now speculating about multiple universes. 

But besides that... How can physical nature create itself?  It simply defies basic principles of logic.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on Ignore because every thread you engage in, you repeat the same tired old lines. I'm extremely bored with you.
Click to expand...

That's poor cricket laddie. To turn tail and run when you're unable to support your claims to magical spirit realms is cowardly.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swing and a miss on your part
> 
> Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.... You are not supporting your theory.... you are asking ME for a counter theory. That is simply not how Science works. There is nothing in the Scientific Method about pulling shit like this.
> 
> Over and over and over again, throughout history... mankind has looked around at the universe and made speculations based on how things appeared to be.  When Chris Columbus was trying to get funding to sail around the globe, he was laughed at by people who said... you're going to sail off the edge of the Earth! He said... No, I believe the Earth is round... they laughed again.... Impossible! They said... if the Earth was round the water would all run off!  You see... people justified what they believed to be true because it seemed to be the way things were.
> 
> And this is exactly WHY we invented Science.... so that we can objectively ask questions and evaluate testing of hypothesis through experiments and with mathematics and such. With the Enlightenment, we began to LEARN that things aren't always as they appear to be. Just because it makes sense in your mind that everything had to evolve from some single cell of life doesn't mean a thing... it's your belief, that's all. It's you speculating based on how things appear to be.... but that's NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> So you continue to point to your speculation and charge that if I can't formulate some better explanation, that MUST be true!  It's no different than when people believed the Earth was flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
Click to expand...

Unless God plopped down two adult humans giraffe cats bears wolves pigs alligators snakes deer mice fish shark spiders ants mosquitoes Beatle dolphin dinosaurs and they all procreated from there. That is the only possible thing they could be suggesting as a counter argument to evolution. 

Even people who don't believe the God stories still for some reason believe God exists. Now that's a brainwash.

Religious people say the devil's greatest trick was to convince people he doesn't exist. I'm sorry but the greatest trick was convincing so many that God is real.

But we are such a young new species. Dolphins have been here a million or more years than humans.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Those are the sciences behind macro evolution. So glad you poo poo those sciences without studying them all in depth.
> 
> Now neither have I but I have no bias or reason to doubt. Macro evolution doesn't contradict or offend my belief. I had no prior belief. I certainly won't hear arguments from people who believe in magic spiritual supernatural non physical gods who put us here for some special reason.
> 
> Eventually you'll drop this dumb argument and fall back on God planted the initial seed that created all life. That fits your generic God theory but points out you're no better than a whale, who used to walk on
> Everyone knows that.



I am all FOR Science... when are you ever going to show me some and shut up running your mouth about religions and God?  And your MYTH about "walking whales" is just that... a MYTH.  They discovered prehistoric whales which had what APPEARED TO BE an arm.... problem was, it coincides with the modern whale who has a similar bony appendage thought to be used in reproduction which interestingly... is NOT attached to the animal's vertebrae. Now.... how the fuck do you figure something can WALK with limbs unattached to the vertebrae? 




sealybobo said:


> What about a duck billed platipus?
> ...
> Stuck in between a mammal and duck


It is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal... not _*stuck between*_ anything.

AGAAIN... Like the Flat Earthers.... you are going on how things *appear* to you and NOT using Science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
Click to expand...

I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.

But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.

You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Unless God plopped down two adult humans giraffe cats bears wolves pigs alligators snakes deer mice fish shark spiders ants mosquitoes Beatle dolphin dinosaurs and they all procreated from there. That is the only possible thing they could be suggesting as a counter argument to evolution.



No one has to come up with another explanation, dipshit.... how many times do I have to say that? The lack of another credible theory does not make your theory valid... there is absolutely NOTHING in Science that says such a thing... it's absolutely ludicrous. 

Make your case for YOUR theory on IT'S merit!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made a thread once, it was, if the universe was created by God, because you believe the universe is so complex it HAD to have been created by higher being, then who created God?
> 
> And basically it came down to the same fob offs that are being presented here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain what you mean by "created God?"
> 
> I believe the universe is so finely-tuned that it couldn't have been produced by random chance and mathematics supports me on that... which is why many are now speculating about multiple universes.
> 
> But besides that... How can physical nature create itself?  It simply defies basic principles of logic.
Click to expand...

Ah. Why couldn't you simply be honest and acknowledge you're a YEC'ist?

The _finely tuned universe_™ slogan is a staple of the YEC'ist cabal. Unfortunately for you Henry Morris groupies, it makes no sense.

The fact is, most of the universe is profoundly and utterly hostile to human / bioligical life. And even in this tiny corner of the universe where chance has conspired to make human life possible, the planet Earth is at best indifferent to human life, and at worst actively hostile.

It is a patently false claim of the religious fundamentalists regarding the silly _“finely tuned universe", _nonsense_. _The illusion of _finely tuned_ ™ is primarily an artifact of scale (and subjective religious dogma). We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that violence and chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.
> 
> But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.
> 
> You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion
Click to expand...


No they don't... "fields of study" don't SAY a goddamn thing... Individuals in fields of study may... but there are currently 148 variations of theories on Abiogenesis!  So no... EVERYBODY is not saying the same thing. Again... you RUN from Science and appeal to popularity!  That's NOT Science. Sorry! 

And by the fucking way... "Most likely what happened" is not "proven scientific fact" by a long stretch. It is a SPECULATION..... go look that word up, it's kinda big, you may not understand what it means!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the sciences behind macro evolution. So glad you poo poo those sciences without studying them all in depth.
> 
> Now neither have I but I have no bias or reason to doubt. Macro evolution doesn't contradict or offend my belief. I had no prior belief. I certainly won't hear arguments from people who believe in magic spiritual supernatural non physical gods who put us here for some special reason.
> 
> Eventually you'll drop this dumb argument and fall back on God planted the initial seed that created all life. That fits your generic God theory but points out you're no better than a whale, who used to walk on
> Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all FOR Science... when are you ever going to show me some and shut up running your mouth about religions and God?  And your MYTH about "walking whales" is just that... a MYTH.  They discovered prehistoric whales which had what APPEARED TO BE an arm.... problem was, it coincides with the modern whale who has a similar bony appendage thought to be used in reproduction which interestingly... is NOT attached to the animal's vertebrae. Now.... how the fuck do you figure something can WALK with limbs unattached to the vertebrae?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a duck billed platipus?
> ...
> Stuck in between a mammal and duck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal... not _*stuck between*_ anything.
> 
> AGAAIN... Like the Flat Earthers.... you are going on how things *appear* to you and NOT using Science.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly want to start discussing palpontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy? I don't. But if we did you'd see mountains of evidence.

You already told us what you think. We see the problem. It's you


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.
> 
> But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.
> 
> You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't... "fields of study" don't SAY a goddamn thing... Individuals in fields of study may... but there are currently 148 variations of theories on Abiogenesis!  So no... EVERYBODY is not saying the same thing. Again... you RUN from Science and appeal to popularity!  That's NOT Science. Sorry!
> 
> And by the fucking way... "Most likely what happened" is not "proven scientific fact" by a long stretch. It is a SPECULATION..... go look that word up, it's kinda big, you may not understand what it means!
Click to expand...

"Spirit realms of the gods" is a much better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the sciences behind macro evolution. So glad you poo poo those sciences without studying them all in depth.
> 
> Now neither have I but I have no bias or reason to doubt. Macro evolution doesn't contradict or offend my belief. I had no prior belief. I certainly won't hear arguments from people who believe in magic spiritual supernatural non physical gods who put us here for some special reason.
> 
> Eventually you'll drop this dumb argument and fall back on God planted the initial seed that created all life. That fits your generic God theory but points out you're no better than a whale, who used to walk on
> Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all FOR Science... when are you ever going to show me some and shut up running your mouth about religions and God?  And your MYTH about "walking whales" is just that... a MYTH.  They discovered prehistoric whales which had what APPEARED TO BE an arm.... problem was, it coincides with the modern whale who has a similar bony appendage thought to be used in reproduction which interestingly... is NOT attached to the animal's vertebrae. Now.... how the fuck do you figure something can WALK with limbs unattached to the vertebrae?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a duck billed platipus?
> ...
> Stuck in between a mammal and duck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal... not _*stuck between*_ anything.
> 
> AGAAIN... Like the Flat Earthers.... you are going on how things *appear* to you and NOT using Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you honestly want to start discussing palpontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy? I don't. But if we did you'd see mountains of evidence.
> 
> You already told us what you think. We see the problem. It's you
Click to expand...


Yes, I would prefer you back up your scientific arguments with scientific evidence and not your bloviating opinions on religion and God. I would rather you actually acknowledge Science and what Science does as opposed to throwing up straw men left and right to deflect from the fact you can't support your theory.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.
> 
> But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.
> 
> You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't... "fields of study" don't SAY a goddamn thing... Individuals in fields of study may... but there are currently 148 variations of theories on Abiogenesis!  So no... EVERYBODY is not saying the same thing. Again... you RUN from Science and appeal to popularity!  That's NOT Science. Sorry!
> 
> And by the fucking way... "Most likely what happened" is not "proven scientific fact" by a long stretch. It is a SPECULATION..... go look that word up, it's kinda big, you may not understand what it means!
Click to expand...

When 99% disagree with you, ya rong


----------



## frigidweirdo

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.
> 
> But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.
> 
> You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't... "fields of study" don't SAY a goddamn thing... Individuals in fields of study may... but there are currently 148 variations of theories on Abiogenesis!  So no... EVERYBODY is not saying the same thing. Again... you RUN from Science and appeal to popularity!  That's NOT Science. Sorry!
> 
> And by the fucking way... "Most likely what happened" is not "proven scientific fact" by a long stretch. It is a SPECULATION..... go look that word up, it's kinda big, you may not understand what it means!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When 99% disagree with you, ya rong
Click to expand...


Galileo...........


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> When 99% disagree with you, ya rong



Appeal to popularity again... NOT Science.  

I'm disappointed in you, Flat Earther!


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> Galileo...........



Exactly!  99% disagreed with Galileo and they were WRONG!


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless God plopped down two adult humans giraffe cats bears wolves pigs alligators snakes deer mice fish shark spiders ants mosquitoes Beatle dolphin dinosaurs and they all procreated from there. That is the only possible thing they could be suggesting as a counter argument to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to come up with another explanation, dipshit.... how many times do I have to say that? The lack of another credible theory does not make your theory valid... there is absolutely NOTHING in Science that says such a thing... it's absolutely ludicrous.
> 
> Make your case for YOUR theory on IT'S merit!
Click to expand...

It is not a theory, it is a reality

Simple creatures have evolved into more complex creatures. Man did not frolic with the trilobites


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.
> 
> Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.
> 
> Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?
> 
> Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.
> 
> This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe.  It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.
> 
> The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 4 fields of study that all collectively say macro evolution is most likely what happened.
> 
> But I won't discard the possibility 4 different types of life evolved from 4 separate sources. Some stayed fish some became birds some reptiles some amphibians and some mammals.
> 
> You must agree all land life once lived in the water, right? Otherwise you're suggesting this spirit created adult men and bird and snakes and frogs. Adult first? That's where you lose your science for your religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't... "fields of study" don't SAY a goddamn thing... Individuals in fields of study may... but there are currently 148 variations of theories on Abiogenesis!  So no... EVERYBODY is not saying the same thing. Again... you RUN from Science and appeal to popularity!  That's NOT Science. Sorry!
> 
> And by the fucking way... "Most likely what happened" is not "proven scientific fact" by a long stretch. It is a SPECULATION..... go look that word up, it's kinda big, you may not understand what it means!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Spirit realms of the gods" is a much better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
Click to expand...

At this point he doesn't know because he doesn't want to know.

And I don't know about young earth but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Galileo...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  99% disagreed with Galileo and they were WRONG!
Click to expand...

You'll never be proven right. There's no science behind you.

You're no Galileo


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact



No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science. 

I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless God plopped down two adult humans giraffe cats bears wolves pigs alligators snakes deer mice fish shark spiders ants mosquitoes Beatle dolphin dinosaurs and they all procreated from there. That is the only possible thing they could be suggesting as a counter argument to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to come up with another explanation, dipshit.... how many times do I have to say that? The lack of another credible theory does not make your theory valid... there is absolutely NOTHING in Science that says such a thing... it's absolutely ludicrous.
> 
> Make your case for YOUR theory on IT'S merit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not a theory, it is a reality
> 
> Simple creatures have evolved into more complex creatures. Man did not frolic with the trilobites
Click to expand...

No. After trilobites this "spirit said let there be dinosaurs then later said let there be humans.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Simple creatures have evolved into more complex creatures.



If that's what you believe, you have to prove that with Science. You haven't. Sorry.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.
> 
> Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.
> 
> Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid all the screeching you do to promote your gods is a poor substitute for facts.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Click to expand...

But boss said we've produced no evidence. Surely there must be a mistake. Maybe he missed your post


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...



And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
Click to expand...

No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but they have actually come close to be to reproduce this chemical reaction.  And look!  It's a Fox News link.  

Scientists Create World's First 'Mini Big Bang' | Fox News


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Why don't you do some research about it and read up on it.  It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than any theory that you've put forth thus far.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
Click to expand...

Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Why don't you do some research about it and read up on it.  It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than any theory that you've put forth thus far.
Click to expand...

He admits he has no theory he just doesn't like sciences theory. He doesn't know how we got here but knows neither do we. And he finds it hard to believe we share a common ancestor with all life.

Next time you're in Florida hug your cousin the alligator


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Why don't you do some research about it and read up on it.  It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than any theory that you've put forth thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He admits he has no theory he just doesn't like sciences theory. He doesn't know how we got here but knows neither do we. And he finds it hard to believe we share a common ancestor with all life.
> 
> Next time you're in Florida hug your cousin the alligator
Click to expand...


No thanks.  Lol.  You can though.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
Click to expand...


It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence. 

You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but they have actually come close to be to reproduce this chemical reaction.  And look!  It's a Fox News link.
> 
> Scientists Create World's First 'Mini Big Bang' | Fox News
Click to expand...


LMAO... again... "come close to" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Not Science. 

Hawking says there wasn't a "Big Bang" and I tend to agree with him because it would include a Singularity which is a mathematical impossibility due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but they have actually come close to be to reproduce this chemical reaction.  And look!  It's a Fox News link.
> 
> Scientists Create World's First 'Mini Big Bang' | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO... again... "come close to" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Not Science.
> 
> Hawking says there wasn't a "Big Bang" and I tend to agree with him because it would include a Singularity which is a mathematical impossibility due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Click to expand...


You can't be this brainwashed, can you?  Yikes.  It's pretty scary to think that, in this day and age, there are people like you out there who don't believe in the theory of evolution.    How old are you?  What year did you graduate from high school?


----------



## ChrisL

You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being?  Seriously?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence.
> 
> You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm doing. You're flipping ignorant biblical beliefs that had no basis in fact science or evidence and trying to compare them with a scientific fact. Fact

You're trying to compare a scientific fact called macro evolution with 

Questioning testing and evaluating evidence is how they came up with macro evolution.

Im not about to start learning about it so I can tell you why you're stupid. Educate yourself. I listed the four fields of study. Good luck


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything



Yes... some of us believe things that are totally not backed up by science yet we claim them to be.  

The ONLY difference between your "faith-based belief" and mine is that you dishonestly try to masquerade your beliefs as science when they're not. At least I honestly admit that mine is a faith-based belief. 

And I didn't ever say that a spirit put adult humans here. I don't know what happened. You don't know either but you dance around here claiming you do... then admitting you don't really know... then back to claiming you do know. You appeal to popularity and ridicule and think that this suffices as scientific evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Th


Boss said:


> sealyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence.
> 
> You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.
Click to expand...

ThoThose things made sense when people were no smarter than you. Once the Enlightenment Period began and people started using the scientific method.

I believe you know the truth but choose to be willfully ignorant. I think you could possibly be this stupid or stubborn


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... some of us believe things that are totally not backed up by science yet we claim them to be.
> 
> The ONLY difference between your "faith-based belief" and mine is that you dishonestly try to masquerade your beliefs as science when they're not. At least I honestly admit that mine is a faith-based belief.
> 
> And I didn't ever say that a spirit put adult humans here. I don't know what happened. You don't know either but you dance around here claiming you do... then admitting you don't really know... then back to claiming you do know. You appeal to popularity and ridicule and think that this suffices as scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

You're just pretending to be stupid.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?



Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine. 

I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... some of us believe things that are totally not backed up by science yet we claim them to be.
> 
> The ONLY difference between your "faith-based belief" and mine is that you dishonestly try to masquerade your beliefs as science when they're not. At least I honestly admit that mine is a faith-based belief.
> 
> And I didn't ever say that a spirit put adult humans here. I don't know what happened. You don't know either but you dance around here claiming you do... then admitting you don't really know... then back to claiming you do know. You appeal to popularity and ridicule and think that this suffices as scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


It is science.  Lol.  You think we are just making stuff up here?  I learned the Theory of Evolution in science class when I was in middle school for goodness sake!


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine.
> 
> I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.
Click to expand...


You don't have any science or any evidence at all to back up your "theory."  

Why don't you just say, you reject science in favor of unfounded beliefs because of your "feelings?"  That would be honest.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Th
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence.
> 
> You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ThoThose things made sense when people were no smarter than you. Once the Enlightenment Period began and people started using the scientific method.
> 
> I believe you know the truth but choose to be willfully ignorant. I think you could possibly be this stupid or stubborn
Click to expand...



You're simply reiterating my point. After the Scientific Method, intelligent people began to gravitate toward Science instead of "Conventional Wisdom" on things.... (like a certain type of mammal having a duck bill and assuming that it is "in between" a duck and mammal because of how it looks.)

As I pointed out to you earlier... Nothing in the Scientific Method dictates that I must come up with a more plausible explanation or your theory is correct. Nothing in the Scientific Method says your theories are validated by denigrating and insulting others and their beliefs. Nothing there about what "most people believe is true" or anything of that sort.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... some of us believe things that are totally not backed up by science yet we claim them to be.
> 
> The ONLY difference between your "faith-based belief" and mine is that you dishonestly try to masquerade your beliefs as science when they're not. At least I honestly admit that mine is a faith-based belief.
> 
> And I didn't ever say that a spirit put adult humans here. I don't know what happened. You don't know either but you dance around here claiming you do... then admitting you don't really know... then back to claiming you do know. You appeal to popularity and ridicule and think that this suffices as scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is science.  Lol.  You think we are just making stuff up here?  I learned the Theory of Evolution in science class when I was in middle school for goodness sake!
Click to expand...


And I did too.... Like I said, the theory of evolution (micro-evolution) is merely the adaptive changes in a species that can spawn new species. This is evidenced by many varieties of life. What there is NO basis for in Science is this theory of MACRO-evolution... whereby new *genera* of life are formed. The science we have available indicates this is not possible because of the barriers to DNA mitochondria. They cannot produce by any means we know of, the needed and required amino acids and enzymes to form new forms of life. Now maybe one day we'll unlock some secret to this and understand it... OR... maybe we'll discover something totally different and mind-blowing? We don't know... but to bow up and proclaim that Science has answered these questions is simply the antithesis of Science itself.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I believed in your God I would assume it planted one seed that turned into all life. Yes that is mind boggling but your spirit put adult humans here makes absolute zero sense. But it's proof how gullible igorant and brainwashed humans are. We will believe anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... some of us believe things that are totally not backed up by science yet we claim them to be.
> 
> The ONLY difference between your "faith-based belief" and mine is that you dishonestly try to masquerade your beliefs as science when they're not. At least I honestly admit that mine is a faith-based belief.
> 
> And I didn't ever say that a spirit put adult humans here. I don't know what happened. You don't know either but you dance around here claiming you do... then admitting you don't really know... then back to claiming you do know. You appeal to popularity and ridicule and think that this suffices as scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is science.  Lol.  You think we are just making stuff up here?  I learned the Theory of Evolution in science class when I was in middle school for goodness sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I did too.... Like I said, the theory of evolution (micro-evolution) is merely the adaptive changes in a species that can spawn new species. This is evidenced by many varieties of life. What there is NO basis for in Science is this theory of MACRO-evolution... whereby new *genera* of life are formed. The science we have available indicates this is not possible because of the barriers to DNA mitochondria. They cannot produce by any means we know of, the needed and required amino acids and enzymes to form new forms of life. Now maybe one day we'll unlock some secret to this and understand it... OR... maybe we'll discover something totally different and mind-blowing? We don't know... but to bow up and proclaim that Science has answered these questions is simply the antithesis of Science itself.
Click to expand...


It's a gradual change of species adaptations due to their environment or a "branching" out of species that occurs over many, many years.  There is no secret.  There is plenty of evidence for those who aren't wearing blinders.


----------



## ChrisL

This thread is beyond ridiculous.  I can't even believe it.  Lol.  I'm stunned, seriously.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine.
> 
> I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any science or any evidence at all to back up your "theory."
> 
> Why don't you just say, you reject science in favor of unfounded beliefs because of your "feelings?"  That would be honest.
Click to expand...


You're late to the party dear... I said it two pages ago, this is my BELIEF... not a science theory. 

I do not reject science... I don't accept other people's beliefs disguised and presented as Science. I don't accept speculations as facts. If you want to present some actual SCIENCE we can discuss it... but what I continue to see here is not people practicing Science at all... it's people expressing their FAITH.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> It's a gradual change of species adaptations due to their environment or a "branching" out of species that occurs over many, many years. There is no secret. There is plenty of evidence for those who aren't wearing blinders.



Exactly... Micro-evolution is adaptive changes in species over time and can result in spawning new species within the genus taxa. I have never disputed this and I can gladly give any "religious" person plenty of examples to back that up.... no problem. 

But that's NOT what Evolutionists promote. They want to claim that ALL life evolved from a common single cell life form through a process of MACRO-evolution... which is quite a different thing. There is exactly ZERO evidence to support that theory. It is totally a faith-based belief predicated on MICRO-evolution theory. I reject it because there is no Science at this time to support it.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> This thread is beyond ridiculous. I can't even believe it. Lol. I'm stunned, seriously.



It IS unbelievably stunning that we continue to have these long drawn out threads where people CLAIM to be promoting Science but they can't back their claims up with legitimate science and they always resort to the same old tired bashing of religious beliefs and ridicule of Creation theory to prop up their 1859 failed theory.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is beyond ridiculous. I can't even believe it. Lol. I'm stunned, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS unbelievably stunning that we continue to have these long drawn out threads where people CLAIM to be promoting Science but they can't back their claims up with legitimate science and they always resort to the same old tired bashing of religious beliefs and ridicule of Creation theory to prop up their 1859 failed theory.
Click to expand...


Well, those beliefs are silly to some people.    Like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Well, those beliefs are silly to some people.  Like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



Well some people think it's just as silly to believe random chance produced some miraculous chemical reaction that spawned trillions of interdependent and interconnected life forms out of nothingness. Some people think it's silly to presume physical nature defied logic and it's own fundamental principles and created itself out of nothingness. Lots of intellectual people think it's silly to believe mitochondrial DNA can randomly generate the needed amino acids and enzymes to spawn a new genus of life. 

Way back... MOST people though Galileo was silly positing the universe didn't revolve around Earth.  At one time, almost everyone thought it was silly the Earth was anything other than flat.... that black people were of the human species... that the universe wasn't comprised mostly of atoms...  Lot and lots of things we believe are silly to other people... that never has been the basis for making your arguments correct or true. 

I get that you loathe the Christian religion and you think worshipers of that religion are like people who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.... but that ain't science. It has nothing to do with supporting your scientific theories or making the case for your arguments.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine.
> 
> I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any science or any evidence at all to back up your "theory."
> 
> Why don't you just say, you reject science in favor of unfounded beliefs because of your "feelings?"  That would be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're late to the party dear... I said it two pages ago, this is my BELIEF... not a science theory.
> 
> I do not reject science... I don't accept other people's beliefs disguised and presented as Science. I don't accept speculations as facts. If you want to present some actual SCIENCE we can discuss it... but what I continue to see here is not people practicing Science at all... it's people expressing their FAITH.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science.  Lol.  That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class.  The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, those beliefs are silly to some people.  Like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well some people think it's just as silly to believe random chance produced some miraculous chemical reaction that spawned trillions of interdependent and interconnected life forms out of nothingness. Some people think it's silly to presume physical nature defied logic and it's own fundamental principles and created itself out of nothingness. Lots of intellectual people think it's silly to believe mitochondrial DNA can randomly generate the needed amino acids and enzymes to spawn a new genus of life.
> 
> Way back... MOST people though Galileo was silly positing the universe didn't revolve around Earth.  At one time, almost everyone thought it was silly the Earth was anything other than flat.... that black people were of the human species... that the universe wasn't comprised mostly of atoms...  Lot and lots of things we believe are silly to other people... that never has been the basis for making your arguments correct or true.
> 
> I get that you loathe the Christian religion and you think worshipers of that religion are like people who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.... but that ain't science. It has nothing to do with supporting your scientific theories or making the case for your arguments.
Click to expand...


Thinking you are silly and loathing you are two entirely different things.  I find you to be silly.  I don't "loathe" the religion.  It's silly superstition is all.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, those beliefs are silly to some people.  Like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well some people think it's just as silly to believe random chance produced some miraculous chemical reaction that spawned trillions of interdependent and interconnected life forms out of nothingness. Some people think it's silly to presume physical nature defied logic and it's own fundamental principles and created itself out of nothingness. Lots of intellectual people think it's silly to believe mitochondrial DNA can randomly generate the needed amino acids and enzymes to spawn a new genus of life.
> 
> Way back... MOST people though Galileo was silly positing the universe didn't revolve around Earth.  At one time, almost everyone thought it was silly the Earth was anything other than flat.... that black people were of the human species... that the universe wasn't comprised mostly of atoms...  Lot and lots of things we believe are silly to other people... that never has been the basis for making your arguments correct or true.
> 
> I get that you loathe the Christian religion and you think worshipers of that religion are like people who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.... but that ain't science. It has nothing to do with supporting your scientific theories or making the case for your arguments.
Click to expand...


Oh my. Bossy has retreated to the "random chance" meme. That's right out of the Christian fundamentalist playbook and an ignorant slogan one can find at any of the fundamentalist ministries. 

In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those with no understanding of evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. 

You owe it to yourself to learn the process of science you despise. Are you thinking that the Henry Morris / Benny Hinn types are serving your best interest?

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb

_Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._

Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is beyond ridiculous. I can't even believe it. Lol. I'm stunned, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS unbelievably stunning that we continue to have these long drawn out threads where people CLAIM to be promoting Science but they can't back their claims up with legitimate science and they always resort to the same old tired bashing of religious beliefs and ridicule of Creation theory to prop up their 1859 failed theory.
Click to expand...

We did ad nauseum.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science.  Lol.  That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class.  The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.



Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing?  MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation. 

I have NO problem with Science.  

I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science. 

I don't CARE about what you learned in school.

I don't CARE if your speculations are popular. 

I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd! 

I DO CARE about actual scientific results. 

If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence.
> 
> You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.
Click to expand...

How much scientific thought went into thinking the earth was flat? Was there 4 sciences that combined proved the earth was flat?

Hollie gave you a link with like 28 reasons macro is true. Did you read all 28?

It's ridiculous for you to tell us you have a problem with a scientific theory and ask us to explain what takes scientists 4 years to learn.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> This thread is beyond ridiculous.  I can't even believe it.  Lol.  I'm stunned, seriously.


I don't believe the theory of gravity. I think God is magically holding us down. And you can't prove gravity. Your belief in gravity is faith based. You are no different than a religion swallowing the gravity myth.

And like boss, I don't have to prove my theory to you. That's not how science works. Now begin proving gravity is real. Go.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science.  Lol.  That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class.  The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing?  MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation.
> 
> I have NO problem with Science.
> 
> I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science.
> 
> I don't CARE about what you learned in school.
> 
> I don't CARE if your speculations are popular.
> 
> I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd!
> 
> I DO CARE about actual scientific results.
> 
> If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Neither is gravity. No matter what you show me that's not gravity. It could be something else


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is beyond ridiculous. I can't even believe it. Lol. I'm stunned, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS unbelievably stunning that we continue to have these long drawn out threads where people CLAIM to be promoting Science but they can't back their claims up with legitimate science and they always resort to the same old tired bashing of religious beliefs and ridicule of Creation theory to prop up their 1859 failed theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


Well... NO, you haven't.  You've posted links to your activist atheist propaganda sites as usual. I know you believe they arm you well to do battle against them mean old awful kurshtans and it makes your little weenie hard to think that other people hate religious folks as much as you.... but you aren't presenting any kind of actual science to support your arguments. All through this thread, you appeal to ridicule and you appeal to popularity. You seem to think these are tools of the scientific method as well as challenging me to present a better speculation.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, those beliefs are silly to some people.  Like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well some people think it's just as silly to believe random chance produced some miraculous chemical reaction
Click to expand...


what happened is that God, I call God the "Biff Corleone", mixed up some mud and water and shaped it into humans...then he blew life into the mud figures ...then the fun started...he set up a game called "tree of Knowledge verbotten" he then sent a talking snake that convinced the female mud figure come alive to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge and from that point  on the Big Corleone threw us the hell out of paradise ...that is why we have to go through the hell of reading your horse shit...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but he certainly believes the probability a God poofed adult creatures into existence is an equally probable outcome as evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that some random chemical reaction happened to turn inorganic matter into organic matter and *poof* spawn trillions and trillions of interdependent life forms... despite the fact that with all the modern technology and labs at your disposal, have never been able to reproduce such a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You believe because we can't reproduce it in the lab that that proves macro evolution is wrong. You're wrong. Even if macro isn't true, you don't have a better theory. Macro is the theory that makes the most sense. Explaining it to you over and over would be an exercise in futility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made the most sense that the Earth was flat.... It made the most sense that the universe revolved around the Earth... It made the most sense that the universe was comprised mostly of atoms... What makes the most sense is not always what is true. That's where Science comes in.... it doesn't care what makes the most sense, it's about questioning these things, testing and evaluating evidence.
> 
> You simply can't declare me wrong because that's your opinion. That's what closed-minded bigots do. Closed-minded bigots who believe their opinions are always right regardless of whether they can back their opinions up with evidence, have no business in Science. Your mindset is precisely what Science was invented to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much scientific thought went into thinking the earth was flat? Was there 4 sciences that combined proved the earth was flat?
> 
> Hollie gave you a link with like 28 reasons macro is true. Did you read all 28?
> 
> It's ridiculous for you to tell us you have a problem with a scientific theory and ask us to explain what takes scientists 4 years to learn.
Click to expand...


Things are not true until they're proven true. I usually don't bother with links to people trying to make their case for their faith-based beliefs and convince me they are facts. There's really no point in that because I am not some gullible idiot who is going to buy into it. 

I presented the example of flat earth to contradict your appeals to popularity. Repeatedly telling me how many scientists agree with your speculation and believe it's true, isn't science. No one has proven macro-evolution and you admit no one has proven it, then go right back to arguing it is true and boasting about how many people believe it. 

Honestly... do you think we'd be having this long drawn out debate over something everyone believed was true and was indisputable scientific fact?  Do you see any lengthy threads arguing that 1+1=2? Countless websites devoted to convincing you that 1+1 really does =2? Of course not, because anyone with a brain knows 1+1=2... it's a fact... it's proven. 

This all started on Page 1 when I posted that no one has ever proven that any living organism has ever evolved beyond it's genus taxa. I stand behind that statement until I see some science to show me it's wrong... so far, nadda!


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Evolution DID occur..that is a fact

It is observable SCIENCE
We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently

That is what is known as Evolution


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
*Five Proofs of Evolution | Evolution FAQ*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The Probability of Life -* Creationists have long asserted that the chances of life forming naturally are so remote that they could not have happened. Read about how, in fact, the chances are much wider than most think.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Examples of species changing in recorded history:*



All these common vegetables were once wild mustard.
Three Main Pieces of Evidence Supporting Evolution


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
Click to expand...


Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.

Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?

Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
Click to expand...


Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that. 

"Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth. 

You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
Click to expand...

Observations are a critical part of science...always have been

We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
How and why evolution occurs are still theories

Evolution itself...is a FACT


----------



## Boss

Coloradomtnman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.
> 
> Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?
> 
> Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?
Click to expand...


DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen. 

Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of. 

I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible. 

That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
Click to expand...


Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
Click to expand...


You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
Click to expand...


Well, in science, they do. 

Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening. 

Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the classic dodge
> Don't hold me to standards I demand of you
> 
> There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution
> 
> Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
Click to expand...


Here is all the evidence/proof you need.  Keep in mind it isn't our job to explain the facts to a person like you.  If you can't accept or understand it, that's not our problem.  If the facts go over your head or make you feel uncomfortable, that's not our problem either.  We all know where you are coming from.  No amount of proof is going to make you comfortable with the fact you are related to a frog.

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related.  Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.  Here is the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


Universal Common Descent Defined
Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
What Counts as Scientific Evidence
Other Explanations for the Biology
How to Cite This Document
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

*Phylogenetics introduction*


Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods

Statistical support for phylogenies
Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
*Part I.* A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

1.  Unity of life

2.  Nested hierarchies

3.  Convergence of independent phylogenies

o  Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

4.  Transitional forms

o  Reptile-birds

o  Reptile-mammals

o  Ape-humans

o  Legged whales

o  Legged seacows

5.  Chronology of common ancestors

*Part 2.* Past history

1.  Anatomical vestiges

2.  Atavisms

o  Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs

o  Humans tails

3.  Molecular vestiges

4.  Ontogeny and developmental biology

o  Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws

o  Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches

o  Snake embryos with legs

o  Embryonic human tail

o  Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

5.  Present biogeography

6.  Past biogeography

o  Marsupials

o  Horses

o  Apes and humans

*Part 3.* Evolutionary opportunism

1.  Anatomical parahomology

2.  Molecular parahomology

3.  Anatomical convergence

4.  Molecular convergence

5.  Anatomical suboptimal function

6.  Molecular suboptimal function

*Part 4.* Molecular evidence

1.  Protein functional redundancy

2.  DNA functional redundancy

3.  Transposons

4.  Redundant pseudogenes

5.  Endogenous retroviruses

*Part 5.* Change

1.  Genetic

2.  Morphological

3.  Functional

4.  The strange past

5.  Stages of speciation

6.  Speciation events

7.  Morphological rates

8.  Genetic rates


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in science, they do.
> 
> Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening.
> 
> Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.
Click to expand...


We have observed macro evolution

Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air

What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> 
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in science, they do.
> 
> Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening.
> 
> Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?
Click to expand...


One thing I can see is that they do have their arguments for why they don't believe in macro evolution well thought out.  Unfortunately the scientific community says they are wrong.  If they were good arguments they would have been accepted in the scientific community.  For example they don't believe whales were land animals at one time.  Even though the scientific community says they were.  

And funny boss wants to reject the "evidence" science gives but then the arguments he uses come straight from places like Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com 

He loves their arguments and considers them proof but won't give science the same courtesy.  Classic cherry picker.  

But to a laymen like me and boss, their arguments might sound pretty good.  Who am I to argue with such well thought out arguments?  I mean, it does sound crazy to think that whales once walked around on land.  What do I know?  I don't know shit.  But what I do know is that science calls bullshit on these arguments and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know who's got an agenda and who's basing their beliefs on facts, logic, evidence, reason and consensus.  

Religion has held back science so much and religion has been so wrong on so many things for so long, that now that we've debunked 99% of their "beliefs", I don't find it necessary to PROVE to them the 1% we can't prove.  In a way they are no longer holding us back.  Instead they are challenging us to not be comfortable settling on what we THINK we already know.  After all we could be wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> 
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in science, they do.
> 
> Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening.
> 
> Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?
Click to expand...


Human beings have existed for about 2.4m years. Homo sapiens have only existed for 6% of that time – about 150,000 years.  

The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record 521 million years ago


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in science, they do.
> 
> Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening.
> 
> Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.
Click to expand...


If you don't believe the mountains of scientific evidence that explain why evolution is a fact 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Why do you believe this?  Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

Are you suggesting the creation link is science?  

Funny you decide the evidence and reasoning science puts forward is garbage but you like the creationist arguments that we all know, even you, have no basis in fact or science.  

Every argument you put forward can be countered by science.  I just don't have the time each time you make a bad argument to go do the research here 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent to find the answers to your questions.  I think at this point you have failed the science class buddy.  Your stubborn behavior has earned you an F.  But I'll give you a D because of your effort.  You deserve a D.  Even though I don't think you should pass the class because you clearly haven't grasp the facts well enough to understand them.  

But if anyone is going to debunk evolution, it'll be you guys.  Good luck.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> 
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in science, they do.
> 
> Again, for years and years, it appeared to people that the universe revolved around the flat earth. That's what people believed because that's what people observed. Was that true?  No, of course not... science came along and said, it may appear that way but here is what is really happening.
> 
> Now, back to evolution... We can look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of micro-evolution. Things DO evolve into new species from other species within their genera. That is a far cry from everything sharing a common ancestor.... which is what macro-evolution claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?
Click to expand...


Turns out Boss isn't alone.

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.  Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their dogma, and who therefore reject it: in the United States, the Muslim world, South Africa, India, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil.  

Why is it the USA is so stupid and lumped in with these other ignorant countries you ask?  Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds
People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations, a number of surveys show.

A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of biological science in the United States.


----------



## sealybobo

Researchers compared the results of past surveys of attitudes toward evolution taken in the U.S. since 1985 and similar surveys in Japan and 32 European countries.

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.

The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.

The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.


----------



## sealybobo

The U.S. has a tradition of Protestant fundamentalism not found in Europe that takes the Bible literally and sees the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of the creation of human life.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine.
> 
> I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any science or any evidence at all to back up your "theory."
> 
> Why don't you just say, you reject science in favor of unfounded beliefs because of your "feelings?"  That would be honest.
Click to expand...

I found this to be interesting

Second, the researchers tested whether an American's political views influenced his or her view of evolution theory.

The team found that individuals with anti-abortion, pro-life views associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party were significantly more likely to reject evolution than people with pro-choice views.

The team adds that in Europe having pro-life or right-wing political views had little correlation with a person's attitude toward evolution.

The researchers say this reflects the politicization of the evolution issue in the U.S. "in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan."

"In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in Southern and Midwestern states," the study authors write.

Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds


----------



## sealybobo

See why they use religion to con us?  

When Ronald Reagan was running for President of the U.S., for example, he gave speeches in these states where he would slip in the sentence, "I have no chimpanzees in my family," poking fun at the idea that apes could be the ancestors of humans.

When such a view comes from the U.S. President or other prominent political figures, Miller says, it "lends a degree of legitimacy to the dispute."


----------



## sealybobo

Third, the study found that adults with some understanding of genetics are more likely to have a positive attitude toward evolution.

But, the authors say, studies in the U.S. suggest substantial numbers of American adults are confused about some core ideas related to 20th- and 21st-century biology.

The researchers cite a 2005 study finding that 78 percent of adults agreed that plants and animals had evolved from other organisms. In the same study, 62 percent also believed that God created humans without any evolutionary development.

Fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA, the authors add.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no concept of the scope  of scientific research
> Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations
Click to expand...

It took a lot of digging to figure out Boss was a creationist pretending to be pro science.  Reminds me of Amway.  Remember Amway?  It would be half way through a 1 hour presentation before you realize what they are trying to sell you on is AMWAY!  Mother fuckers!  LOL


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science.  Lol.  That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class.  The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing?  MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation.
> 
> I have NO problem with Science.
> 
> I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science.
> 
> I don't CARE about what you learned in school.
> 
> I don't CARE if your speculations are popular.
> 
> I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd!
> 
> I DO CARE about actual scientific results.
> 
> If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.
Click to expand...


Well, why do you ignore the scientific results then?  Lol.  What year did you graduate?  I'm sure that would explain a lot.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science.  Lol.  That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class.  The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing?  MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation.
> 
> I have NO problem with Science.
> 
> I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science.
> 
> I don't CARE about what you learned in school.
> 
> I don't CARE if your speculations are popular.
> 
> I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd!
> 
> I DO CARE about actual scientific results.
> 
> If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, why do you ignore the scientific results then?  Lol.  What year did you graduate?  I'm sure that would explain a lot.
Click to expand...


Here is one example of how and why America is not the greatest country in the world:

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than *80 percent* of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution. The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.

People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations.  Consider the red necks down south who've been raised learning that the creation story is fact and evolution is a myth put out there by liberal gay hippies.  Lying religions have to protect their lies.  

A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of biological science in the United States.

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.
> 
> I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is all the evidence/proof you need.  Keep in mind it isn't our job to explain the facts to a person like you.  If you can't accept or understand it, that's not our problem.  If the facts go over your head or make you feel uncomfortable, that's not our problem either.  We all know where you are coming from.  No amount of proof is going to make you comfortable with the fact you are related to a frog.
> 
> Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related.  Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.  Here is the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> 
> Universal Common Descent Defined
> Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
> What Counts as Scientific Evidence
> Other Explanations for the Biology
> How to Cite This Document
> Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method
> 
> *Phylogenetics introduction*
> 
> 
> Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
> Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
> Maximum parsimony
> Maximum likelihood
> Distance matrix methods
> 
> Statistical support for phylogenies
> Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
> Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
> *Part I.* A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
> 
> 1.  Unity of life
> 
> 2.  Nested hierarchies
> 
> 3.  Convergence of independent phylogenies
> 
> o  Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
> 
> 4.  Transitional forms
> 
> o  Reptile-birds
> 
> o  Reptile-mammals
> 
> o  Ape-humans
> 
> o  Legged whales
> 
> o  Legged seacows
> 
> 5.  Chronology of common ancestors
> 
> *Part 2.* Past history
> 
> 1.  Anatomical vestiges
> 
> 2.  Atavisms
> 
> o  Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
> 
> o  Humans tails
> 
> 3.  Molecular vestiges
> 
> 4.  Ontogeny and developmental biology
> 
> o  Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
> 
> o  Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
> 
> o  Snake embryos with legs
> 
> o  Embryonic human tail
> 
> o  Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
> 
> 5.  Present biogeography
> 
> 6.  Past biogeography
> 
> o  Marsupials
> 
> o  Horses
> 
> o  Apes and humans
> 
> *Part 3.* Evolutionary opportunism
> 
> 1.  Anatomical parahomology
> 
> 2.  Molecular parahomology
> 
> 3.  Anatomical convergence
> 
> 4.  Molecular convergence
> 
> 5.  Anatomical suboptimal function
> 
> 6.  Molecular suboptimal function
> 
> *Part 4.* Molecular evidence
> 
> 1.  Protein functional redundancy
> 
> 2.  DNA functional redundancy
> 
> 3.  Transposons
> 
> 4.  Redundant pseudogenes
> 
> 5.  Endogenous retroviruses
> 
> *Part 5.* Change
> 
> 1.  Genetic
> 
> 2.  Morphological
> 
> 3.  Functional
> 
> 4.  The strange past
> 
> 5.  Stages of speciation
> 
> 6.  Speciation events
> 
> 7.  Morphological rates
> 
> 8.  Genetic rates
Click to expand...



Sorry, I do not accept a damn thing from  talkorigins.org as evidence. It is no different than accepting testimony from a paid witness or the verdict of a bribed jury. It is NOT a Science organization, it is an activist atheist organization with an agenda. If you would like to present SCIENCE from a source of SCIENCE, then I will objectively look at it and respond.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?



First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off. 

First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... _we've observed it but we haven't observed it. _

You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air!  There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it? 

So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!  

What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> One thing I can see is that they do have their arguments for why they don't believe in macro evolution well thought out. Unfortunately the scientific community says they are wrong. If they were good arguments they would have been accepted in the scientific community. For example they don't believe whales were land animals at one time. Even though the scientific community says they were.



No, the "scientific community" doesn't say any such thing. Some people IN the scientific community may believe this... it's unproven. I've explained this earlier... they found prehistoric whales which appeared to have a limb... they ASSUMED this meant whales used to walk the lands. HOWEVER.... studies of modern whales show a large bone-like structure in that same location that is believed to be beneficial to whales when they mate. So what has likely been discovered is prehistoric version of that same thing. Furthermore, in both the prehistoric and modern version, this "limb" is unattached to the animal's vertebrae. So even IF you can make yourself believe it WAS an arm or leg... it was certainly not functional as one. 

This sort of thing happens often when we find something and jump to conclusions instead of practicing Science.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Human beings have existed for about 2.4m years. Homo sapiens have only existed for 6% of that time – about 150,000 years.



No... "Human beings" ARE homo sapiens. 

Homo sapien is a member of the genus Homo. Other members of the genus are now extinct and they include homo neanderthalis and homo erectus. Homo sapiens *probably* descended, along with homo neanderthalis, from the earlier homo erectus. 

There are other genera of _hominidae_ (our family) but our DNA prevents us from intercoursing with them.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Boss said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.
> 
> Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?
> 
> Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.
> 
> Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.
> 
> I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.
> 
> That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.
Click to expand...


If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology.  Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution.  They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.  Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy.  If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses.  If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.

I don't believe in the theories of evolution.  That would be doing science wrong.  I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.

Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off.
> 
> First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... _we've observed it but we haven't observed it. _
> 
> You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air!  There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it?
> 
> So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!
> 
> What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.
Click to expand...


OK...so your theory is that new species do not come from existing living organisms but materialized out of nowhere

We do know mammals did not exist 500 million years ago. There is ample evidence from around the world supporting that. So they either evolved from other living species or "popped" into existence out of nowhere


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution DID occur..that is a fact
> 
> It is observable SCIENCE
> We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
> We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
> We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently
> 
> That is what is known as Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.
> 
> "Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science.  Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.
> 
> You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations are a critical part of science...always have been
> 
> We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
> How and why evolution occurs are still theories
> 
> Evolution itself...is a FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Observation of *tests and experiments* are a critical part.  Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is all the evidence/proof you need.  Keep in mind it isn't our job to explain the facts to a person like you.  If you can't accept or understand it, that's not our problem.  If the facts go over your head or make you feel uncomfortable, that's not our problem either.  We all know where you are coming from.  No amount of proof is going to make you comfortable with the fact you are related to a frog.
> 
> Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related.  Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.  Here is the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> 
> Universal Common Descent Defined
> Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
> What Counts as Scientific Evidence
> Other Explanations for the Biology
> How to Cite This Document
> Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method
> 
> *Phylogenetics introduction*
> 
> 
> Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
> Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
> Maximum parsimony
> Maximum likelihood
> Distance matrix methods
> 
> Statistical support for phylogenies
> Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
> Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
> *Part I.* A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
> 
> 1.  Unity of life
> 
> 2.  Nested hierarchies
> 
> 3.  Convergence of independent phylogenies
> 
> o  Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
> 
> 4.  Transitional forms
> 
> o  Reptile-birds
> 
> o  Reptile-mammals
> 
> o  Ape-humans
> 
> o  Legged whales
> 
> o  Legged seacows
> 
> 5.  Chronology of common ancestors
> 
> *Part 2.* Past history
> 
> 1.  Anatomical vestiges
> 
> 2.  Atavisms
> 
> o  Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
> 
> o  Humans tails
> 
> 3.  Molecular vestiges
> 
> 4.  Ontogeny and developmental biology
> 
> o  Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
> 
> o  Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
> 
> o  Snake embryos with legs
> 
> o  Embryonic human tail
> 
> o  Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
> 
> 5.  Present biogeography
> 
> 6.  Past biogeography
> 
> o  Marsupials
> 
> o  Horses
> 
> o  Apes and humans
> 
> *Part 3.* Evolutionary opportunism
> 
> 1.  Anatomical parahomology
> 
> 2.  Molecular parahomology
> 
> 3.  Anatomical convergence
> 
> 4.  Molecular convergence
> 
> 5.  Anatomical suboptimal function
> 
> 6.  Molecular suboptimal function
> 
> *Part 4.* Molecular evidence
> 
> 1.  Protein functional redundancy
> 
> 2.  DNA functional redundancy
> 
> 3.  Transposons
> 
> 4.  Redundant pseudogenes
> 
> 5.  Endogenous retroviruses
> 
> *Part 5.* Change
> 
> 1.  Genetic
> 
> 2.  Morphological
> 
> 3.  Functional
> 
> 4.  The strange past
> 
> 5.  Stages of speciation
> 
> 6.  Speciation events
> 
> 7.  Morphological rates
> 
> 8.  Genetic rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I do not accept a damn thing from  talkorigins.org as evidence. It is no different than accepting testimony from a paid witness or the verdict of a bribed jury. It is NOT a Science organization, it is an activist atheist organization with an agenda. If you would like to present SCIENCE from a source of SCIENCE, then I will objectively look at it and respond.
Click to expand...

Everything you say comes from a creationist website and we all know that's not science.

Why Creationism Isn’t Science


----------



## sealybobo

Coloradomtnman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.
> 
> Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?
> 
> Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.
> 
> Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.
> 
> I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.
> 
> That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?
> 
> If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology.  Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution.  They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.
> 
> Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.
> 
> Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?
> 
> Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.  Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy.  If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses.  If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.
> 
> I don't believe in the theories of evolution.  That would be doing science wrong.  I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.
> 
> Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for proof gravity is real.  I think God holds us down with spirituality.  And until you can PROVE gravity is what holds us onto the earth I will continue to believe in my god hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have observed macro evolution
> 
> Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air
> 
> What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off.
> 
> First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... _we've observed it but we haven't observed it. _
> 
> You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air!  There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it?
> 
> So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!
> 
> What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so your theory is that new species do not come from existing living organisms but materialized out of nowhere
> 
> We do know mammals did not exist 500 million years ago. There is ample evidence from around the world supporting that. So they either evolved from other living species or "popped" into existence out of nowhere
Click to expand...

He truly does believe god popped out in a moment adult humans on the earth fully functional and ready to breed.  He really does believe that.


----------



## sealybobo

Creationism explains everything, and in so doing, explains nothing. The beauty of the creationist model is that by invoking the whims of a Creator, they are able to explain any and all phenomena.


----------



## NoNukes

TheGreatKing said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?
> 
> And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.
Click to expand...

Prove that God exists.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

sealybobo said:


> Creationism explains everything, and in so doing, explains nothing. The beauty of the creationist model is that by invoking the whims of a Creator, they are able to explain any and all phenomena.


God in the Machine plot solution Deus Ex Machina


----------



## Boss

Coloradomtnman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.
> 
> Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?
> 
> Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.
> 
> Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.
> 
> I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.
> 
> That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?
> 
> If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology.  Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution.  They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.
> 
> Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.
> 
> Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?
> 
> Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.  Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy.  If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses.  If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.
> 
> I don't believe in the theories of evolution.  That would be doing science wrong.  I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.
> 
> Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.
Click to expand...


*If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?*

They have pretty much concluded the mitochondria cannot mutate and produce the necessary amino acids and enzymes required for a new DNA, which would be needed for a new genus. As I said, the DNA and mitochondria are amazingly versatile and can change (evolve) to a certain degree, which seems to always be within their genus taxon. There has never been any recorded account of any other kind of evolution. 

*Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.*

All terminology is created and dictated by humans. Nature doesn't assign definition to our terms, we assign our terms to nature. I don't have any idea what ALL biologists think, so I don't make any claims in that regard. I am speaking of evolution as an overall theory for the diversity of life. I can accept there is evolution on a micro scale because we have evidence to support that. The mitochondrial DNA doesn't have to "reinvent the wheel" in order for that type of evolution to happen. It is versatile and flexible enough to adapt to change...SOMETIMES... and sometimes it's not. But as amazing as DNA is, it cannot do what it cannot do. 

Evolution on a macro scale requires DNA to do something it cannot do. It's simply not a matter of time and it's not an arbitrary boundary. It's been believed for many years... since 1859... that small changes add up to big changes. Why? Because it seems to be plausible. However, in 1859 we didn't know about the mitochondria or DNA. Our understanding of a cell was virtually nil. As we've studied this through many years of experiments and tests, we have found this theory has some obstacles it cannot overcome. The mitochondria simply cannot make the "leap" to another genera without some explanation as to where the new amino acids, enzymes and subsequent DNA came from. They thought it might be through random mutations but careful analysis of the fruit fly experiments reveals the math... it's essentially a mathematical impossibility. 

I have often wondered what this "mythical false idol of Evolution" was driven by.... what makes it determine when a new genera of life is needed? How does it know when to spawn off a new form of life from something else? Is this too, a matter of mere randomness and chance? It's not natural selection because we know how that works... the strongest survive, the weakest don't... It's also not the DNA, it has no intelligent reasoning ability to know what to morph into. So what is the story here? What DRIVES this Evolution process to generate trillions and trillions of very different but interdependent life forms? 

*Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?*

I don't KNOW what occurred and again, that doesn't matter with regard to YOUR theory. I don't have to submit a "better idea" in order for your theory to not be valid. It either stands or fails on it's own, regardless of any other theory. Having said that, the fossil record certainly seems to show things appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. Why? I have no idea.... but it doesn't appear this cross-genus evolution is happening because we don't see the evidence in the fossil record and it should be full of it, if that's the case. Also... we should be able to observe in modern biology, instances of one genus and another genus, spawning an entirely new genus and we don't. If we observed that happening, even just once in a blue moon, it might lend some credence to the macro-evolution idea. But we now understand why that doesn't happen.. the DNA prohibits it. It doesn't matter that our DNA is 98% like that of a chimp, we can't reproduce with chimps. 

_*Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.*_

Exactly! So why are the dunderheads here all making the irrational claim that this is indisputable scientific fact that cannot be questioned?  

That's PRECISELY what MY argument has been this entire thread. And now... they will all pile in to AGREE with this and then go right back to arguing that it's "proven Science!"


----------



## Boss

NoNukes said:


> Prove that God exists.



Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me. 

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


You have never made a case for any "spiritual", (supernatural realms governed by your invention of gods), such that your supermagical spirit realms are automatically rendered as delusional inventions.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Boss said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is no friend to evolution.  We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.
> 
> Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry?  Would you accept DNA evidence?
> 
> Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.
> 
> Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.
> 
> I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.
> 
> That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?
> 
> If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology.  Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution.  They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.
> 
> Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.
> 
> Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?
> 
> Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.  Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy.  If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses.  If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.
> 
> I don't believe in the theories of evolution.  That would be doing science wrong.  I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.
> 
> Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?*
> 
> They have pretty much concluded the mitochondria cannot mutate and produce the necessary amino acids and enzymes required for a new DNA, which would be needed for a new genus. As I said, the DNA and mitochondria are amazingly versatile and can change (evolve) to a certain degree, which seems to always be within their genus taxon. There has never been any recorded account of any other kind of evolution.
> 
> *Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  They don't.  There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary.  Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.*
> 
> All terminology is created and dictated by humans. Nature doesn't assign definition to our terms, we assign our terms to nature. I don't have any idea what ALL biologists think, so I don't make any claims in that regard. I am speaking of evolution as an overall theory for the diversity of life. I can accept there is evolution on a micro scale because we have evidence to support that. The mitochondrial DNA doesn't have to "reinvent the wheel" in order for that type of evolution to happen. It is versatile and flexible enough to adapt to change...SOMETIMES... and sometimes it's not. But as amazing as DNA is, it cannot do what it cannot do.
> 
> Evolution on a macro scale requires DNA to do something it cannot do. It's simply not a matter of time and it's not an arbitrary boundary. It's been believed for many years... since 1859... that small changes add up to big changes. Why? Because it seems to be plausible. However, in 1859 we didn't know about the mitochondria or DNA. Our understanding of a cell was virtually nil. As we've studied this through many years of experiments and tests, we have found this theory has some obstacles it cannot overcome. The mitochondria simply cannot make the "leap" to another genera without some explanation as to where the new amino acids, enzymes and subsequent DNA came from. They thought it might be through random mutations but careful analysis of the fruit fly experiments reveals the math... it's essentially a mathematical impossibility.
> 
> I have often wondered what this "mythical false idol of Evolution" was driven by.... what makes it determine when a new genera of life is needed? How does it know when to spawn off a new form of life from something else? Is this too, a matter of mere randomness and chance? It's not natural selection because we know how that works... the strongest survive, the weakest don't... It's also not the DNA, it has no intelligent reasoning ability to know what to morph into. So what is the story here? What DRIVES this Evolution process to generate trillions and trillions of very different but interdependent life forms?
> 
> *Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed.  Do you accept that is what occurred?*
> 
> I don't KNOW what occurred and again, that doesn't matter with regard to YOUR theory. I don't have to submit a "better idea" in order for your theory to not be valid. It either stands or fails on it's own, regardless of any other theory. Having said that, the fossil record certainly seems to show things appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. Why? I have no idea.... but it doesn't appear this cross-genus evolution is happening because we don't see the evidence in the fossil record and it should be full of it, if that's the case. Also... we should be able to observe in modern biology, instances of one genus and another genus, spawning an entirely new genus and we don't. If we observed that happening, even just once in a blue moon, it might lend some credence to the macro-evolution idea. But we now understand why that doesn't happen.. the DNA prohibits it. It doesn't matter that our DNA is 98% like that of a chimp, we can't reproduce with chimps.
> 
> _*Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven.  That isn't how scientific theories work.  If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.*_
> 
> Exactly! So why are the dunderheads here all making the irrational claim that this is indisputable scientific fact that cannot be questioned?
> 
> That's PRECISELY what MY argument has been this entire thread. And now... they will all pile in to AGREE with this and then go right back to arguing that it's "proven Science!"
Click to expand...


Ok, I think I understand your perspective more clearly and perhaps I see your point.

I agree that the terminology popularly used to discuss evolution is easily misunderstood and misconstrued.  Evolution is a fact.  Biologists know this, I know this, you know this.

Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, etc. are the _theories_ of evolution. 

When being discussed evolution is often, by many creationists, and I am not including you with them here, use a blanket term: theory of evolution as though evolution itself were a theory.

I hate this term, but...

Evolutionists, when discussing the theory of evolution, also use it as a blanket term for evolution itself but also for the theories of evolution listed above.  That is part of where the misunderstanding happens.

Scientists are no better at communicating about evolution because they do the same.  I think it was even Stephen J. Gould who said evolution is both a fact and a theory.  Not a good way to clarify the issue.

Your skepticism is about common ancestry, particularly that populations of species of organisms do not evolve into entirely new or different species that would be classified under a new or different genus.  And so common ancestry is not supported reasonably well enough by the available evidence to be accepted popularly or scientifically, let alone believed as fact.  Is that correct?

If so, I agree that common ancestry is theoretical and should not be believed as fact.  I respectfully disagree that the available evidence does not support common ancestry reasonably well enough to be accepted as the current biological evolutionary model and scientific paradigm. 

I think the evidence is good, plentiful, and acceptable.  I also think that common ancestry fits the criteria of a robust theory because it best fits the evidence, has - so far - been used to make accurate predictions, and is perhaps the most controversial theory and therefore the most tested and challenged theory in science to date and yet has remained the predominant model in modern biology for the past 150 years.

Respectfully, I think your wrong about mitochondrial evolution and that you don't fully understand how the model of evolution on a macro-scale works.  Not that you're unintelligent, quite the contrary, just not perhaps _fully_ informed about this one particular theory.  I also think there is some bias on your part, not that it is likely that you would recognize it.  I struggle to recognize my own and who knows how many of my own biases I don't see or fail to acknowledge.

Don't take this as a disparagement of your intelligence or character.  If I were better at being tactful maybe I could express my critique of your perspective of this aspect of evolutionary theory in a way that wouldn't insult you and I hope I have not.  If I have, I sincerely apologize in advance.  I am attempting here to show you my respect.  I do appreciate your perspective on scientific theory in general and I always respect a skeptical and critical thinker.


----------



## Boss

Coloradomtnman said:


> Your skepticism is about common ancestry, particularly that populations of species of organisms do not evolve into entirely new or different species that would be classified under a new or different genus. And so common ancestry is not supported reasonably well enough by the available evidence to be accepted popularly or scientifically, let alone believed as fact. Is that correct?
> 
> If so, I agree that common ancestry is theoretical and should not be believed as fact. I respectfully disagree that the available evidence does not support common ancestry reasonably well enough to be accepted as the current biological evolutionary model and scientific paradigm.



You've nailed it. I have no problem with scientists continuing to test a theory of "common ancestry" in search of answers. What I have a real problem with is non-scientific anti-god warriors parading around with their agenda carrying the banner of Science to somehow denounce God with. I respect Science too much to see it exploited for someone's bigoted agenda. You can say "evolution is a fact" if you're talking about micro-evolutionary changes in a species to form new species. But that is the extent of the evidence we have for evolution. Everything beyond that is a speculation... and speculations are fine... test them, experiment and try to prove them... don't come here and claim they are FACTS! 

As for your disagreeing with available evidence, all I can say is read about the fruit fly experiments. For a century, they have been attempting to observe them for evidence of evolutionary change. Since discovery of DNA they have been looking closely to see if the mitochondria somehow mutates and generates the necessary amino acids and enzymes required to produce new varieties of DNA... a component you MUST have for a new genus. Okay... so the mitochondria has to have a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes to produce something different than the DNA is it programmed to work with. Where can those come from? Can't be "out of thin air" because that makes no more sense than God. The logic says... mutations!  But after countless mutations over billions of generations, not a single new enzyme or amino acid was produced... nothing. 

This led the flustered scientists conducting the experiments to conclude things like (paraphrasing) "The fruit flies simply refuse to evolve!" So the problem here gets worse when we involve the physicist... Even IF the fruit fly experiments had been successful in producing a single new enzyme or amino acid... The calculation for the odds of randomly producing ALL the essential amino acids and enzymes to produce DNA for anything other than a fruit fly is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. So it becomes a mathematical impossibility, for all practical purposes. 

That's pretty compelling evidence to me.


----------



## NoNukes

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.


----------



## HUGGY

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



You really are one seriously confused mofo.  If I believed in something so impossible and ignorant I would certainly keep it to myself.  You compound your willful ignorance by preaching these above listed fairy tales as truth.  If you really have empirical evidence that a god exists then by all means produce it.  Otherwise, please stop lying to the public as some of them are weak minded for a variety of reasons, mostly fearful of death.  Taking advantage of these less than gifted thinkers is bad form bordering on out right fraud.


----------



## Boss

NoNukes said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer my questions? 

No... I don't have "bling faith" in anything... you do.


----------



## NoNukes

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer my questions?
> 
> No... I don't have "bling faith" in anything... you do.
Click to expand...

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
Click to expand...


You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.


----------



## Boss

NoNukes said:


> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.



Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.



No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory. 

Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real.  Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.


----------



## HUGGY

Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


WHAT?  You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights?  How scientifically snobbish of you!


----------



## NoNukes

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.
> 
> Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real.  Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.



What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


Why are you making boss work your thread?

Have you learned anything?


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilizations have always believed in gods.
> 
> Various civilizations, various gods.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, don't go astray in other arenas. ID is true. Established. That is the only purpose of this thread so far. Whether the ID was done by this God or another, or many together is irrelevant now.
Click to expand...

Yes God is irrelevant now


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.
> 
> And he uses all the same arguments you do.
Click to expand...



Lets recap

Your dad became a millionaire working a middle class job

Your dad thinks evolution is bullshit

You live with your dad and he buys you ATVs

Yet you think he is wrong??????


.


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.
> 
> Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real.  Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.
Click to expand...


I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...
> 
> you simply don't want to believe that either happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.
> 
> When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.
> 
> 95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find *ZIPPOLA!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops.
> 
> Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.
> 
> 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but not a single one of those 12 examples show evolution happening across genus taxa. Each one is a SPECULATION made by people who want to prove Darwin's theory. It's akin to saying... look at this, it looks like something is happening... but that's NOT SCIENCE. The layman's observation of things on the surface are very often not validated by actual science. As a matter of fact, that is precisely WHY Science was invented and became very popular among humans.
> 
> Wayyy back.... Men looked up into the sky which they noticed was moving around them.... they SPECULATED... just as you are doing here... that what appeared to be logical was the explanation... that the universe was revolving around the Earth. But Science dispelled that belief... things were not as they appeared.
> 
> Now, let's go back to your apology for the fossil record.  You just posted a link to fossils from millions of years ago... setting that aside, where are all the fossils of things in transition from one genera to another? Showing me something that looks "almost like" a whale and claiming it was something in transition of becoming a whale is not proof. I need to see the transition as it happened... the original state, the next stage, the stage after that, the stage after that, on and on until a new genera is born.  I don't see that, I see ONE example and a SPECULATION. Of course, you run to your apology... the fossil record is incomplete... we can't possibly find all the fossils... well, seems like that's convenient that we can't find ANY evidence in the fossil record whatsoever to support your speculation. All the billions of species of life and you can't find the supporting evidence for ANY transition from one genus to another?  Nope...the fossil record repeatedly shows species coming into existence suddenly and leaving suddenly.
Click to expand...


Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com


----------



## Boss

NoNukes said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here. 

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.
> 
> Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com



We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.
> 
> And he uses all the same arguments you do.
Click to expand...


Well I've never argued any of that so he's not using my same arguments. Sorry.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
Click to expand...


I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.
> 
> Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.
Click to expand...


I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.
> 
> And he uses all the same arguments you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lets recap
> 
> Your dad became a millionaire working a middle class job
> 
> Your dad thinks evolution is bullshit
> 
> You live with your dad and he buys you ATVs
> 
> Yet you think he is wrong??????
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

A. He doesn't quite have $1 million
B. He's smart enough to vote democratic
C. He can thank a union for his $. And when Ford outsourced the cafeteria that good job became a shitty job and he retired with 20 years.
D. He got a buyout on his pension. Probably $200k is buyout $. Again, thank a union.
E. His logic on creation is so ignorant. Being good at saving money doesn't make him a scientist.
F. The problem is too many people are ignorant on this. Especially in America. If he were in Europe still maybe he wouldn't be brainwashed and ignorant.
G. I still love him. It doesn't make him a bad person but people like this are holding us back scientifically. Wed probably already be on Mars if we stopped this ignorance.

H. I paid cash for my quad, I'm 9 payments away from having my condo on a lake paid off. My car is paid for. The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I'm rich bitch! Lol


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.
> 
> Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real.  Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

We used to think God poofed adults into existence. Everyone believed that a God must have poofed adult animals into existing. No other possible explanation. Then one day evolution came along and squashed creationism which has zero evidence.

So you go with the bad theory and I'll go with science.

If you don't believe in macroevolution then you believe creationism. We have evidence you have none


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT?  You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights?  How scientifically snobbish of you!
Click to expand...

How can you call God a theory? You have no evidence

God is a hypothesis.

What about my pink dragon theory? Should it get any respect or consideration yet


----------



## sealybobo

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
Click to expand...

We are all born atheists and are told stories about God at a very young age.

There are lots of reasons we came up with God. Have you seen The Cosmos series? They try to explain God is our ignorant fear of the unknown. What happens when we die? How did we get here? Wishful thinking. Lots of benefits to believing. And on top of all that we have religions like Mohammad moses Zeus Joseph Smith Mary Peter Paul Jesus. Either some of them are lying or all of them are. Either way we see how gullible people can be.

Today in the west more people than not believe in evolution. In Turkey most people believe in creation


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"?   Who made God? What do you mean "made"?  Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.
> 
> You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN?  Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.
> 
> And he uses all the same arguments you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never argued any of that so he's not using my same arguments. Sorry.
Click to expand...

You think God poofed full grown bear into existence. Yes or no?

You think God poofed full grown horse into existence. True or false?

You think God poofed fully grown birds capable of feeding themselves into existence and that's how birds and all other species got started, yes or no?

You may accept some facts on evolution but you don't believe evolution is true. You believe creation. You can't believe both.

The only thing I would except is that "god" planted the life seed that became all the life we see today. But make no mistake you are related to the goldfish in your bowl or plate.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We used to think God poofed adults into existence. Everyone believed that a God must have poofed adult animals into existing. No other possible explanation. Then one day evolution came along and squashed creationism which has zero evidence.
> 
> So you go with the bad theory and I'll go with science.
> 
> If you don't believe in macroevolution then you believe creationism. We have evidence you have none



Well the problem is, Evolution doesn't apply to origin. Evolution can only apply to something that is already here. So Evolution, even if you could prove it 100% just as you've theorized it... still doesn't explain origin. And I hate to break it to you like this, but regardless of _WHAT_ you believe, you believe in "poofing into existence" ...that's unavoidable. The question is only a matter of HOW it poofed into existence... random chance? a creator god? spiritual nature? We don't know. You dance around like a little moron, claiming we DO know... then, we don't know for sure, but then.. we really do know.,,,wait... no, not for sure... but still, we know and we're sure... well... pretty sure.   ....Poofing is poofing to me. 

And no... you have no evidence proving macro-evolution, if you did, you'd be able to produce it instead of coming here armed with your propaganda links from atheists who hate religious people.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
Click to expand...


Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections. 

In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right?  So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.
> 
> Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.
Click to expand...


Again... I have NO religious beliefs... I don't subscribe to organized religion. I am a Spiritualist like you. I agree with you wholeheartedly... and whenever people abandon Science and cling to a faith-based belief in a conclusion they've made, whether it's creation by a religious god or macroevolution and abiogenesis, they are no longer practicing Science.

Whenever people attempt to exploit Science to support their faith-based beliefs, people who respect Science have to speak up. If I were running around this forum claiming that Science proves God, I expect someone would challenge me on that. I would challenge someone who made that claim because I respect Science. So that's no different than people running around claiming Science proves their disbelief in God. We have a bunch of idiots here running around waving Science in our face and claiming it proves their faith-based belief in macro-evolution. I can't stand for that kind of exploitation of Science.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You may accept some facts on evolution but you don't believe evolution is true. You believe creation. You can't believe both.



Well... YES, you can believe both... and you can also believe that we don't know the answer to this. I can accept micro-evolution because there is scientific evidence that supports it... I don't believe in macro-evolution because it's faith-based and has no scientific support to date. But againnnnn...... NO kind of evolution explains ORIGIN!  

To put this in simple terms your small mind might comprehend... ORIGIN is the "poofing into existence" of LIFE!  

and no, for the record, I do not believe anything poofed fully-formed adult anything into existence. It could have... that's a possibility... I won't dismiss it as such... but I don't believe it because there isn't anything to support that belief other than faith. 

Let's take this slowly... I believe in Spiritual Nature because physical nature cannot create itself... it's a paradoxical argument. Spiritual Nature created physical nature and it did so in such a precision way that it enabled the parameters required for life which it also created. Now... IF Spiritual Nature can create physical nature, the parameters for life and life itself... it can create as many life forms as it wants to. If it can create one single living cell and that spawns all the trillions of life forms... it can also create the trillions of life forms. And honestly, if it can do all that, it can also create them fully-formed and adult if it wants to. I don't believe that's what happened, but it could have.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.
> 
> Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... I have NO religious beliefs... I don't subscribe to organized religion. I am a Spiritualist like you. I agree with you wholeheartedly... and whenever people abandon Science and cling to a faith-based belief in a conclusion they've made, whether it's creation by a religious god or macroevolution and abiogenesis, they are no longer practicing Science.
> 
> Whenever people attempt to exploit Science to support their faith-based beliefs, people who respect Science have to speak up. If I were running around this forum claiming that Science proves God, I expect someone would challenge me on that. I would challenge someone who made that claim because I respect Science. So that's no different than people running around claiming Science proves their disbelief in God. We have a bunch of idiots here running around waving Science in our face and claiming it proves their faith-based belief in macro-evolution. I can't stand for that kind of exploitation of Science.
Click to expand...


I understand better where you are coming from, I think. Do you believe it's possible, with further evidence, that macro-evolution can be proven? If not, why?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.
> 
> In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right?  So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...


Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I understand better where you are coming from, I think. Do you believe it's possible, with further evidence, that macro-evolution can be proven? If not, why?



I think anything is possible with Science. BUT... that requires open minds which haven't adopted a conclusion. Once you've made up your mind and believe something is concluded, you've stopped practicing Science... you're now practicing Faith. So.... all these bold statements that "Evolution is a FACT!" are conclusions. These are closed-minded people who are not interested in Science anymore because they've drawn their own conclusion and are now practicing a faith in their conclusion.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.
> 
> In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right?  So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?
Click to expand...


Does it really matter? If Spiritual Nature created the parameters of our universe it also created physics and chemistry. As for WHEN it happened, I think that is something else we also don't know for certain. Today, we see people toss out this age of 13-14 billion years... but did you know that idea is relatively young? 

It's fascinating how every generation of humans believes Science knows everything there is to know now... nothing new can be learned. I'm sure that a century or so ago, when scientists proclaimed the universe was a million years old, people ran around proclaiming that was an indisputable fact we must accept as the truth... but guess what? Science doesn't cooperate with your hubris... it continues to ask questions and discover new information. Humans draw conclusions, Science explores possibilities.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.
> 
> In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right?  So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really matter? If Spiritual Nature created the parameters of our universe it also created physics and chemistry. As for WHEN it happened, I think that is something else we also don't know for certain. Today, we see people toss out this age of 13-14 billion years... but did you know that idea is relatively young?
> 
> It's fascinating how every generation of humans believes Science knows everything there is to know now... nothing new can be learned. I'm sure that a century or so ago, when scientists proclaimed the universe was a million years old, people ran around proclaiming that was an indisputable fact we must accept as the truth... but guess what? Science doesn't cooperate with your hubris... it continues to ask questions and discover new information. Humans draw conclusions, Science explores possibilities.
Click to expand...


I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.

As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.
> 
> As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.



But again, we can go back to the logical paradox... Physical nature cannot create itself. Physical nature does exist and it's not eternal, so it must have been created by something and it has to be something outside of physical existence. Life also exists and even the most ardent Evolutionist Atheist doesn't believe life has eternally existed. They believe physical nature created life but that simply means Spiritual Nature created life indirectly through physical nature. If Spiritual Nature created physical nature and all the parameters in physical nature which support life and make it possible, then Spiritual Nature created life. 

And of course Spiritual Nature did not create man as he is today. We can look back just a hundred years or so and see a remarkable difference in man from then until now... go back 1,000 years.... even more different was man... 10,000 years... man was nothing like he is today. My grandfather could lift 75 lb. bales of hay over his head and toss them in the barn loft all day long... if I tried that it would kill me. He did it until he was 80 years old. In just a couple of generations we've become weaker and wiser. So yes... man HAS evolved. That doesn't mean we share a common ancestor with a bale of hay. That idea is ludicrous and doesn't have any basis in Science. That is a conjecture, a speculation... mostly promoted by people who reject Spiritual Nature and seek to disprove God through the exploitation of Science.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof god exists either....shrug....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL
> 
> And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.
> 
> I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT?  You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights?  How scientifically snobbish of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you call God a theory? You have no evidence
> 
> God is a hypothesis.
> 
> What about my pink dragon theory? Should it get any respect or consideration yet
Click to expand...


Abso-fuckin-tutely!  A pink dragon could be at least tied to sea serpents which have a long and respected history among the seafaring communities. Looking backward into the remains of animals and fishes embedded in the rock and sedimentary deposits there is evidence of huge carnivorous beings that inhabited the oceans and inland water.  God bones?  Not so much.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all born atheists and are told stories about God at a very young age.
> 
> There are lots of reasons we came up with God. Have you seen The Cosmos series? They try to explain God is our ignorant fear of the unknown. What happens when we die? How did we get here? Wishful thinking. Lots of benefits to believing. And on top of all that we have religions like Mohammad moses Zeus Joseph Smith Mary Peter Paul Jesus. Either some of them are lying or all of them are. Either way we see how gullible people can be.
> 
> Today in the west more people than not believe in evolution. In Turkey most people believe in creation
Click to expand...


Turkeys deny the truth behind Thanks Giving!  Consequently turkeys believe in anything you or their ancestors told them.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.
> 
> As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, we can go back to the logical paradox... Physical nature cannot create itself. Physical nature does exist and it's not eternal, so it must have been created by something and it has to be something outside of physical existence. Life also exists and even the most ardent Evolutionist Atheist doesn't believe life has eternally existed. They believe physical nature created life but that simply means Spiritual Nature created life indirectly through physical nature. If Spiritual Nature created physical nature and all the parameters in physical nature which support life and make it possible, then Spiritual Nature created life.
> 
> And of course Spiritual Nature did not create man as he is today. We can look back just a hundred years or so and see a remarkable difference in man from then until now... go back 1,000 years.... even more different was man... 10,000 years... man was nothing like he is today. My grandfather could lift 75 lb. bales of hay over his head and toss them in the barn loft all day long... if I tried that it would kill me. He did it until he was 80 years old. In just a couple of generations we've become weaker and wiser. So yes... man HAS evolved. That doesn't mean we share a common ancestor with a bale of hay. That idea is ludicrous and doesn't have any basis in Science. That is a conjecture, a speculation... mostly promoted by people who reject Spiritual Nature and seek to disprove God through the exploitation of Science.
Click to expand...

For all the hard-sell thumping you do for your new fangled religion of magical spirit realms, don't you find it concerning that Benny Hinn gets converts and you don't?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We used to think God poofed adults into existence. Everyone believed that a God must have poofed adult animals into existing. No other possible explanation. Then one day evolution came along and squashed creationism which has zero evidence.
> 
> So you go with the bad theory and I'll go with science.
> 
> If you don't believe in macroevolution then you believe creationism. We have evidence you have none
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is, Evolution doesn't apply to origin. Evolution can only apply to something that is already here. So Evolution, even if you could prove it 100% just as you've theorized it... still doesn't explain origin. And I hate to break it to you like this, but regardless of _WHAT_ you believe, you believe in "poofing into existence" ...that's unavoidable. The question is only a matter of HOW it poofed into existence... random chance? a creator god? spiritual nature? We don't know. You dance around like a little moron, claiming we DO know... then, we don't know for sure, but then.. we really do know.,,,wait... no, not for sure... but still, we know and we're sure... well... pretty sure.   ....Poofing is poofing to me.
> 
> And no... you have no evidence proving macro-evolution, if you did, you'd be able to produce it instead of coming here armed with your propaganda links from atheists who hate religious people.
Click to expand...

I showed you like 29 detailed reasons.

They theorize a few scientific ways life may have started. We know we are made of star stuff. So it all goes back to the big bang. What started it? We don't know. You claim to think you know. Ya dont


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all born atheists and are told stories about God at a very young age.
> 
> There are lots of reasons we came up with God. Have you seen The Cosmos series? They try to explain God is our ignorant fear of the unknown. What happens when we die? How did we get here? Wishful thinking. Lots of benefits to believing. And on top of all that we have religions like Mohammad moses Zeus Joseph Smith Mary Peter Paul Jesus. Either some of them are lying or all of them are. Either way we see how gullible people can be.
> 
> Today in the west more people than not believe in evolution. In Turkey most people believe in creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turkeys deny the truth behind Thanks Giving!  Consequently turkeys believe in anything you or their ancestors told them.
Click to expand...

This thread and the theists in it perfectly illustrate what's wrong with religion.

Tonight I went to a funeral. I see why we have religion but it's so not necessary. It's insane actually. Better to celebrate how lucky for her son and grand daughter she lived. She had 1 child. Think about how many children she didn't have. I feel bad for ANYONE who isn't born and never will be. Somewhere in Arkansas a guy just pulled out and that person will never be born. That girl who said no to me. The children we would have had will never be born. Poor things. She's a murderer of souls not having sex with me


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all born atheists and are told stories about God at a very young age.
> 
> There are lots of reasons we came up with God. Have you seen The Cosmos series? They try to explain God is our ignorant fear of the unknown. What happens when we die? How did we get here? Wishful thinking. Lots of benefits to believing. And on top of all that we have religions like Mohammad moses Zeus Joseph Smith Mary Peter Paul Jesus. Either some of them are lying or all of them are. Either way we see how gullible people can be.
> 
> Today in the west more people than not believe in evolution. In Turkey most people believe in creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turkeys deny the truth behind Thanks Giving!  Consequently turkeys believe in anything you or their ancestors told them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread and the theists in it perfectly illustrate what's wrong with religion.
> 
> Tonight I went to a funeral. I see why we have religion but it's so not necessary. It's insane actually. Better to celebrate how lucky for her son and grand daughter she lived. She had 1 child. Think about how many children she didn't have. I feel bad for ANYONE who isn't born and never will be. Somewhere in Arkansas a guy just pulled out and that person will never be born. That girl who said no to me. The children we would have had will never be born. Poor things. She's a murderer of souls not having sex with me
Click to expand...


Hopefully the dumb twat is fat, lives in a trailer full of garbage mostly Twinkie wrappers she is too lazy to pick up.  She has a Chihuahua dressed up like a clown,  She feeds it Little Smokies and the poor thing is this >< close to having a coronary. Consider yourself lucky.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may accept some facts on evolution but you don't believe evolution is true. You believe creation. You can't believe both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YES, you can believe both... and you can also believe that we don't know the answer to this. I can accept micro-evolution because there is scientific evidence that supports it... I don't believe in macro-evolution because it's faith-based and has no scientific support to date. But againnnnn...... NO kind of evolution explains ORIGIN!
> 
> To put this in simple terms your small mind might comprehend... ORIGIN is the "poofing into existence" of LIFE!
> 
> and no, for the record, I do not believe anything poofed fully-formed adult anything into existence. It could have... that's a possibility... I won't dismiss it as such... but I don't believe it because there isn't anything to support that belief other than faith.
> 
> Let's take this slowly... I believe in Spiritual Nature because physical nature cannot create itself... it's a paradoxical argument. Spiritual Nature created physical nature and it did so in such a precision way that it enabled the parameters required for life which it also created. Now... IF Spiritual Nature can create physical nature, the parameters for life and life itself... it can create as many life forms as it wants to. If it can create one single living cell and that spawns all the trillions of life forms... it can also create the trillions of life forms. And honestly, if it can do all that, it can also create them fully-formed and adult if it wants to. I don't believe that's what happened, but it could have.
Click to expand...

The most rational argument based on what we know would be to believe God planted one seed and that one seed turned into all the life we see today.

Because science believes all life started under water. After life crawled out it branched into birds reptiles amphibians and mammals. 

Otherwise you must believe God poofed fully grown land walking animals onto planet earth. That's ridiculous scientifically. It's why you don't really believe evolution you just acknowledge bits and pieces


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand better where you are coming from, I think. Do you believe it's possible, with further evidence, that macro-evolution can be proven? If not, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think anything is possible with Science. BUT... that requires open minds which haven't adopted a conclusion. Once you've made up your mind and believe something is concluded, you've stopped practicing Science... you're now practicing Faith. So.... all these bold statements that "Evolution is a FACT!" are conclusions. These are closed-minded people who are not interested in Science anymore because they've drawn their own conclusion and are now practicing a faith in their conclusion.
Click to expand...

No, it's just infuriating being doubted by skeptical creationalists


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.
> 
> As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, we can go back to the logical paradox... Physical nature cannot create itself. Physical nature does exist and it's not eternal, so it must have been created by something and it has to be something outside of physical existence. Life also exists and even the most ardent Evolutionist Atheist doesn't believe life has eternally existed. They believe physical nature created life but that simply means Spiritual Nature created life indirectly through physical nature. If Spiritual Nature created physical nature and all the parameters in physical nature which support life and make it possible, then Spiritual Nature created life.
> 
> And of course Spiritual Nature did not create man as he is today. We can look back just a hundred years or so and see a remarkable difference in man from then until now... go back 1,000 years.... even more different was man... 10,000 years... man was nothing like he is today. My grandfather could lift 75 lb. bales of hay over his head and toss them in the barn loft all day long... if I tried that it would kill me. He did it until he was 80 years old. In just a couple of generations we've become weaker and wiser. So yes... man HAS evolved. That doesn't mean we share a common ancestor with a bale of hay. That idea is ludicrous and doesn't have any basis in Science. That is a conjecture, a speculation... mostly promoted by people who reject Spiritual Nature and seek to disprove God through the exploitation of Science.
Click to expand...



I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen.  It is indeed a paradox.


----------



## sealybobo

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.
> 
> As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, we can go back to the logical paradox... Physical nature cannot create itself. Physical nature does exist and it's not eternal, so it must have been created by something and it has to be something outside of physical existence. Life also exists and even the most ardent Evolutionist Atheist doesn't believe life has eternally existed. They believe physical nature created life but that simply means Spiritual Nature created life indirectly through physical nature. If Spiritual Nature created physical nature and all the parameters in physical nature which support life and make it possible, then Spiritual Nature created life.
> 
> And of course Spiritual Nature did not create man as he is today. We can look back just a hundred years or so and see a remarkable difference in man from then until now... go back 1,000 years.... even more different was man... 10,000 years... man was nothing like he is today. My grandfather could lift 75 lb. bales of hay over his head and toss them in the barn loft all day long... if I tried that it would kill me. He did it until he was 80 years old. In just a couple of generations we've become weaker and wiser. So yes... man HAS evolved. That doesn't mean we share a common ancestor with a bale of hay. That idea is ludicrous and doesn't have any basis in Science. That is a conjecture, a speculation... mostly promoted by people who reject Spiritual Nature and seek to disprove God through the exploitation of Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen.  It is indeed a paradox.
Click to expand...


And why go through 1 billion years of spiritualists trilobites and another billion years of spiritualists dinosaurs before our 5 million years of homo erectus years of man?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I showed you like 29 detailed reasons.
> 
> They theorize a few scientific ways life may have started. We know we are made of star stuff. So it all goes back to the big bang. What started it? We don't know. You claim to think you know. Ya dont



No, you linked me to a partisan activist organization website devoted to spreading anti-religious propaganda. 

You're right when you say they theorize several ways... you're wrong when you claim these are facts or that other alternatives are invalid. 

Of course we're made of star stuff... what did you expect we'd be made of? We're mostly carbon, which would not exist if something hadn't precision-tuned our universe to make carbon possible. 

The Big Bang? I didn't think you believed in "poofing into existence"?  

I didn't claim I knew anything, I merely pointed out the logical paradox that physical nature can't create itself.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The most rational argument based on what we know would be to believe God planted one seed and that one seed turned into all the life we see today.



Why do you believe that is a rational argument? If God created one seed, couldn't God have created 200 seeds... 5,000 seeds... trillions of seeds? What rationale limits the number of seeds God can create?  



> Because science believes all life started under water. After life crawled out it branched into birds reptiles amphibians and mammals.



There you go again, claiming Science "believes" things.  HUMANS believe things, Science is the practice of asking questions about what is unknown. Science doesn't believe or disbelieve anything, it merely predicts the probability of possibility. 

I understand the abiogenesis theories but fish don't morph into birds and reptiles, amphibians don't morph into mammals... their DNA prohibits that. In 1859, when this was first suggested, we didn't know about DNA. Had no idea about how mitochondria works or even amino acids and enzymes... those were still yet to be discovered. 



> Otherwise you must believe God poofed fully grown land walking animals onto planet earth. That's ridiculous scientifically. It's why you don't really believe evolution you just acknowledge bits and pieces



Again... Literally we get appeal to ridicule from you. I've told you twice now that I do not believe God poofed anything fully grown onto planet earth.... could've happened... may have happened... some people may believe it happened... I'm not convinced that happened. But we ALL believe in "poofing" to some extent... do we not???  

Shall we go down the rather lengthy list of things previously said to be "ridiculous scientifically" again? You're kind of a hard head on this... you seem to think that Science in whatever it's present state, is infallible and can't be challenged. Science challenges itself all the time, that's kind of it's whole shtick. So unless you can come up with some scientific evidence to say something is impossible, you simply can't claim that it's impossible... Science doesn't back up your faith-based beliefs.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.



Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason. 

We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have! 

And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?


----------



## Searcher44

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.





TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.




Lots of scientists believe in God *and *accept the fact of Evolution, for example;  

John Polkinghorne, Royal Society Member, theoretical physicist, theologian and Anglican priest says, "Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can't construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history."
He believes the two "theories" Evolution and intelligent design can co-exist. Isn't that a more rational way to explain all the evidence in the fossil record and in DNA analysis than to believe old myths retold in different cultures in different ways by Bronze Age Mesopotamians?


----------



## NoNukes

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.
> 
> You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.
Click to expand...

Spirituality can be obtained without a belief in a god.


----------



## MDiver

A theory in science isn't the same as an everyday theory of say, where your missing sock might have ended up.
Theories in science are researched carefully, with available evidence to help back up the claim.
Also, you're a bit behind the times, evolution stopped being a theory with the advent of Genetics and DNA.
For the moment, excluding the existence of DNA, one just has to look at the history of the horse and one can see its progression from fossil to present.
As for DNA, by studying DNA, we now know that Caucasians, are a mixture of Homo-Sapiens and a separate branch of hominid, Neanderthal.  The beauty of DNA is....it absolutely DOES NOT LIE. 
The belief in supernatural beings came about in primitive societies to try to allay peoples fears when they witnessed someone die and with the exception of the Hebrews at the time, those primitive societies had multiple deities, some still do, while others still have animist beliefs with spririts being a part of each animal life or even plants.
A subconscious fear of the "end" of life, and the denial that things are going to go on without our presence in the world, keep many people clinging to beliefs in afterlifes. 
The flaw in the belief in a deity to me, is not only science, but that the so-called "perfect" deity, has all the flaws that humans have:
Anger.
Rage.
Homicidal tendencies.
Insecurity.
Since the supposed deity has all this, it is far more likely that he/she/it was the creation of man, not the other way around.
To believe in science is more rational than to believe in the supernatural.
The church declared Galileo a heretic for claiming that the sun didn't revolve around the earth and that we were not the center of the universe.  Through science, we now know that it was as Galileo said and it took the church hundreds of years to finally agree with him.   Science is great and while it doesn't have all the answers, it continues to have more and more, with less and less room for deities.


----------



## Boss

MDiver said:


> A theory in science isn't the same as an everyday theory of say, where your missing sock might have ended up.
> Theories in science are researched carefully, with available evidence to help back up the claim.
> Also, you're a bit behind the times, evolution stopped being a theory with the advent of Genetics and DNA.



This condescending rant eventually comes up in every thread of this nature. Yes, we all understand that scientific theories are different than common theories. The reason Science refers to them as "theories" is precisely because Science is not in the business of concluding facts. Science can only predict the probability of possibilities.... HUMANS draw conclusion. 

So... IF you are a Scientist... Evolution IS still a theory... it always will be. If you've abandoned Science to practice your faith-based beliefs in your conclusions, then Evolution might not be a theory any longer.



> For the moment, excluding the existence of DNA, one just has to look at the history of the horse and one can see its progression from fossil to present.
> As for DNA, by studying DNA, we now know that Caucasians, are a mixture of Homo-Sapiens and a separate branch of hominid, Neanderthal.  The beauty of DNA is....it absolutely DOES NOT LIE.



DNA might not lie but you don't seem to have a problem with it. No..... One CAN'T look at the history of a horse and see its progression from fossil to present. One can believe pictures presented by people who have theories about horses progressing and they can adopt a faith-based belief these theories are true. 

And apparently, you've never studied DNA. That's the only conclusion I can draw from your rather embarrassing explanation of things. Caucasians are a mix of homo-sapien and neanderthals? What kind of fucked up Eugenics nonsense is THAT? Because it's certainly NOT Science and DNA doesn't support that. 

Caucasians are a biological taxon belonging to the species homo-sapien. It is one of three such classifications of homo-sapiens.  Neanderthals were not a different branch of hominid, they were part of the genus _Homo_. 

DNA is actually a roadblock in your theory of common ancestry because the mitochondria in DNA is unable to produce, through mutation or any other means we know of, the needed amino acids and enzymes to make something different than it's designed to work with. DNA doesn't lie but it also cannot do what it cannot do. Similar DNA means absolutely nothing. You share 58% of your DNA with a banana... are you half banana? All life contains DNA and it's the blueprint for everything that particular life is or can ever be. It is flexible and versatile enough to sometimes allow adaptive changes in a species to spawn a new species, but that is essentially ALL we have scientific evidence to support at this time. 



> The belief in supernatural beings came about in primitive societies to try to allay peoples fears when they witnessed someone die and with the exception of the Hebrews at the time, those primitive societies had multiple deities, some still do, while others still have animist beliefs with spririts being a part of each animal life or even plants.
> A subconscious fear of the "end" of life, and the denial that things are going to go on without our presence in the world, keep many people clinging to beliefs in afterlifes.



Again, this is nothing but a philosophical speculation that has no basis in Science whatsoever. You are proselytizing your faith-based beliefs and claiming it is Science. When we apply Science to your supposition, it falls flat on it's face. We do not observe any sort of spiritual awareness in other upper primates, and we should if what you're claiming is true. If fearing the end of life causes spirituality, it should be apparent in great apes and chimps. But we don't see chimps and apes trucking off to church on Sunday or holding Bible study in the zoo... if that ever starts to happen, maybe I will consider your conjectures valid? 

Elephants appear to mourn their dead... but until elephants start conducting ritual ceremonial burials, I don't believe they are being spiritual. I think you've gotten this backwards... Humans are spiritually aware and as a result, fear the end of life. Because they understand spiritual connection they are concerned about what happens to their spirit after this life. Other animals are not spiritually aware so they don't have these concerns and fears and that's why we don't see it anywhere else in nature. 



> The flaw in the belief in a deity to me, is not only science, but that the so-called "perfect" deity, has all the flaws that humans have:
> Anger.
> Rage.
> Homicidal tendencies.
> Insecurity.
> Since the supposed deity has all this, it is far more likely that he/she/it was the creation of man, not the other way around.
> To believe in science is more rational than to believe in the supernatural.



I actually agree with you on much of this. I don't believe in a God with humanistic characteristics. Why would God need to be angry or jealous... why would God have wants and desires? If this God wanted you to worship him, he would have created you without free will. Worship would be an essential component like breathing or eating. 

But again, the man-made inventions of Gods and Deities are merely evidence that humans make a profound and important... and very real... connection to something spiritual. It manifests itself in the form of religions and structured, organized belief systems. It doesn't mean they are valid but that's why they exist. And "supernatural" is something that is outside of nature... human spirituality is very much a part of nature. 



> The church declared Galileo a heretic for claiming that the sun didn't revolve around the earth and that we were not the center of the universe.  Through science, we now know that it was as Galileo said and it took the church hundreds of years to finally agree with him.   Science is great and while it doesn't have all the answers, it continues to have more and more, with less and less room for deities.



Yes, this is well documented and has been brought up a few times in this thread. I actually brought up Galileo in response to the appeals to popularity espoused by pseudo-scientists proclaiming how 96% of the "scientific community" believes in some faith-based hypothesis that isn't supported by Science. It's a really big problem humans have with their egos and hubris... we get too big for our britches. 

An open mind keeps their minds open to the possibility that science will find more answers. They don't close their minds and pretend Science has answered all the questions.  Science doesn't prove that you are right and I am wrong. Science doesn't prove anything... it predicts probability of possibility... Humans conclude proofs. And BECAUSE of Science, often to their chagrin.


----------



## TheGreatKing

Since people are intentionally lying when they know very well that TOE is utter nonsense and some one is trying to steal my glory in supporting my contention, I see no need to participate in this thread.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
Click to expand...


Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen. 

I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
Click to expand...


Again... it's like the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear it.... It doesn't matter if Jupiter had an effect if man wasn't here to realize it.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... it's like the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear it.... It doesn't matter if Jupiter had an effect if man wasn't here to realize it.
Click to expand...


I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.



How do you figure Spiritual Nature had no effect?  Certainly, it had no effect on man who didn't exist... but neither did Jupiter. How can you say the thing that created physical nature, chemistry, physics, the 40-something cosmological constants which make up a finely-tuned universe enabling life... didn't have an effect?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure Spiritual Nature had no effect?  Certainly, it had no effect on man who didn't exist... but neither did Jupiter. How can you say the thing that created physical nature, chemistry, physics, the 40-something cosmological constants which make up a finely-tuned universe enabling life... didn't have an effect?
Click to expand...


Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.



Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
Click to expand...


Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.


----------



## sealybobo

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
Click to expand...

Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure Spiritual Nature had no effect?  Certainly, it had no effect on man who didn't exist... but neither did Jupiter. How can you say the thing that created physical nature, chemistry, physics, the 40-something cosmological constants which make up a finely-tuned universe enabling life... didn't have an effect?
Click to expand...

Were dinosaurs spiritual?  13 billion years the spirit world did fine without you and in the last 100,000 years it decided to create spiritual beasts the cosmos had never seen before?  This is getting silly.  Never mind.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?
Click to expand...


I concur, Without man to experience spirituality it essentially is non-existence.


----------



## SixFoot




----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure Spiritual Nature had no effect?  Certainly, it had no effect on man who didn't exist... but neither did Jupiter. How can you say the thing that created physical nature, chemistry, physics, the 40-something cosmological constants which make up a finely-tuned universe enabling life... didn't have an effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were dinosaurs spiritual?  13 billion years the spirit world did fine without you and in the last 100,000 years it decided to create spiritual beasts the cosmos had never seen before?  This is getting silly.  Never mind.
Click to expand...


Nope... Dinosaurs do not appear to have been spiritual. Nor have been any of the preceding creatures before man or any creatures after man. Apparently, Spiritual Nature was compelled to make US aware of it. Don't ask me why... maybe it thought we were better qualified than the monkeys? Then I look at you, and I wonder if it thought that at all?


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.
Click to expand...


Again... The paradox of creation... Physical nature cannot create itself. Even the chicken or egg dilemma has a truth... even if we don't know it. This idea that something doesn't exist because we don't use it or we're not yet around to use it... well, that's based on human concept of time.  You see silly boob stumbling around this.... how come it took billions of years?  But here's the thing.... TIME is a human element.... it means nothing to Spiritual Nature. It means everything to us... physics can't do anything without time. So trying to rationalize Spiritual Nature in context of time is totally pointless.


----------



## abu afak

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan.


There is NO evidence of any god. Zero.



			
				TheGreatKing said:
			
		

> All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.


 The fact we all are similar/just slightly more evolved, is evidence we Have Evolved.
If man was based on different material (than DNA), or had totally distinct organs, THAT WOULD speak to god/immaculate creation and would have no Natural explanation.
Similar, just slightly different, creatures is what Evo is!
Not to mention, WE Have USELESS Anatomical Remnants of our ancestors.
(like the Coccyx/former Tail)



			
				TheGreatKing
[B said:
			
		

> The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.[/B] There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


What is the 'Right Order'?
(especially after all the Failed precursor Homo Species that lead to us)
Any group of things could be placed in order of complexity. It doesn't prove intelligent design.

What a fallacious jerk you are Pilgrim
`


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... The paradox of creation... Physical nature cannot create itself. Even the chicken or egg dilemma has a truth... even if we don't know it. This idea that something doesn't exist because we don't use it or we're not yet around to use it... well, that's based on human concept of time.  You see silly boob stumbling around this.... how come it took billions of years?  But here's the thing.... TIME is a human element.... it means nothing to Spiritual Nature. It means everything to us... physics can't do anything without time. So trying to rationalize Spiritual Nature in context of time is totally pointless.
Click to expand...


Spiritual nature cannot exist without physical nature. If there is no air, you can't have wind.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say yes, Jupiter would have an effect because it's effect shapes the physical world where man exist, or will exist. But spirituality has no effect without man, IMO. Thank you Boss for engaging me in a intellectual conversation without personal insults. So many here seem incapable of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure Spiritual Nature had no effect?  Certainly, it had no effect on man who didn't exist... but neither did Jupiter. How can you say the thing that created physical nature, chemistry, physics, the 40-something cosmological constants which make up a finely-tuned universe enabling life... didn't have an effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were dinosaurs spiritual?  13 billion years the spirit world did fine without you and in the last 100,000 years it decided to create spiritual beasts the cosmos had never seen before?  This is getting silly.  Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Dinosaurs do not appear to have been spiritual. Nor have been any of the preceding creatures before man or any creatures after man. Apparently, Spiritual Nature was compelled to make US aware of it. Don't ask me why... maybe it thought we were better qualified than the monkeys? Then I look at you, and I wonder if it thought that at all?
Click to expand...

There is the dilemma. You assume that spiritual nature made us aware of it, but I think it is just as likely that there was no spiritual nature until it was born from man, a collective consciousness of man if you will.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... The paradox of creation... Physical nature cannot create itself. Even the chicken or egg dilemma has a truth... even if we don't know it. This idea that something doesn't exist because we don't use it or we're not yet around to use it... well, that's based on human concept of time.  You see silly boob stumbling around this.... how come it took billions of years?  But here's the thing.... TIME is a human element.... it means nothing to Spiritual Nature. It means everything to us... physics can't do anything without time. So trying to rationalize Spiritual Nature in context of time is totally pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot exist without physical nature. If there is no air, you can't have wind.
Click to expand...


Can you provide any evidence that Spiritual Nature requires physical nature in order to exist? 

And for the record... Yes, you CAN have wind with no air.... Solar winds.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> There is the dilemma. You assume that spiritual nature made us aware of it, but I think it is just as likely that there was no spiritual nature until it was born from man, a collective consciousness of man if you will.



Then you believe man invented spirituality... contradicting what you stated earlier.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... The paradox of creation... Physical nature cannot create itself. Even the chicken or egg dilemma has a truth... even if we don't know it. This idea that something doesn't exist because we don't use it or we're not yet around to use it... well, that's based on human concept of time.  You see silly boob stumbling around this.... how come it took billions of years?  But here's the thing.... TIME is a human element.... it means nothing to Spiritual Nature. It means everything to us... physics can't do anything without time. So trying to rationalize Spiritual Nature in context of time is totally pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot exist without physical nature. If there is no air, you can't have wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide any evidence that Spiritual Nature requires physical nature in order to exist?
> 
> And for the record... Yes, you CAN have wind with no air.... Solar winds.
Click to expand...

Whoa, your train just jumped the track, "provide evidence that spiritual natural requires physical nature to exist". I can provide as much as you can provide that spiritual nature exist without man. It's a philosophical discussion, and you play the burden of proof card?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the dilemma. You assume that spiritual nature made us aware of it, but I think it is just as likely that there was no spiritual nature until it was born from man, a collective consciousness of man if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you believe man invented spirituality... contradicting what you stated earlier.
Click to expand...

I never said "invented", as if man sat down and designed and constructed it. Those are your words. Did your mother invent you? I am suggesting that it occurred because of the nature of man.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> I never said "invented", as if man sat down and designed and constructed it. Those are your words. Did your mother invent you? I am suggesting that it occurred because of the nature of man.



Then what do you think created the universe, physical nature, matter, energy and time?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said "invented", as if man sat down and designed and constructed it. Those are your words. Did your mother invent you? I am suggesting that it occurred because of the nature of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you think created the universe, physical nature, matter, energy and time?
Click to expand...

Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.



Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...

---
Are you quacking "science" again?
LOL.
Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?

.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Are you quacking "science" again?
> LOL.
> Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No... I leave the quacking of science to you Scientismists.


----------



## sealybobo

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur, Without man to experience spirituality it essentially is non-existence.
Click to expand...

So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.

If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that spirit preceded man, I am offering that it didn't, or if it did it was essentially dormant or non-existent because it was not recognized or practiced/utilized, etc. If you own a car but there is no gas, owning the car is immaterial. It sits in the garage with no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe Spiritual Nature DID precede man. It preceded physical nature because it created physical nature. You're now sounding as if you think man invented spirituality.  That's an argument I reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously we can't know for sure, but I don't think spirituality can exist without man, and I don't think man created spirituality. It's a chicken or an egg dilemma. Christians believe in the father, son and Holy Ghost, they are all different, but with the same characteristics. Jesus can't exist without God/ Holy Spirit, but God/ Holy Spirit  is not God without Jesus, at least in the Christian view as I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... The paradox of creation... Physical nature cannot create itself. Even the chicken or egg dilemma has a truth... even if we don't know it. This idea that something doesn't exist because we don't use it or we're not yet around to use it... well, that's based on human concept of time.  You see silly boob stumbling around this.... how come it took billions of years?  But here's the thing.... TIME is a human element.... it means nothing to Spiritual Nature. It means everything to us... physics can't do anything without time. So trying to rationalize Spiritual Nature in context of time is totally pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot exist without physical nature. If there is no air, you can't have wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide any evidence that Spiritual Nature requires physical nature in order to exist?
> 
> And for the record... Yes, you CAN have wind with no air.... Solar winds.
Click to expand...


What evidence can you share to substantiate your claims to the supermagical spirit realms you claim are true.?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...

That's the whiskey talking.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said "invented", as if man sat down and designed and constructed it. Those are your words. Did your mother invent you? I am suggesting that it occurred because of the nature of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you think created the universe, physical nature, matter, energy and time?
Click to expand...

Unionized gods?


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I am not so quick to dismiss that spiritualality can not be born from man. Consider how much spirituality has changed over the centuries. Some cultures used to have a rain God, sun God etc. Man's perception of God, or spirituality, has changed, some may even say evolved with time. We have no history of spirituality before man, fossilized life doesn't suggest any, how could it? Without life there is no spirit. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark you can't see your reflection, so without man to express spirituality it can't be seen. It is indeed a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur, Without man to experience spirituality it essentially is non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.
> 
> If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.
Click to expand...


"Nothing about creation makes any sense."

It makes sense to me that a bunch of halfwits believe in it.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur, Without man to experience spirituality it essentially is non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.
> 
> If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nothing about creation makes any sense."
> 
> It makes sense to me that a bunch of halfwits believe in it.
Click to expand...

I talked to a kid at a funeral. A band nerd his parents have been taking him to church. Dads conservative moms liberal and he leans left. I asked him what he thinks about evolution and he didn't believe in it. When I asked why he said it contradicts what the bible says. Unfuckingbelievable


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...


So..you're saying your mind is made up because you THINK it was Spiritual Nature. If you're happy and it works, then that's great. I have already admitted I don't think there is an answer to the man/spirit paradox. That's why Its a paradox. But if you have found an answer that your happy with, then I have no problem with that. We both already acknowledged its impossible to prove. I assume it will always be unanswered for me, and I am ok with that, but I'll keep looking.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with that... The Darwinists claim man invented spirituality... but if that is so, it defies Darwinism itself. Behavioral characteristics within a species are not retained if they are not crucial to survival of the species. We know of nothing on this planet that has meaningless behavioral characteristics. Things always behave as they do for a reason.
> 
> We can go back to the earliest civilizations of man that we've ever discovered and we see evidence of human spirituality. Ritualistic burials with ceremonies using red ocher. This is humans practicing a spiritual belief. That has not changed... humans still practice spiritual beliefs. Have those beliefs evolved with man? Of course they have!
> 
> And I have never quite understood this "paradox" you mention about man being necessary to imagine spirituality for it to exist. Do you believe the planet Jupiter never did exist until someone saw it through a telescope? Was it not there before man came along and discovered it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Jupiter, haven't we already agreed that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are different? Why do you apply the same reasoning that if Jupiter was there before man saw it, spirituality was here before man. I reject your example, it's apple and oranges. I am not saying your point is  without merit, just hate the example. Spirituality could have been here before man, but since it is not physical, like Jupiter, it would have on effect without a spiritual creature i.e. Man. Jupiter was still exerting whatever influence it does on our solar system before it was seen.
> 
> I don't like "man invented spirituality", so we agree on that. I am just supposing, even if spirituality existed before man, it didn't matter, because it had no influence or effect before man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.  Spirituality had nothing to do before us.  Without us God is nothing.  Without us, who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur, Without man to experience spirituality it essentially is non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.
> 
> If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nothing about creation makes any sense."
> 
> It makes sense to me that a bunch of halfwits believe in it.
Click to expand...


I have found, that If I  ask enough questions, observe and listen, things that make sense become less valid, and things that seem absurd become more acceptable.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Are you quacking "science" again?
> LOL.
> Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I know, it's hard to come in at the middle and understand what's going on.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Are you quacking "science" again?
> LOL.
> Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I leave the quacking of science to you Scientismists.
Click to expand...


Why would you bother with him Boss?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said "invented", as if man sat down and designed and constructed it. Those are your words. Did your mother invent you? I am suggesting that it occurred because of the nature of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you think created the universe, physical nature, matter, energy and time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unionized gods?
Click to expand...


I don't understand the reference "unionized".


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.
> 
> If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.


*So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years?*

I answered this a couple of posts back and I've explained it to you before. Time is the fourth dimension of a physical universe, it has no significance to Spiritual Nature other than being a dimension created by it. Time matters to us because physics cannot happen without time. Spiritual Nature is timeless. 

"Testing" and "getting bored" and "deciding" are human things that humans do. Spiritual nature doesn't do human things. Your small and limited mind is having trouble comprehending that Spiritual Nature is not physical nature. I have no idea how to overcome your disability here. 

*If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. 
Thats where the evidence points.*

No, the evidence doesn't point to that at all. In fact, that idea contradicts the evidence. Plants are a life form that function, operate, reproduce and grow in a completely different way than fish, reptiles and mammals. Warm and cold blooded animals are nothing alike. All the various families of life are different in profoundly fundamental ways, yet they are all interdependent upon one another. 

And I don't understand why you keep limiting a creator to just one seed. If a creator could create one such magical seed, don't you think it could create 20? 50? 10,000?  Why would it be limited? 

*Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven.*

You mean "disproved" ....but why do you continue trying to do just that? And why do you continue trying to do that with science? You see, that's my main problem with you.... you'll openly admit this here but then the next post, you're contradicting your own statement.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.



Somebody insisting a fact is true when it is not proven is called delusional. Have it your way...


----------



## Boss

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you're saying your mind is made up because you THINK it was Spiritual Nature. If you're happy and it works, then that's great. I have already admitted I don't think there is an answer to the man/spirit paradox. That's why Its a paradox. But if you have found an answer that your happy with, then I have no problem with that. We both already acknowledged its impossible to prove. I assume it will always be unanswered for me, and I am ok with that, but I'll keep looking.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't THINK there is Spiritual Nature, I know there is. People call it faith but it's really not faith for me. I make a connection to Spiritual Nature daily... it's all around me all the time. I feel it, I am comforted by it, I get inspiration from it, I find solace in it, I gain strength from it. I don't feel that I am compelled to have to prove that to anyone, it's my experience. My views are totally rooted in my experience. 

I think Spiritual Nature MUST have created physical nature because it is impossible for physical nature to have created itself.  Logic dictates that. Nothing needs to explain creation of something spiritual because "creation" is a physical thing.... physical things require creation, spiritual things do not. Something timeless cannot be "made" as this would indicate a beginning. Spiritual Nature doesn't have a beginning or an ending. Time is a parameter of the physical, not the spiritual. 

We are physical beings. As such, we are handicapped by time. Nothing in our reality can happen without time passing. All physics requires time. This is why it's impossible to prove Spiritual Nature. Think of it like this... how possible would it be to prove gravity without time? We know gravity exists because we can drop a ball and as time passes, the ball falls to the ground proving gravity... but if there were no time, how could you prove this? You can't even drop the ball without time. So you see, proving things through physics requires time... it's the measuring of things across time. Spirituality is without time... timeless. 

The lack of our ability to be able to prove Spiritual Nature doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody insisting a fact is true when it is not proven is called delusional. Have it your way...
Click to expand...


So... people who claim that macroevolution is a fact and everything evolved from a single common cell are delusional!  Thank you!


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you're saying your mind is made up because you THINK it was Spiritual Nature. If you're happy and it works, then that's great. I have already admitted I don't think there is an answer to the man/spirit paradox. That's why Its a paradox. But if you have found an answer that your happy with, then I have no problem with that. We both already acknowledged its impossible to prove. I assume it will always be unanswered for me, and I am ok with that, but I'll keep looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't THINK there is Spiritual Nature, I know there is. People call it faith but it's really not faith for me. I make a connection to Spiritual Nature daily... it's all around me all the time. I feel it, I am comforted by it, I get inspiration from it, I find solace in it, I gain strength from it. I don't feel that I am compelled to have to prove that to anyone, it's my experience. My views are totally rooted in my experience.
> 
> I think Spiritual Nature MUST have created physical nature because it is impossible for physical nature to have created itself.  Logic dictates that. Nothing needs to explain creation of something spiritual because "creation" is a physical thing.... physical things require creation, spiritual things do not. Something timeless cannot be "made" as this would indicate a beginning. Spiritual Nature doesn't have a beginning or an ending. Time is a parameter of the physical, not the spiritual.
> 
> We are physical beings. As such, we are handicapped by time. Nothing in our reality can happen without time passing. All physics requires time. This is why it's impossible to prove Spiritual Nature. Think of it like this... how possible would it be to prove gravity without time? We know gravity exists because we can drop a ball and as time passes, the ball falls to the ground proving gravity... but if there were no time, how could you prove this? You can't even drop the ball without time. So you see, proving things through physics requires time... it's the measuring of things across time. Spirituality is without time... timeless.
> 
> The lack of our ability to be able to prove Spiritual Nature doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...


It's a personal thing, and it sounds like you are at peace, happy and well adjusted, that's a good thing. I am too. Nobody takes the same path thru the journey of life.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years? Did it test out trilobites first, get bored with them then try dinosaurs and then just 9000 years ago decide to make us intelligent? Nothing about creation makes any sense.
> 
> If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it. Thats where the evidence points. If you believe in one of the organized religion this means your religion is made up. But it does not disprove God. Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven. Men will always debate this.
> 
> 
> 
> *So what was spirituality doing for 13.9 billion years?*
> 
> I answered this a couple of posts back and I've explained it to you before. Time is the fourth dimension of a physical universe, it has no significance to Spiritual Nature other than being a dimension created by it. Time matters to us because physics cannot happen without time. Spiritual Nature is timeless.
> 
> "Testing" and "getting bored" and "deciding" are human things that humans do. Spiritual nature doesn't do human things. Your small and limited mind is having trouble comprehending that Spiritual Nature is not physical nature. I have no idea how to overcome your disability here.
> 
> *If there is a creator he probably planted one seed and all life came from it.
> Thats where the evidence points.*
> 
> No, the evidence doesn't point to that at all. In fact, that idea contradicts the evidence. Plants are a life form that function, operate, reproduce and grow in a completely different way than fish, reptiles and mammals. Warm and cold blooded animals are nothing alike. All the various families of life are different in profoundly fundamental ways, yet they are all interdependent upon one another.
> 
> And I don't understand why you keep limiting a creator to just one seed. If a creator could create one such magical seed, don't you think it could create 20? 50? 10,000?  Why would it be limited?
> 
> *Unfortunately god is a hypothesis that can't be disproven.*
> 
> You mean "disproved" ....but why do you continue trying to do just that? And why do you continue trying to do that with science? You see, that's my main problem with you.... you'll openly admit this here but then the next post, you're contradicting your own statement.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on so many levels but that's OK. We're all guessing here.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody insisting a fact is true when it is not proven is called delusional. Have it your way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... people who claim that macroevolution is a fact and everything evolved from a single common cell are delusional!  Thank you!
Click to expand...

Are you sure? That's not science. You've stopped looking


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you're saying your mind is made up because you THINK it was Spiritual Nature. If you're happy and it works, then that's great. I have already admitted I don't think there is an answer to the man/spirit paradox. That's why Its a paradox. But if you have found an answer that your happy with, then I have no problem with that. We both already acknowledged its impossible to prove. I assume it will always be unanswered for me, and I am ok with that, but I'll keep looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't THINK there is Spiritual Nature, I know there is. People call it faith but it's really not faith for me. I make a connection to Spiritual Nature daily... it's all around me all the time. I feel it, I am comforted by it, I get inspiration from it, I find solace in it, I gain strength from it. I don't feel that I am compelled to have to prove that to anyone, it's my experience. My views are totally rooted in my experience.
> 
> I think Spiritual Nature MUST have created physical nature because it is impossible for physical nature to have created itself.  Logic dictates that. Nothing needs to explain creation of something spiritual because "creation" is a physical thing.... physical things require creation, spiritual things do not. Something timeless cannot be "made" as this would indicate a beginning. Spiritual Nature doesn't have a beginning or an ending. Time is a parameter of the physical, not the spiritual.
> 
> We are physical beings. As such, we are handicapped by time. Nothing in our reality can happen without time passing. All physics requires time. This is why it's impossible to prove Spiritual Nature. Think of it like this... how possible would it be to prove gravity without time? We know gravity exists because we can drop a ball and as time passes, the ball falls to the ground proving gravity... but if there were no time, how could you prove this? You can't even drop the ball without time. So you see, proving things through physics requires time... it's the measuring of things across time. Spirituality is without time... timeless.
> 
> The lack of our ability to be able to prove Spiritual Nature doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...

And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side



No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true. 

What if I were running around here saying "God is true and science is on my side!"? What would be your response? All you can do is tell me that science isn't on my side and doesn't prove God. I can keep repeating myself and you can keep repeating yourself... where does that get us? 

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. If you think science supports macroevolution, you have to submit the evidence supporting that. It is not up to me to disprove your statement.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> What if I were running around here saying "God is true and science is on my side!"? What would be your response? All you can do is tell me that science isn't on my side and doesn't prove God. I can keep repeating myself and you can keep repeating yourself... where does that get us?
> 
> The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. If you think science supports macroevolution, you have to submit the evidence supporting that. It is not up to me to disprove your statement.
Click to expand...

What a hypocrite.  Do you even see the spin you produce?  It's so funny.  Evolution is not a fact but you KNOW your god is real?  You make me laugh.


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
Click to expand...

---
Quacking science once again?
The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
The T in TOE represents *theory*.

_"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
.


----------



## PK1

BuckToothMoron said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you quacking "science" again?
> LOL.
> Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it's hard to come in at the middle and understand what's going on.
Click to expand...

---
Understand? Beginning, middle, or end, when a scientist-pretender concludes _"it was Spiritual Nature_", we know we smell delusional thinking.
.


----------



## bodecea

TheGreatKing said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, attributing 'creation' to 'God' in such a simplistic fashion is tantamount to accusing 'God' of being idiotic and/or perverse with all the mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. The sick calls the doctor sick. TOE is simplistic and stupid and crazy all at the same time. Only because of the pressure of the devil people have accepted this stupid lie. To deny this theory does not need brains, it needs power. That I have got.
Click to expand...

Actually, the theory of evolution isn't simple...but I find that those who wish to dismiss it are used to thinking in simplistic terms.


----------



## sealybobo

bodecea said:


> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, attributing 'creation' to 'God' in such a simplistic fashion is tantamount to accusing 'God' of being idiotic and/or perverse with all the mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. The sick calls the doctor sick. TOE is simplistic and stupid and crazy all at the same time. Only because of the pressure of the devil people have accepted this stupid lie. To deny this theory does not need brains, it needs power. That I have got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the theory of evolution isn't simple...but I find that those who wish to dismiss it are used to thinking in simplistic terms.
Click to expand...


We can't prove when/where/how/why life started on earth so they think that means their hypothesis has just as much credibility as our scientific theory.  That's a joke.  Scientists actually call evolution a scientific fact.  That's how sure they are.  Too much evidence to have doubt, unless you are a religious nut.  

It's insane to go back as far as we can, with everything we know, and everything we don't know, and at the last second try to toss a god who intelligently created us 10,000 years ago.  It makes absolutely no sense other than we can't imagine that this all happened "by chance".  I think there are infinite universes and they are born and die all the time.  Each of them has or had or will have life in them.  Why?  Maybe there is no why.  It is what it is.  But theists couldn't be happy not knowing, so they made up several stories that god visited.  How many liars who claim to have seen this god have we heard from in our lifetimes?  It is so obvious god is a lie.  Now I don't think Boss is lying.  I think he is lying to himself.  He believes what he wants to believe.  That's not science.  Doesn't matter what you want.

See, that's the difference between me and boss.  I don't want there to be evolution.  I don't want there to be no god.  What I want and what I believe are two different things.  Boss wants there to be a god, so no evidence is necessary.  I need there to be evidence for evolution and there is tons of it.  That's why I believe it.  But I'm open to other possibilities.  Just not any that require a leap of faith and with zero proof.  

Again, why did Moses have to lie?  Why did Christians have to make up a messiah story?  Why did Mohammad have to lie?  Why did Joseph Smith lie?  And why did 14.8 million Mormon idiots fall for it?


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's what you and I are trying to figure out, it's a question with no answer, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... YOU haven't figured it out. I think it was Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you quacking "science" again?
> LOL.
> Or, is "_spiritual nature" _your attempt at philosophy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it's hard to come in at the middle and understand what's going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Understand? Beginning, middle, or end, when a scientist-pretender concludes _"it was Spiritual Nature_", we know we smell delusional thinking.
> .
Click to expand...

Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "*Scientific* understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.


----------



## SixFoot




----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Quacking science once again?
> The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
> TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
> The T in TOE represents *theory*.
> 
> _"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
> .
Click to expand...


Not it's not. Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.  

Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value. 
TOE explains common ancestry... blah blah blah...
The Bible, Torah, Koran... explains spiritual nature!  So fucking what? 

What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. You think that gives you some kind of right to prance around claiming science is on your side but science doesn't take sides. You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Quacking science once again?
> The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
> TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
> The T in TOE represents *theory*.
> 
> _"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it's not. Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.
> 
> Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value.
> TOE explains common ancestry... blah blah blah...
> The Bible, Torah, Koran... explains spiritual nature!  So fucking what?
> 
> What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. You think that gives you some kind of right to prance around claiming science is on your side but science doesn't take sides. You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.
Click to expand...

Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.

It don't. Sorry


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, attributing 'creation' to 'God' in such a simplistic fashion is tantamount to accusing 'God' of being idiotic and/or perverse with all the mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. The sick calls the doctor sick. TOE is simplistic and stupid and crazy all at the same time. Only because of the pressure of the devil people have accepted this stupid lie. To deny this theory does not need brains, it needs power. That I have got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the theory of evolution isn't simple...but I find that those who wish to dismiss it are used to thinking in simplistic terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't prove when/where/how/why life started on earth so they think that means their hypothesis has just as much credibility as our scientific theory.  That's a joke.  Scientists actually call evolution a scientific fact.  That's how sure they are.  Too much evidence to have doubt, unless you are a religious nut.
> 
> It's insane to go back as far as we can, with everything we know, and everything we don't know, and at the last second try to toss a god who intelligently created us 10,000 years ago.  It makes absolutely no sense other than we can't imagine that this all happened "by chance".  I think there are infinite universes and they are born and die all the time.  Each of them has or had or will have life in them.  Why?  Maybe there is no why.  It is what it is.  But theists couldn't be happy not knowing, so they made up several stories that god visited.  How many liars who claim to have seen this god have we heard from in our lifetimes?  It is so obvious god is a lie.  Now I don't think Boss is lying.  I think he is lying to himself.  He believes what he wants to believe.  That's not science.  Doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> See, that's the difference between me and boss.  I don't want there to be evolution.  I don't want there to be no god.  What I want and what I believe are two different things.  Boss wants there to be a god, so no evidence is necessary.  I need there to be evidence for evolution and there is tons of it.  That's why I believe it.  But I'm open to other possibilities.  Just not any that require a leap of faith and with zero proof.
> 
> Again, why did Moses have to lie?  Why did Christians have to make up a messiah story?  Why did Mohammad have to lie?  Why did Joseph Smith lie?  And why did 14.8 million Mormon idiots fall for it?
Click to expand...

I just re read my post. I wish I could like my own post


----------



## sealybobo

T


Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Quacking science once again?
> The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
> TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
> The T in TOE represents *theory*.
> 
> _"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it's not. Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.
> 
> Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value.
> TOE explains common ancestry... blah blah blah...
> The Bible, Torah, Koran... explains spiritual nature!  So fucking what?
> 
> What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. You think that gives you some kind of right to prance around claiming science is on your side but science doesn't take sides. You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.
Click to expand...

It is true a lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it and no matter how much good you think comes from the lie.

I think the truth is better.

You know what a room of scientists say about God? Nothing. It's a silly notion that has no place in a science room.

Oh and no, Hitler isn't burning in hell no matter how much we hope he is.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.
> 
> It don't. Sorry



Sure it does! I'm just going to start repeating it over and over... 
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact! 
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact! 
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact! 

How does that feel? What are you gonna say about it smart guy? 

See I can do the same thing as you... You don't want to back your claims up, you just want to sit here day in and day out and demagogue the thread with the same old tired rant. Rinse and repeat, day after fucking day... over and over and over again. You have not made your case, you can't make your case and you're not ever going to make your case.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.
> 
> It don't. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does! I'm just going to start repeating it over and over...
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> 
> How does that feel? What are you gonna say about it smart guy?
> 
> See I can do the same thing as you... You don't want to back your claims up, you just want to sit here day in and day out and demagogue the thread with the same old tired rant. Rinse and repeat, day after fucking day... over and over and over again. You have not made your case, you can't make your case and you're not ever going to make your case.
Click to expand...

We've taken this as far as we can boss.  You need to move on now.  I've figured out your agenda.  It takes days of discussion to figure out your actual agenda.  Sorry buddy but no way your hypothesis carries the same weight as evolution.

You are a dying breed

In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

But it will be slow death because Muslims are about 500 years behind us.  Plus look how stupid Mormons are.  They are even dumber than Christians.  So I don't suspect creationists to completely go away anytime soon, especially in the USA where you are free to be whatever stupid you want to be.

Still that 42% is too high.  42% of Americans are super dummies.  That many people shouldn't be that stupid.  No wonder the rich control the masses like sheep.  No surprise.  

I talked to a high school kid the other day, smart in every way except science.  He doesn't believe in evolution because it conflicts with his bible.  Sounds like the stupid fucking muslims in the middle east.  And evolution even offends generic god thumpers like you.  Amazing.  Of all the people I would have said you would believe in evolution boss.  That's how the spiritual being did it.  It planted the seed and that seed flourished.  

Oh and don't worry, your theory will evolve and in a few years you'll be excepting my theory of god planting one seed and we are all related.  I don't know why that offends you so much.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.
> 
> It don't. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does! I'm just going to start repeating it over and over...
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> 
> How does that feel? What are you gonna say about it smart guy?
> 
> See I can do the same thing as you... You don't want to back your claims up, you just want to sit here day in and day out and demagogue the thread with the same old tired rant. Rinse and repeat, day after fucking day... over and over and over again. You have not made your case, you can't make your case and you're not ever going to make your case.
Click to expand...


You're trying to box me but the rules are I can only hit your shadow but you can hit me.  That's your god.  Your shadow!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We've taken this as far as we can boss.  You need to move on now.



No fucker... YOU need to move on now! Fuck you... you don't tell me what to do. 



> I've figured out your agenda.  It takes days of discussion to figure out your actual agenda.  Sorry buddy but no way your hypothesis carries the same weight as evolution.



Sure it does... it does because I fucking SAY it does, smart ass!  I don't have to back anything up here... just keep popping off my mouth like a big goddamn smart ass, appealing to popularity and ridicule like YOU!  Wrap it all up by proclaiming Science backs up my opinion and proves God, everybody agrees with me and you're an idiot.

If you don't like it, tough shit... I'll be glad to mindlessly repeat it over and over for days and days in every fucking thread you're in. I don't need to back anything up, I don't need to make my case or present any evidence... I can run find some links to creationist websites and just keep on repeating my claims as facts... JUST LIKE YOU!  


> You are a dying breed
> 
> In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins



MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims. 

Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know. 



> Plus look how stupid Mormons are.  They are even dumber than Christians.  So I don't suspect creationists to completely go away anytime soon, especially in the USA where you are free to be whatever stupid you want to be.



MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims. 

It's really all you have, isn't it? Appeal to popularity... appeal to ridicule... science on your side... rinse and repeat!  Over and fucking over. 

Get lost, loser.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:
			
		

> ......MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
> Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
> MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.


There's Overwhelming Evidence for evolution
Short list:

1. The Fossil Record is Mind-blowingly clear and gets filled in more every year with transitional species as ONLY evolution would predict.
Any ONE of Millions of fossils found in the wrong strata Could have disproved evo.
Guess what? ODDS please?
1a. The only possible kweationist klown explanation for this is "god is trying to fool us/test our faith by planting evidence of evo."

2. On your own body you have useLess anatomical Remnants like the Coccyx/old Tail, Wisdom Teeth, appendix.

3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
(Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
Odds if it was false please?

+​


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quacking science once again?
> The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
> TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
> The T in TOE represents *theory*.
> 
> _"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.
> 
> Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value.
> ...
> What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. ...
> You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.
Click to expand...

---
*Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.
.


----------



## PK1

sealybobo said:


> biologist Richard Lenski says, "*Scientific* understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.


---
Yes, unlike religion or "spiritual" views, science is about objective, observable facts and theories based on them.
This is a good overview for the general reader on this fact/theory discussion:

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"*Fact*" is commonly used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "*theory*" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes._
.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> *Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
> If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.



Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual.  I do not have any need to prove spiritual nature to you or anyone but myself. It has been proven to myself. I don't require your validation or expect you to believe me. I have never claimed I could prove it scientifically or otherwise. 

If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. There is evidence for some microevoultion... that is exploited and used to prop up a faith-based belief in macroevolution. 

Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity. If you believe consensus proves things, you are not practicing science, you're practicing faith. You are actually doing what science was invented to challenge.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
> Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
> MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> There's Overwhelming Evidence for evolution
Click to expand...


Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence. 



> 1. The Fossil Record is Mind-blowingly clear and gets filled in more every year with transitional species as ONLY evolution would predict.
> Any ONE of Millions of fossils found in the wrong strata Could have disproved evo.
> Guess what? ODDS please?
> 1a. The only possible kweationist klown explanation for this is "god is trying to fool us/test our faith by planting evidence of evo."



The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument. 



> 2. On your own body you have useLess anatomical Remnants like the Coccyx/old Tail, Wisdom Teeth, appendix.



Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief. 

The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump. 

Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae. 



> 3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
> (Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
> Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
> Odds if it was false please?
> 
> +



DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with. 

That fact is proven in the 100 year-old fruit fly experiments where billions of generations of fruit flies were totally unable to produce not one single new amino acid or enzyme. Even IF they had been successful in producing something new, the odds of random mutations causing the creation of the complete set of enzymes needed for a new genera is calculated at around 10^180  ...there are only about 10^50 atoms in the entire universe. In other words, it defies mathematical odds.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
> Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
> MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> There's Overwhelming Evidence for evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Fossil Record is Mind-blowingly clear and gets filled in more every year with transitional species as ONLY evolution would predict.
> Any ONE of Millions of fossils found in the wrong strata Could have disproved evo.
> Guess what? ODDS please?
> 1a. The only possible kweationist klown explanation for this is "god is trying to fool us/test our faith by planting evidence of evo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. On your own body you have useLess anatomical Remnants like the Coccyx/old Tail, Wisdom Teeth, appendix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief.
> 
> The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump.
> 
> Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
> (Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
> Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
> Odds if it was false please?
> 
> +
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with.
> 
> That fact is proven in the 100 year-old fruit fly experiments where billions of generations of fruit flies were totally unable to produce not one single new amino acid or enzyme. Even IF they had been successful in producing something new, the odds of random mutations causing the creation of the complete set of enzymes needed for a new genera is calculated at around 10^180  ...there are only about 10^50 atoms in the entire universe. In other words, it defies mathematical odds.
Click to expand...


How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:
			
		

> Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence.


There is No micro and macro, there is only "Evolution" which over time increases genetic distance.
Periodically resulting in New subspecies, then new species, etc.
One can see this even within our own Homo Genus, and immediately with-out it in our primate relatives.



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument.


False.
"Suddenly" is in GEOLOGIC time, NOT "suddenly" as in 1 generation/Kweationism/godDidIt.
(You gotta love the Necessary Disingenuity of kweationist klowns.)
And that is what evolution would predict, now tweaked with 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
A "sudden" change in (ie, mini Ice age/Whole Ice Age from, ie, asteroid hit or mega-Volcano) changes the climate and species either adapt or go extinct. Or more gradual ones of course.
Environment dictates what 'fittest' is and flora/fauna adjust/adapt or go extinct.

A shame about god/dog letting all those Imperfect 'kweations' go extinct. No?



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief.The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump. Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae.


I didn't say Humans once had a tail, I said our evolutionary Ancestors did.
The Coccyx is NOT Crucial. LIE.

Here ya go Goofy:"

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*

Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

*Confirmation:*
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* (Notes). *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [footnotes]
*
Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
*
Yet another human Vestigial structure is the Coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​


			
				abu afak said:
			
		

> 3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
> (Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
> Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
> Odds if it was false please?





			
				Boss said:
			
		

> DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with...


DNA of course IS a friend of Evo, or Obviously it would all be over and you BS god could have filled Noah's ark with all your favorite Biblical Goofball animals/"Kinds".

Ironically, [perhaps] the world's foremost expert in speciation/genetics/Evolution (and Critic of Kwazy Kweationism) is a Fruit Fly specialist!
Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He is also the author of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
He runs the terrific and very active blog * Why Evolution Is True*
LOL
`


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.



Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> There is No micro and macro, there is only "Evolution" which over time increases genetic distance.



Well the only evolution is small changes within a genus taxon to produce new species within the same genera. So you are right.. there is only ONE kind of evolution and that is it. The kind of evolution where fish become dogs and whales walk on land... that's a fairy tale not supported by science.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> I didn't say Humans once had a tail, I said our evolutionary Ancestors did.
> The Coccyx is NOT Crucial. LIE.



The only evolutionary ancestor homo sapiens have is homo erectus. We're all part of the genus _Homo_. And yes... the coccyx, as I stated, is the anchor point for numerous muscles and ligaments in the pelvic floor, part of the tripod that enables us to sit and also, serves to position our attached anus in the proper position so we can shit. I think that is pretty damn crucial.


----------



## Boss

As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> DNA of course IS a friend of Evo, or Obviously it would all be over and you BS god could have filled Noah's ark with all your favorite Biblical Goofball animals/"Kinds".
> 
> Ironically, [perhaps] the world's foremost expert in speciation/genetics/Evolution (and Critic of Kwazy Kweationism) is a Fruit Fly specialist!
> Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> He is also the author of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
> He runs the terrific and very active blog * Why Evolution Is True*
> LOL



Appeal to ridicule is not acceptable science. Sorry. 

And again... The only kind of evolution there is any evidence for is small adaptive changes withing a genera. There has never been any evidence to support any other kind of evolution.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
Click to expand...


I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
Click to expand...

*If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies. 

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief. 

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
Click to expand...


You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
Click to expand...


Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this... 

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans. 

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
Click to expand...

You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.


You don't understand the damage you do to your attempt at argument when you launch into screeching tirades about Atheist activism websites. Talk origins is a valuable source of science compilation. A lot of the data refutes conjecture and speculation to include your claims to magical spirit realms but that's not the fault of science. Fear, superstition and ignorance are not virtues.

If you were the least bit honest, you would simply acknowledge your religious fundamentalism and not use your fundamentalist beliefs to vilify science.

If you choose to vilify peer reviewed science as "Bullshit", you're welcome to. Just bear in mind that it does presume an agenda on your part.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've taken this as far as we can boss.  You need to move on now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fucker... YOU need to move on now! Fuck you... you don't tell me what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've figured out your agenda.  It takes days of discussion to figure out your actual agenda.  Sorry buddy but no way your hypothesis carries the same weight as evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does... it does because I fucking SAY it does, smart ass!  I don't have to back anything up here... just keep popping off my mouth like a big goddamn smart ass, appealing to popularity and ridicule like YOU!  Wrap it all up by proclaiming Science backs up my opinion and proves God, everybody agrees with me and you're an idiot.
> 
> If you don't like it, tough shit... I'll be glad to mindlessly repeat it over and over for days and days in every fucking thread you're in. I don't need to back anything up, I don't need to make my case or present any evidence... I can run find some links to creationist websites and just keep on repeating my claims as facts... JUST LIKE YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dying breed
> 
> In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
> 
> Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus look how stupid Mormons are.  They are even dumber than Christians.  So I don't suspect creationists to completely go away anytime soon, especially in the USA where you are free to be whatever stupid you want to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.
> 
> It's really all you have, isn't it? Appeal to popularity... appeal to ridicule... science on your side... rinse and repeat!  Over and fucking over.
> 
> Get lost, loser.
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle. Lol.

I decided I do believe in your spirit God. But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth. What evidence do I have? Absolutely none. Same as you. So my theory is just as valad as yours. Both based on wild speculation and hunches.


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side
> 
> 
> 
> No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quacking science once again?
> The scientific consensus *IS* on his side.
> TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
> The T in TOE represents *theory*.
> 
> _"Spiritual nature"_ is a *fantasy*, in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.
> 
> Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value.
> ...
> What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. ...
> You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> *Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
> If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.
> .
Click to expand...

Hey boss, you're dumb as fuck. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.
Click to expand...

Boss is so obvious even though he tries to come off as intelligent and not a Christian. Fucking judas


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.


What evidence do you have against macro evolution?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What evidence do you have against macro evolution?



You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.



It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human. 

I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have against macro evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?
Click to expand...

Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human.
> 
> I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.
Click to expand...

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I don't know how I ended up with such a perfect life. It's too perfect to have all happened by chance. It must be God likes me. Since I don't know I'm just going to assume it was a God rather than admit I don't know.

Do you need evidence no God is needed to make a human? Just look at our parents. Hell, anyone can make a human.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have against macro evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.
Click to expand...

Next boss and I are going to argue if the streets in heaven are really gold. Stay tuned.

And he's so sure they are gold he's going to get mad that we aren't taking him seriously or mock him. There comes a point where ignorance needs mocking.

A good psychiatrist tells his patience they're nuts. And if they don't hear it the first or five hundred times, repeat


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human.
> 
> I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.
Click to expand...


You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity. Some day soon 50% won't believe and how long it will take to wake the other 50% up? I'm not talking about you old timer. You'll be dead soon. The next generation will be a lot less gullible than you


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have against macro evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.
Click to expand...

He doesn't know the difference between faith based beliefs and fact based.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts. He's basically a juror on the oj Simpson trial. If he finds even one question that can't be answered, that makes science no better than his delusions. It's sad and frustrating. I see all bosses bad evidence and he doesn't see it as bad evidence. Never will. Luckily he has zero followers


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.



I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual. 



sealybobo said:


> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.



I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method. 



sealybobo said:


> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.



You haven't presented any facts!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't presented any facts!
Click to expand...

Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't presented any facts!
Click to expand...

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.
3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.  
Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.


----------



## rdean

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.


I suspect Republicans hatch.  They can't possibly be "born".  Not again.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't presented any facts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.
Click to expand...

This is just humans hoping they are more than just another animal. But then again this spirit made aids polio lice ants Hitler pigs and the shit that comes out of cows so even if there is a creator, how does that prove anything else boss hypothesizes about it?

I love it when I suggest to boss that maybe a creator planted one seed and all life is related and he says he "believes" that its more likely it planted many seeds, even though evolution and God could call a truce if he just accepted common decent. The next generation of bosses will accept macro evolution but that won't stop them from making all of bosses other bad arguments


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> 1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.



Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants. 



> 2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.


YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God."  ...It's not my place to present evidence. 



> 3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.



It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality. 



> Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.



That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2. 

Come on man.... think.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God."  ...It's not my place to present evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.
> 
> Come on man.... think.
Click to expand...

I get it now. Before you were even the spirm in your dad's balls you were living in the spirit world. But then physical made spiritual.

And before the universe math existed but not physically. It only existed spiritually until someone wrote 1+1=2.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God."  ...It's not my place to present evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.
> 
> Come on man.... think.
Click to expand...


*God created/caused the universe*.

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?  It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.  The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.  In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## sealybobo

Cosmogony is the scientific study of the origins of the universe.  When you look up the word, you find this:  This article is about scientific theories of the origin of the universe. For non-scientific explanations, see Creation myth


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
> If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual.  ...
> 
> If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
> Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.
Click to expand...

---
Exactly; _"Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science"  ..._
because *our perceptions are material*.
Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?

Faith in macroevolution represents *theory*, and is based on phylogenetic *evidence* of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best *explanation* for our biological origins.
However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
I would much rather place my *trust* in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
.


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
> If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual.  ...
> 
> If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
> Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Exactly; _"Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science"  ..._
> because *our perceptions are material*.
> Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
> So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?
> 
> Faith in macroevolution represents *theory*, and is based on phylogenetic *evidence* of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best *explanation* for our biological origins.
> However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
> Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
> I would much rather place my *trust* in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
> If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

*Lots of people believe in a god*.

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God."  ...It's not my place to present evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.
> 
> Come on man.... think.
Click to expand...

*Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.*

God of the gaps [2]. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

See also: The God of the Gaps – Neil deGrasse Tyson (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Skewed views of science, The faith cake (a must watch),Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Critical Thinking,Magical Thinking, Self-Deception Open-Mindedness (a must watch).

_“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins

_“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't presented any facts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.
Click to expand...

But *Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.*

Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

_“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”_ – Christopher Hitchens


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence?  Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't presented any facts!
Click to expand...

*Materialism/Evidentialism/Science cannot recognize supernatural phenomena.*

Distortion of reality. Lack of Critical thinking. The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan. What is real? What constitutes knowledge? Are all supernatural claims implicitly true? Why/Why not?

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the _physical universe_, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

See also: Skewed views of science (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan (a must read), Delusion, Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

_“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.
> 
> It don't. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does! I'm just going to start repeating it over and over...
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me!  You're an idiot!  It's a proven scientific fact!
> 
> How does that feel? What are you gonna say about it smart guy?
> 
> See I can do the same thing as you... You don't want to back your claims up, you just want to sit here day in and day out and demagogue the thread with the same old tired rant. Rinse and repeat, day after fucking day... over and over and over again. You have not made your case, you can't make your case and you're not ever going to make your case.
Click to expand...

*I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.*

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty(a must watch).

_“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan

_“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

How much evidence does Boss need?

*There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.*

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_and _definitions of_ a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
Click to expand...


You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.


----------



## sealybobo

Another one of Boss' bad arguments debunked.

1.  *Complexity/Order proves god exists.*

The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defectsconsistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneousself-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation >Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

_“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.”_ – Lawrence Krauss

_“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”_ – Charles Darwin


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
Click to expand...



Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.


----------



## sealybobo

And I know Boss talks to this god so

1.  *I feel a personal relationship with god OR I experienced god.*

Argument from personal experience.  A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.  Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.  Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called ‘revelations’ never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.  Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation.   The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Faith*, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is *not applicable in science*.
> If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but "_spiritual nature_" ain't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual.  ...
> 
> If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
> Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Exactly; _"Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science"  ..._
> because *our perceptions are material*.
> Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
> So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?
> 
> Faith in macroevolution represents *theory*, and is based on phylogenetic *evidence* of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best *explanation* for our biological origins.
> However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
> Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
> I would much rather place my *trust* in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
> If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
> .
Click to expand...


Lot's of things exist that we can't perceive with our physical senses. Probably the most intriguing is dark energy and dark matter which make up 96% of our universe. Our perception is so limited we can only interact with 4% of what's there. So you can see where it's silly to conclude something doesn't exist because we lack perception to sense it physically.

What is the "best explanation" is not always the correct explanation. Science and the scientific method doesn't state that our best explanations are the truth and fact. It doesn't state that the best explanation can be the truth unless and until another better explanation comes along. "Phylogenetic evidence of common ancestry" is essentially the same as saying "scriptural evidence of a higher power." Phylogenetics is our speculation on how things evolved. So you are saying the evidence supporting your theory is the charts we created to explain how we supposedly evolved. 

There is as much physical evidence for abiogenesis as there is for macro-evolution. Both remain unproved theories. Some evolution happens (micro) and we have evidence to support that. We theorize why, it's because the organism attempts to adapt to conditions more suitable to survive. In no way does that explain a theory of macro-evolution. 

Finally, you speak of terminal disease, spiritual faith and medical experts.... there is compelling evidence for spiritual healing. Cancer Treatment Centers of America features spiritual medicine as a part of their program. There are countless examples of people overcoming terminal illnesses through prayer and faith. These are always dismissed as anomalies and flukes but they do happen all the time.


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

_If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._


----------



## Boss

Silly boob... are you going to copy and paste the entirety of the Talkingorigins.org website here? Can't get enough people to go to your propaganda links so you bring the links to them, eh? All you're doing is proving my point that you don't have an argument. If you had one, you'd present it rather than flood the board with propaganda.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._



So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
Click to expand...


Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Silly boob... are you going to copy and paste the entirety of the Talkingorigins.org website here? Can't get enough people to go to your propaganda links so you bring the links to them, eh? All you're doing is proving my point that you don't have an argument. If you had one, you'd present it rather than flood the board with propaganda.


I re read through the site AGAIN for the 100th time and each of these points perfectly explains why you are wrong, on every point you make.  So why keep repeating it.  I think it's cool that there is a fucking website that lays out 46 reasons why there is no god.  

Why there is no god
Every argument you make, the site debunks


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
Click to expand...

1 prayer out of 1000 answered?  Pathetic.


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

_“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
Click to expand...


Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?
Click to expand...


_ “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”_– Douglas Adams


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?
Click to expand...

1.  Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

Science


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?
Click to expand...


Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to _consider_ new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief – pending further evidence – does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.


----------



## sealybobo

*Why can’t atheists just leave theists alone?  *


See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.

§  For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.

§  Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions.

§  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

§  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

§  Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history.


----------



## sealybobo

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

_ “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> _If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?
> 
> It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?
Click to expand...

I think that's why guys like Neil Degrass Tyson don't spend any time debating or discussing god.  Your god is pointless.  It does nothing for anyone other than in your head.  Delusional.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
Click to expand...


Those who cannot imagine life without a diety creator have a difficult time working an atheist into their image of what life as a human being is.  Since everything they know must pass through their filter the idea of someone rejecting the very premise they live by is unacceptable. This breeds visions of devils and anti-christs as the only possible reason that an atheist can exist.  

When one lives in a fairy tale reality is not a necessary component.


----------



## HUGGY

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is more than 95%.  Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly.  The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes.  If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.
> 
> Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival.  What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons?  If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.  

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
Click to expand...

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

_ “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> _ “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen
Click to expand...


Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement.  LOL.  Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.  

The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world.  It isn't easy believing in nonsense.  Defending "faith" must be nerve racking.  At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> _ “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement.  LOL.  Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.
> 
> The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world.  It isn't easy believing in nonsense.  Defending "faith" must be nerve racking.  At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.
Click to expand...

It is very frustrating to me that they can be presented with so much "evidence" and knowledge and explanations regarding exactly when how and why we came up with the god hypothesis, and even still we are such a young new uneducated and un evolved species in the very beginning of our enlightenment that we are still clinging to this god hypothesis.

I can totally understand how and why we were clueless about this before the internet but anyone with a brain and a keyboard can now go figure out that all religions and GOD himself are made up.

At this point they don't care if it "might" be made up.  Hell, Boss even knows that Moses Mohammad Mary and Joseph Smith lied.  He KNOWS the stories are lies.  Yet still he believes the main premise of the story.  The main character isn't real Boss!  Wake the fuck up.  Stop being stupid.

They don't care.  It makes them feel better to go along with the lie rather than challenge it.


----------



## sealybobo

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> _ “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement.  LOL.  Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.
> 
> The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world.  It isn't easy believing in nonsense.  Defending "faith" must be nerve racking.  At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.
Click to expand...

Apologists frequently assert that *atheism is a religion*. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of _atheism_ and _religion_ are being used. The argument is most effectively made against strong atheism, in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions. Further muddying the issue is the purely legal notion that, for the purposes of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, atheism should be considered a form of religion worthy of protection.


----------



## sealybobo

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## Boss

*Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something...
Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.*

I love to see you admit your voluntary ignorance like that... saves me the trouble of having to point it out... I know that can be embarrassing for you, so it's really best this way.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing.



Exactly... so it's curious as to how you geniuses can assume that's why we "invented" it?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> *Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being...*



Wait... that is YOUR theory!  YOU are the ones who have no physical explanation that conforms to physical nature. At some point, matter which was inorganic decided to become organic.... some magical power of something supernatural happened and *poof* ...life was born. You say it might have been a chemical reaction but you can't repeat such a reaction in a lab... so again, it's apparently some supernatural kind of chemical reaction from magical powers. And once it managed to magically *poof* life into existence, it defied all of biological understanding and magically started creating trillions of different but interconnected life forms. Your physics can't seem to explain how this happened so it must have been some supernatural powers. 

I believe in spiritual nature which is as natural to humans as anything.


----------



## Wyatt earp

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
Click to expand...



You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.




Yup, you are trying to convert believers into your religion of Atheism...


No thanks, Jesus died for my sins and a born again Christian.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.
> 
> If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.
> 
> Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.
Click to expand...



Newberg and his late partner Eugene D'Aquili mapped various parts of the brain showing activation in specific areas when people were undergoing certain religious rituals or experiences, such as a shaman being in a trance or a Buddhist entering a mystical state. Regardless of the religion, the brain function was the same. Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in _The Electric Horseman_.

This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't. Your brain is doing its best to understand the world and construct beliefs to understand it, and from an epistemological perspective there is no fundamental difference."

So, whether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don't require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious.

Where Newberg and I differ is whether or not you call that universal leaning a religion when it is expressed as atheism. Newberg holds that if by religion you mean a system centered around a belief in a supernatural God, then atheism does not qualify. I contend that if your system is about God—or about the non-existence of God—God is still at the center of the argument's "aboutness." In the spirit of that "off is a TV channel" comment above: God is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he's dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there's a TV. 

This also helps explain why the argument that libertarianism or the devout love of hockey are also religions fails. Libertarianism is about liberty and hockey is about mullets and pucks. *Atheism, on the other hand, is about God and proving such an overpostulated supernatural being does not exist, Atheism is a religion.


.*


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
Click to expand...



Is Atheism a religion? - CMI Mobile

Athheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. *Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.*

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the _Seven Dimensions of Religion_, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.*
> 
> Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.
> 
> The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know.  I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right?  It's faith-based belief.
> 
> And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
Click to expand...




*Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.*

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time. 

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one. 

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.


----------



## HUGGY

bear513 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have mixed feelings challenging your posts.  You are not especially gifted in processing information and draw conclusions below the level of a young child.  I think it is likely that you are retarded.  That gives me pause as I don't stoop to a level where I appear to be unkind and unnecessarily rude.  

There is no such thing as an atheist's bible.  Atheists don't gather together to discuss atheism.  Atheists don't have any leaders to look up to or defer to in any conversation regarding the obvious conclusion that there is no god. 

There is no organized membership or "card" that one must have to officially give one's opinions regarding the conclusion that there is no god.

In short there is no atheist religion.  You are only suggesting there is an atheist religion because you saw it somewhere and based on that suggestion, believe it true.


----------



## HUGGY

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.*
> 
> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.
> 
> Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.
> 
> And they preach all the time.
> 
> This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.
> 
> Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!
> 
> Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!
> 
> Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.
> 
> Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.
> 
> They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.
Click to expand...


Wow!  What a silly and childlike hypothesis.  You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..


----------



## Wyatt earp

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.*
> 
> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.
> 
> Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.
> 
> And they preach all the time.
> 
> This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.
> 
> Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!
> 
> Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!
> 
> Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.
> 
> Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.
> 
> They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a silly and childlike hypothesis.  You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..
Click to expand...



Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?

Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...


God you guys are retarded...


Carry on with preaching God don't exist 






.


----------



## HUGGY

bear513 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.*
> 
> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.
> 
> Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.
> 
> And they preach all the time.
> 
> This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.
> 
> Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!
> 
> Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!
> 
> Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.
> 
> Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.
> 
> They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a silly and childlike hypothesis.  You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?
> 
> Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...
> 
> 
> God you guys are retarded...
> 
> 
> Carry on with preaching God don't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How arrogant. The authority you have bestowed on yourself to define the basis of my argument is non existent as is your god.


----------



## Wyatt earp

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.*
> 
> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.
> 
> Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.
> 
> And they preach all the time.
> 
> This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.
> 
> Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!
> 
> Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!
> 
> Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.
> 
> Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.
> 
> They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a silly and childlike hypothesis.  You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?
> 
> Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...
> 
> 
> God you guys are retarded...
> 
> 
> Carry on with preaching God don't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How arrogant. The authority you have bestowed on yourself to define the basis of my argument is non existent as is your god.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

bear513 said:


> Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in _The Electric Horseman_.
> 
> This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't.



I think this makes an interesting point and really dovetails nicely with my views on Spiritual Nature and Spiritualism. Regardless of what theories you may have or your conviction in your preferred beliefs, one thing we can clearly see is that humans are inclined toward light and away from dark... toward goodness and away from evil. We are able to experience gratification from selflessness. Something greater than us is driving this inclination we have... it's not just there, because...

Even when we accept the _Atheist Scientism_ that we're simply moral so that we can pass on our genes... Why are we _inclined_ to pass on our genes? What makes that matter? Why do we care to "get along" with competitors for our food and resources? No matter how you look at it... humans have a natural inclination toward good... away from evil... toward the light... away from the dark.


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part right and part not.  I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility.  I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate.  As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams.  Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.
> 
> Faith based individuals have little wiggle room.  They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails.  I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.
> 
> Chess or checkers?  The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly.  If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning..  When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...



Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...
> 
> Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.
> 
> In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...


If enough people believe a lie then it becomes the truth.  Happens all of the time.  The crazy single bullet that killed Kennedy and went all over the place and wounded Connally?   Curveball?  a criminal that couldn't have been a witness in a traffic speeding trial responsible for our going to war with Iraq?


----------



## HUGGY

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make all bad arguments.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.


----------



## Wyatt earp

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
Click to expand...



When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?

Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism... 

.


----------



## Abishai100

*Intelligent Design: Bond Breaks*

There is such an intricate geometrical sophistication at the molecular level of organic life that it's difficult to conceive that a higher-order intelligence is not responsible for an overall 'master-plan,' however, with the advent of computers and the understanding of self-organizing algorithms, scientists today can imagine and formulate models of autonomous or 'adaptive' organic orientation.

The study of protein folding, for example, illuminates many levels of geometric sophistication related to the value of protein bond strengths.  Bond strengths give us an arrow of molecular reactivity (and compatibility) and help molecules determine pathways of structural 'assignments.'

Scientific institutions such as Scripps and Salk invest in the study of protein bond strength, so how can such study help us better appreciate the organic splendour of molecular blueprints?

In other words, would it be prudent to ask a question such as, "*Could intelligent design be BOTH directional (and hence directed) AND self-made (and hence creator-independent)*?"


*Mechanisms of Protein Formation (NIH)*


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?
> 
> Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.  Lol.  ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.   

*Full Definition of religion*

1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance


2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


3_archaic_ :  scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness


4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


----------



## ChrisL

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:  


*Wrong focus.* Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to _refute_, rather than trying to _understand_ or _learn_about atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
*Flawed expertise.* I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
  Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
  The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.*[4, 5]*
*Unsupported assertions. *This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves,  fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.*[6]*
  I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
*Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor.* American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
Let's use storybooks  . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
  That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
  Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
*Bad science.* If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to _sound_ scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
*Bad logic.* American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
*The Bible isn't proof. *A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
*Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god.* For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.*[7] *Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
  Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right? 
Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
  Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
*Atheists are not neutral parties.* Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
  Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
  Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> *Wrong focus.* Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to _refute_, rather than trying to _understand_ or _learn_about atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
> *Flawed expertise.* I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
> Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
> The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.*[4, 5]*
> *Unsupported assertions. *This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves,  fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.*[6]*
> I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
> *Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor.* American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
> Let's use storybooks  . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
> That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
> Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
> *Bad science.* If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to _sound_ scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
> *Bad logic.* American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
> *The Bible isn't proof. *A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
> *Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god.* For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.*[7] *Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
> Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
> Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
> Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
> Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
> Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
> *Atheists are not neutral parties.* Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
> Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
> Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.




Again sure a lot of preaching going on.


.


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> *Wrong focus.* Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to _refute_, rather than trying to _understand_ or _learn_about atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
> *Flawed expertise.* I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
> Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
> The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.*[4, 5]*
> *Unsupported assertions. *This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves,  fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.*[6]*
> I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
> *Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor.* American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
> Let's use storybooks  . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
> That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
> Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
> *Bad science.* If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to _sound_ scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
> *Bad logic.* American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
> *The Bible isn't proof. *A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
> *Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god.* For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.*[7] *Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
> Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
> Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
> Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
> Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
> Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
> *Atheists are not neutral parties.* Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
> Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
> Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again sure a lot of preaching going on.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong?  Lol.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?
> 
> Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.  Lol.  ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.
> 
> *Full Definition of religion*
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 
> 
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 
> 
> 3_archaic_ :  scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
> 
> 
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Click to expand...

And they get upset when we cut and paste rather than type it out in our own words for the 100th time.  Why bother when we have such a great source that explains why every argument they make is a bad one.

*Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.  

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. 

_“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> *Wrong focus.* Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to _refute_, rather than trying to _understand_ or _learn_about atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
> *Flawed expertise.* I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
> Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
> The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.*[4, 5]*
> *Unsupported assertions. *This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves,  fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.*[6]*
> I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
> *Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor.* American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
> Let's use storybooks  . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
> That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
> Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
> *Bad science.* If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to _sound_ scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
> *Bad logic.* American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
> *The Bible isn't proof. *A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
> *Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god.* For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.*[7] *Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
> Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
> Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
> Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
> Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
> Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
> *Atheists are not neutral parties.* Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
> Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
> Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again sure a lot of preaching going on.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong?  Lol.
Click to expand...


He may be right that we are preaching.


·  publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).

_synonyms:_

proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound

·  earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).

_synonyms:_

advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel

·  give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way.

_synonyms:_

moralize, sermonize, pontificate, lecture, harangue;


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> *Wrong focus.* Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to _refute_, rather than trying to _understand_ or _learn_about atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
> *Flawed expertise.* I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
> Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
> The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.*[4, 5]*
> *Unsupported assertions. *This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves,  fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.*[6]*
> I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
> *Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor.* American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
> Let's use storybooks  . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
> That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
> Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
> *Bad science.* If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to _sound_ scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
> *Bad logic.* American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
> *The Bible isn't proof. *A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
> *Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god.* For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.*[7] *Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
> Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
> Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
> Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
> Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
> Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
> *Atheists are not neutral parties.* Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
> Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
> Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again sure a lot of preaching going on.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong?  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may be right that we are preaching.
> 
> 
> ·  publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).
> 
> _synonyms:_
> 
> proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound
> 
> ·  earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).
> 
> _synonyms:_
> 
> advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel
> 
> ·  give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way.
> 
> _synonyms:_
> 
> moralize, sermonize, pontificate, lecture, harangue;
Click to expand...


I didn't preach. I just posted some facts.    Religious people HATE facts.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?
> 
> Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.  Lol.  ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.
> 
> *Full Definition of religion*
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 
> 
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 
> 
> 3_archaic_ :  scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
> 
> 
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they get upset when we cut and paste rather than type it out in our own words for the 100th time.  Why bother when we have such a great source that explains why every argument they make is a bad one.
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
Click to expand...


It gets old going back and forth with people that imply they are intelligent but simply are not.  

It is rare that a theist can look at the discussion concerning atheism vs theism objectively.  The worst ones quote the scriptures as if they can add to any discussion looking hard at the factuality or not of religion.  That's like trying to discuss if Superman is real and pulling out comic books to quote from as evidence and proof the caped crusader is a real live entity.  No doubt some people believe Superman is real.  

Faith is not a justifiable shield from reality.  Those that hold up "faith" as "good enough" to fend off facts are just as impossible to discuss the truth regarding religion.  That is where we get "intelligent design", 10,000 year old earth and believing stuff in the bible that is laughable.  

Then we have those that insist that atheism is a religion.  And THAT proves WHAT exactly?  It isn't even remotely a religion but what they hope to gain calling atheism a religion is WHAT? exactly?  Does that make their fairy tales more believable?  Is it some bizzare form of "who's calling the kettle black"?  Is it like if atheism is supposed to be a "religion"? then it has no better standing in reality than Christianity or Islam?  That is just pure desperation.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?
> 
> Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.  Lol.  ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.
> 
> *Full Definition of religion*
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 
> 
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 
> 
> 3_archaic_ :  scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
> 
> 
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they get upset when we cut and paste rather than type it out in our own words for the 100th time.  Why bother when we have such a great source that explains why every argument they make is a bad one.
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gets old going back and forth with people that imply they are intelligent but simply are not.
> 
> It is rare that a theist can look at the discussion concerning atheism vs theism objectively.  The worst ones quote the scriptures as if they can add to any discussion looking hard at the factuality or not of religion.  That's like trying to discuss if Superman is real and pulling out comic books to quote from as evidence and proof the caped crusader is a real live entity.  No doubt some people believe Superman is real.
> 
> Faith is not a justifiable shield from reality.  Those that hold up "faith" as "good enough" to fend off facts are just as impossible to discuss the truth regarding religion.  That is where we get "intelligent design", 10,000 year old earth and believing stuff in the bible that is laughable.
> 
> Then we have those that insist that atheism is a religion.  And THAT proves WHAT exactly?  It isn't even remotely a religion but what they hope to gain calling atheism a religion is WHAT? exactly?  Does that make their fairy tales more believable?  Is it some bizzare form of "who's calling the kettle black"?  Is it like if atheism is supposed to be a "religion"? then it has no better standing in reality than Christianity or Islam?  That is just pure desperation.
Click to expand...

We had a funeral the other day.  I said to my brother, "cremate me when I die" and he says, "oh but the church won't perform the service if you do that".  I didn't have the heart to tell him I don't believe in the church or care what they say so I just dropped it.  If he wants to spend $10,000 burying me, that's on him.  I was trying to save him a buck.

So I think the recent spike in cremations is a good indication that the church is losing it's grip on society here in America.

In 1958, only about one in 28 Americans were cremated upon death. Today, the percentage of Americans who are cremated has risen to more than 40 percent.

What explains the dramatic rise in the popularity of cremation? Experts say the shift is attributable mostly to demographic and economic factors.

“And since cremation is usually cheaper than burial (at least when you don’t use a cemetery to bury the urn), it’s an attractive prospect for the budget conscious.”

But America’s changing religious landscape also plays a role.

“As more Americans decline to be involved in organized worship (and the majority of these people are still believers of a sort) there’s less social pressure on them to produce what people characterize as a ‘Christian’ funeral,’” Slocum added. “The funeral industry has been remarkably successful at putting over commercial consumption—costly caskets, displaying preserved corpses—as ‘Christian’ and consumers have swallowed it without batting an eye.”


----------



## Boss

You biddies feeling better after your little cluck-fest?


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?
> 
> Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.  Lol.  ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.
> 
> *Full Definition of religion*
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 
> 
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 
> 
> 3_archaic_ :  scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
> 
> 
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they get upset when we cut and paste rather than type it out in our own words for the 100th time.  Why bother when we have such a great source that explains why every argument they make is a bad one.
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gets old going back and forth with people that imply they are intelligent but simply are not.
> 
> It is rare that a theist can look at the discussion concerning atheism vs theism objectively.  The worst ones quote the scriptures as if they can add to any discussion looking hard at the factuality or not of religion.  That's like trying to discuss if Superman is real and pulling out comic books to quote from as evidence and proof the caped crusader is a real live entity.  No doubt some people believe Superman is real.
> 
> Faith is not a justifiable shield from reality.  Those that hold up "faith" as "good enough" to fend off facts are just as impossible to discuss the truth regarding religion.  That is where we get "intelligent design", 10,000 year old earth and believing stuff in the bible that is laughable.
> 
> Then we have those that insist that atheism is a religion.  And THAT proves WHAT exactly?  It isn't even remotely a religion but what they hope to gain calling atheism a religion is WHAT? exactly?  Does that make their fairy tales more believable?  Is it some bizzare form of "who's calling the kettle black"?  Is it like if atheism is supposed to be a "religion"? then it has no better standing in reality than Christianity or Islam?  That is just pure desperation.
Click to expand...


I find similarities between Republicans who defend the GOP despite the facts and theists who believe in god despite the facts and fairy tales they are forced to believe in order to be members of the cult.  

For example republicans/conservatives tend to be against global warming or climate change even though it is so obvious that the oil companies pay the politicians to lie and say humans aren't causing global warming.  Reminds me a lot of the evolution argument.


----------



## jillian

TheGreatKing said:


> God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.
> 
> The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.
> 
> *The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all.* There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.



wow....science deniers are such ignorant twits.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I didn't have the heart to tell him I don't believe in the church or care what they say so I just dropped it.



It's because you are a chicken shit coward who doesn't even really believe his own garbage. If you did, you'd confidently tell your brother and your whole family how they're full of shit and you've got it all figured out, being the genius you are and everything.

Hell, you might even try to convert them using appeals to ridicule and popularity, like you do here! Think of how much better your perverse beliefs would feel if you converted your whole family to little hate-spewing atheists?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> You biddies feeling better after your little cluck-fest?


Yes, and please don't keep repeating the same bad arguments.  The bad argument you make that I love the most is "God *has a non-physical component."

Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens

I mean should I re type all that every time you say the stupid thing you say or should I just cut and paste?  Thank god for the internet!  I mean....


*


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> It gets old going back and forth with people that imply they are intelligent but simply are not.



It gets old informing atheists they still haven't presented any science to back their claims.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Yes, and please don't keep repeating the same bad arguments. The bad argument you make that I love the most is "God *has a non-physical component."*



 HUHhh?  God is SPIRITUAL!  Dim wit!  That means, God is not physical! Dumb ass!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.



And yet... That's EXACTLY what you do with Evolution, Origin, Abiogenesis and God.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have the heart to tell him I don't believe in the church or care what they say so I just dropped it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because you are a chicken shit coward who doesn't even really believe his own garbage. If you did, you'd confidently tell your brother and your whole family how they're full of shit and you've got it all figured out, being the genius you are and everything.
> 
> Hell, you might even try to convert them using appeals to ridicule and popularity, like you do here! Think of how much better your perverse beliefs would feel if you converted your whole family to little hate-spewing atheists?
Click to expand...

I think they know.  I just don't flat out tell him he's stupid and believes a fairy tale like I tell you.  I don't want to lose my relationship with my brother because he takes this delusion too seriously.  Plus he's a good person and he isn't hurting anyone.  That doesn't mean I don't wish he'd wake up but I'm not going to try to force it and risk my great relationship with my brother.  I don't care if I hurt your feelings but I do care about him.  And I don't want to tell his kids.  That's not my place.  

See, if it weren't for THEM taking it too personally, I would tell them.  But they aren't thinking logically they are thinking emotionally.  That's their problem.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have the heart to tell him I don't believe in the church or care what they say so I just dropped it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because you are a chicken shit coward who doesn't even really believe his own garbage. If you did, you'd confidently tell your brother and your whole family how they're full of shit and you've got it all figured out, being the genius you are and everything.
> 
> Hell, you might even try to convert them using appeals to ridicule and popularity, like you do here! Think of how much better your perverse beliefs would feel if you converted your whole family to little hate-spewing atheists?
Click to expand...

One time we let a bible thumping buddy have it while we were watching the Cosmos.  I would NEVER do that to my brother.  It isn't because I don't believe what I say.  I truly do.  My brother is one of a billion idiots who believes a fairy tale.  People like this are holding us back as a race.  The human race would be much better off if it dropped this stupid.

BUT I will say this.  My brother is just about the best kind of Christian you can find.  Not a hypocrite.  A few months ago he saw this homeless guy after he broke $100 at starbucks and he gave the guy a $20 and the guy started crying, so my brother gave him the $80 too.  I can tell you this atheist wouldn't do that.  LOL.


----------



## ChrisL

I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet... That's EXACTLY what you do with Evolution, Origin, Abiogenesis and God.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  See why I love this website?

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. 

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Number 40.

And you want me to type this myself rather than cut and paste when this site debunks every point you make so brilliantly?

Why there is no god

I'm perfectly ok with finding out macro evolution isn't real.  I would LOVE to find out that the reptiles and birds and amphibians and fish are not related to us.  If the scientific community ever decides this, I'll be the first one to admit you were right.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.


But it's not a waste of time.  

Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)

Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide

Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.  

I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
Click to expand...


And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and please don't keep repeating the same bad arguments. The bad argument you make that I love the most is "God *has a non-physical component."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUHhh?  God is SPIRITUAL!  Dim wit!  That means, God is not physical! Dumb ass!
Click to expand...

God can't be physical.  Got it.  He's limited to spiritual.  Ok.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
Click to expand...

Who knows what people are on the fence, read Boss' bullshit and say, "yup, I'm an atheist" 

And it doesn't happen overnight.  Unless you never believed, it takes time to wake up.  Took me 30-40 years.  Although I never truly believed Christianity I always believed I had a personal relationship with god.  What a twit I was.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
Click to expand...


The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.

Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh

I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that.  I'm not really that paranoid.  Plus, I don't usually go around announcing my beliefs on the streets.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet... That's EXACTLY what you do with Evolution, Origin, Abiogenesis and God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  See why I love this website?
> 
> There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Number 40.
> 
> And you want me to type this myself rather than cut and paste when this site debunks every point you make so brilliantly?
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> I'm perfectly ok with finding out macro evolution isn't real.  I would LOVE to find out that the reptiles and birds and amphibians and fish are not related to us.  If the scientific community ever decides this, I'll be the first one to admit you were right.
Click to expand...


Science can't disprove your faith.
Macro evolution is not real until it is supported with science.
Micro evolution is only real in certain circumstances.

Science has not disproved God and never can.
Just as Science can never prove God.

You are copying and pasting OPINIONS from blogs!  That's not Science!!!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and please don't keep repeating the same bad arguments. The bad argument you make that I love the most is "God *has a non-physical component."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUHhh?  God is SPIRITUAL!  Dim wit!  That means, God is not physical! Dumb ass!
Click to expand...

You forgot to append "..... because I say so" to your babbling.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what people are on the fence, read Boss' bullshit and say, "yup, I'm an atheist"
> 
> And it doesn't happen overnight.  Unless you never believed, it takes time to wake up.  Took me 30-40 years.  Although I never truly believed Christianity I always believed I had a personal relationship with god.  What a twit I was.
Click to expand...

Twit!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets old going back and forth with people that imply they are intelligent but simply are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets old informing atheists they still haven't presented any science to back their claims.
Click to expand...


If I went mountain climbing and came back with a couple of blank flat rocks would you believe me?


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> Science can't disprove your faith.


Science has already disproved the basis of many, perhaps Most, gods.
ie, If you are a Christian Biblical Literalist/Young Earth Creationist, Science proved YOU wrong long ago.
Ooops



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> Macro evolution is not real until it is supported with science.
> Micro evolution is only real in certain circumstances.


There is no difference between macro and micro, just continued mutation for continued distance.
Science, through the Fossil Record, DNA, etc, already Strongly "supports" Evolution



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> You are copying and pasting OPINIONS from blogs!  That's not Science!!!


And you Lose every debate/page/post.
Your Lack of semantic cleverness/perversions makes things even worse for an already wrong opinion.
You have no science knowledge to debate, so I take pleasure in Porking your Disingenuity attempts.
Many strings of mine below await your 'spiritual rebuttal' but remain Untouched.
`


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
Click to expand...

This argument that atheism is just another religion tells me people who don't believe in evolution are just being defensive. 

Notice there isn't one shred of evidence theists can point to that unequivocally proves their God is real? And nobody today believes moses really talked to God. Most people don't believe Mohammad or Joseph Smith talked to God.

In fact we are all athiests. I just believe in one less God than you do.

When you understand why Mormonism is bullshit, why don't you see so is yours?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet... That's EXACTLY what you do with Evolution, Origin, Abiogenesis and God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  See why I love this website?
> 
> There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Number 40.
> 
> And you want me to type this myself rather than cut and paste when this site debunks every point you make so brilliantly?
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> I'm perfectly ok with finding out macro evolution isn't real.  I would LOVE to find out that the reptiles and birds and amphibians and fish are not related to us.  If the scientific community ever decides this, I'll be the first one to admit you were right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science can't disprove your faith.
> Macro evolution is not real until it is supported with science.
> Micro evolution is only real in certain circumstances.
> 
> Science has not disproved God and never can.
> Just as Science can never prove God.
> 
> You are copying and pasting OPINIONS from blogs!  That's not Science!!!
Click to expand...

Scientists look at what humans look like the day they are conceived and they look at all other animals and it appears we all start off the same.

This is just one of 1000 reasons they believe common ancestry but that seems to confuse you. You can argue the 999 other reasons macro evolution is real.

You don't believe we all crawled out of the water. So you don't believe in evolution. That's a fact not a theory


----------



## sealybobo

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can't disprove your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Science has already disproved the basis of many, perhaps Most, gods.
> ie, If you are a Christian Biblical Literalist/Young Earth Creationist, Science proved YOU wrong long ago.
> Ooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macro evolution is not real until it is supported with science.
> Micro evolution is only real in certain circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no difference between macro and micro, just continued mutation for continued distance.
> Science, through the Fossil Record, DNA, etc, already Strongly "supports" Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are copying and pasting OPINIONS from blogs!  That's not Science!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you Lose every debate/page/post.
> Your Lack of semantic cleverness/perversions makes things even worse for an already wrong opinion.
> You have no science knowledge to debate, so I take pleasure in Porking your Disingenuity attempts.
> Many strings of mine below await your 'spiritual rebuttal' but remain Untouched.
> `
Click to expand...

Who is he to reject so much evidence?  And he's using young earth creation arguments even though he denies being one. He's a cherry picker.

Actually boss is giving us a glimpse of what this debate must have been like before moses lied and scared superstitious primitive men into believing God talked to him. After moses atheists started getting their heads cut off and still are today.

And they ask why I don't think religion is good for us. What lie ever is? Is it virtue to be gullible?


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  I'm not really that paranoid.  Plus, I don't usually go around announcing my beliefs on the streets.
Click to expand...

But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.

Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked. Boss is asking for it. 

Interesting so many theists wouldn't even entertain this topic. What makes boss come here?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Since religion seems to develop independently in all societies, it appears to me that man has a psychological need to convince himself that he is in partnership with a spirit who will give him eternal life. I find that really amusing. Then when priests create their own power structure, which is then used to control the population to their advantage, religion usually starts requiring some sort of sacrifice, like the Aztecs did. That creates fear, which intensifies priestly power. Sooner or later, the priests become as powerful as the heads of state. this inevitably leads to war, which was pretty much lasted throughout the dark ages.Then, when religions conflict with each other, the whole "Us against them" psychology comes in to play, giving us hundred of years of war between Ireland and Britain, not to mention the muslims against the christians.

The whole thing is so obviously a man made invention as a path to power and control, that it amazes me why anyone does not recognize that.


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> Since religion seems to develop independently in all societies, it appears to me that man has a psychological need to convince himself that he is in partnership with a spirit who will give him eternal life. I find that really amusing. Then when priests create their own power structure, which is then used to control the population to their advantage, religion usually starts requiring some sort of sacrifice, like the Aztecs did. That creates fear, which intensifies priestly power. Sooner or later, the priests become as powerful as the heads of state. this inevitably leads to war, which was pretty much lasted throughout the dark ages.Then, when religions conflict with each other, the whole "Us against them" psychology comes in to play, giving us hundred of years of war between Ireland and Britain, not to mention the muslims against the christians.
> 
> The whole thing is so obviously a man made invention as a path to power and control, that it amazes me why anyone does not recognize that.


There are a lot more atheists and agnostics than you think. Even in places like Saudi Arabia. Only in Saudi Arabia you can't admit you don't believe.

In America a lot of people who call themselves Christians don't take the bible literally. They understand its a book of allegories and Jesus was just a really good guy like ghandi. And we all know real Christians wouldn't consider them Christians if they didn't want the numbers on their side.

Boss is very liberal on this. He only cares that you have any spirituality. Any delusion will do


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so.  I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality.  It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.
> 
> By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god.  I have no faith in your delusions.  There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible.  That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.
> 
> Atheists have no documents we must refer to.
> 
> Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.
> 
> By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This argument that atheism is just another religion tells me people who don't believe in evolution are just being defensive.
> 
> Notice there isn't one shred of evidence theists can point to that unequivocally proves their God is real? And nobody today believes moses really talked to God. Most people don't believe Mohammad or Joseph Smith talked to God.
> 
> In fact we are all athiests. I just believe in one less God than you do.
> 
> When you understand why Mormonism is bullshit, why don't you see so is yours?
Click to expand...


Exactly!


----------



## Vandalshandle

I considered joining the Elks Club a few years back, but found out that you will not be accepted as a member unless you swear that you believe in god. That, in itself was amusing, considering that the primary thing that members do at the club is to get together and drink in the bar in the evening. I guess they don't want to drink with an atheist, although, technically, a muslim could join.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...
> 
> 
> You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This argument that atheism is just another religion tells me people who don't believe in evolution are just being defensive.
> 
> Notice there isn't one shred of evidence theists can point to that unequivocally proves their God is real? And nobody today believes moses really talked to God. Most people don't believe Mohammad or Joseph Smith talked to God.
> 
> In fact we are all athiests. I just believe in one less God than you do.
> 
> When you understand why Mormonism is bullshit, why don't you see so is yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!
Click to expand...

I started writing to you, got pulled away, came back and finished the thought but forgot who I was talking to.

I do believe we are on the cusp of a great Enlightenment. It's why I don't want to let any more Muslims in the country. They are the worst. So you know the rich and churches are for  bringing in more muslims in hopes that it will drive whites back to church but I don't see that happening. But I do see having to deal with radical Islam for another 500 years.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  I'm not really that paranoid.  Plus, I don't usually go around announcing my beliefs on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked. Boss is asking for it.
> 
> Interesting so many theists wouldn't even entertain this topic. What makes boss come here?
Click to expand...



I can easily understand the motivation to defend what one believes in.  The problem they run into is that they have an arrogant idea that they believe atheism has no foundation therefore it should be simple to brush it away.  Theism has several billion followers so how could that many people possibly be wrong?  Stalin was wrong.  Pol pot was wrong. Hitler was wrong as was the emperor of Japan.  The people in North Korea are wrong.  There were/are billions of examples of human beings getting tricked into believing nonsense. It's funny how the Christians can point at the Muslims who are just as devout as they if not more so is garbage yet you never see a Christian flying a plane into a building or blowing themselves up.  They both believe that they have a heaven waiting for them.  Funny.  Maybe the Muslims believe in their religion a tad more than the Christians believe in theirs.  Obviously they are BOTH wrong.  

Why do theists refuse to accept that there is no god nor heaven?  They would have to accept that the generations of their relatives died and went nowhere.  It was all a lie.  That would be hard to accept.   I get that.


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> I considered joining the Elks Club a few years back, but found out that you will not be accepted as a member unless you swear that you believe in god. That, in itself was amusing, considering that the primary thing that members do at the club is to get together and drink in the bar in the evening. I guess they don't want to drink with an atheist, although, technically, a muslim could join.


A lot of those guys lie to get in. But that's a great example of how for thousands of years we've been brainwashed and bullied by theists. I think it was Plato or Socrates that had a choice, either teach the masses science or religion and they didn't think the common man could handle the truth so they went with religion and slavery instead


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  I'm not really that paranoid.  Plus, I don't usually go around announcing my beliefs on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked. Boss is asking for it.
> 
> Interesting so many theists wouldn't even entertain this topic. What makes boss come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily understand the motivation to defend what one believes in.  The problem they run into is that they have an arrogant idea that they believe atheism has no foundation therefore it should be simple to brush it away.  Theism has several billion followers so how could that many people possibly be wrong?  Stalin was wrong.  Pol pot was wrong. Hitler was wrong as was the emperor of Japan.  The people in North Korea are wrong.  There were/are billions of examples of human beings getting tricked into believing nonsense. It's funny how the Christians can point at the Muslims who are just as devout as they if not more so is garbage yet you never see a Christian flying a plane into a building or blowing themselves up.  They both believe that they have a heaven waiting for them.  Funny.  Maybe the Muslims believe in their religion a tad more than the Christians believe in theirs.  Obviously they are BOTH wrong.
> 
> Why do theists refuse to accept that there is no god nor heaven?  They would have to accept that the generations of their relatives died and went nowhere.  It was all a lie.  That would be hard to accept.   I get that.
Click to expand...

My English boss learned in school all the history of war between Catholics and Protestants. He agrees with me that Muslims are us hundreds of years ago. 

We understand that primitive tribes on the Amazon live in the past but don't want to admit just how backward/fucked up Muslims in Turkey are.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This argument that atheism is just another religion tells me people who don't believe in evolution are just being defensive.
> 
> Notice there isn't one shred of evidence theists can point to that unequivocally proves their God is real? And nobody today believes moses really talked to God. Most people don't believe Mohammad or Joseph Smith talked to God.
> 
> In fact we are all athiests. I just believe in one less God than you do.
> 
> When you understand why Mormonism is bullshit, why don't you see so is yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started writing to you, got pulled away, came back and finished the thought but forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I do believe we are on the cusp of a great Enlightenment. It's why I don't want to let any more Muslims in the country. They are the worst. So you know the rich and churches are for  bringing in more muslims in hopes that it will drive whites back to church but I don't see that happening. But I do see having to deal with radical Islam for another 500 years.
Click to expand...


That is probably the best reason to keep Muslims out of the country.  Some of them are far more devout AKA brainwashed than ANY Christians.  We don't need any more 9/11's.  I don't believe that even the most mild mannered Muslims do not believe that 9/11 was Allah's will.

It is easy to feel empathy towards the recent wave of refugees from the Mid east.  The problem is that they carry a mental disease with them potentially just as deadly as bubonic plague.  The a-holes that got pilot training here and flew those planes into the towers looked as normal as any one of us.  We are stupid giving them such an advantage as just being here if they choose or are told to snap and defend their religion against Americans.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Atheism is a religion to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in
> 
> And have to constantly preach about it.
> 
> 
> You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your mouth ingrate.  Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This argument that atheism is just another religion tells me people who don't believe in evolution are just being defensive.
> 
> Notice there isn't one shred of evidence theists can point to that unequivocally proves their God is real? And nobody today believes moses really talked to God. Most people don't believe Mohammad or Joseph Smith talked to God.
> 
> In fact we are all athiests. I just believe in one less God than you do.
> 
> When you understand why Mormonism is bullshit, why don't you see so is yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started writing to you, got pulled away, came back and finished the thought but forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I do believe we are on the cusp of a great Enlightenment. It's why I don't want to let any more Muslims in the country. They are the worst. So you know the rich and churches are for  bringing in more muslims in hopes that it will drive whites back to church but I don't see that happening. But I do see having to deal with radical Islam for another 500 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is probably the best reason to keep Muslims out of the country.  Some of them are far more devout AKA brainwashed than ANY Christians.  We don't need any more 9/11's.  I don't believe that even the most mild mannered Muslims do not believe that 9/11 was Allah's will.
> 
> It is easy to feel empathy towards the recent wave of refugees from the Mid east.  The problem is that they carry a mental disease with them potentially just as deadly as bubonic plague.  The a-holes that got pilot training here and flew those planes into the towers looked as normal as any one of us.  We are stupid giving them such an advantage as just being here if they choose or are told to snap and defend their religion against Americans.
Click to expand...

Even Christians must admit Muslims are just too God damned religious.


----------



## HUGGY

One of the mods posted a bunch of charts showing how many of various religions place their value of their religion above their support of this country among other trends.  My problem with that poll is that the Muslims that place their religion above this country REALLY feel that way in a fashion that they are willing to commit suicide to prove their faith.  Not so much the Christians. If push came to shove American Christians are far more likely to back the USA.  I don't know of ANY that would be suicide bombers to support the Christian church.


----------



## HUGGY

Even if only 1% of the Muslims in this country would be a suicide bomber to support Islam that's a hell of a lot of deadly weapons walking around just waiting for their marching orders.  In a million Muslims that's 10,000 potential suicide bombs going off.  Technically we are looking at 30lbs of well placed C4 each killing maybe 20 Americans a piece or 200.000 innocent victims blown to shit.

How many suicide bombs before what Trump has been saying comes true no matter WHO is president?  In say one years time...10? probably not.  100? there would be some talk for sure...  1000?  Bye Bye Muslims!!!


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> One of the mods posted a bunch of charts showing how many of various religions place their value of their religion above their support of this country among other trends.  My problem with that poll is that the Muslims that place their religion above this country REALLY feel that way in a fashion that they are willing to commit suicide to prove their faith.  Not so much the Christians. If push came to shove American Christians are far more likely to back the USA.  I don't know of ANY that would be suicide bombers to support the Christian church.


Maybe things will be different after 8 years of trump. The trump Inquisition


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Even if only 1% of the Muslims in this country would be a suicide bomber to support Islam that's a hell of a lot of deadly weapons walking around just waiting for their marching orders.  In a million Muslims that's 10,000 potential suicide bombs going off.  Technically we are looking at 30lbs of well placed C4 each killing maybe 20 Americans a piece or 200.000 innocent victims blown to shit.
> 
> How many suicide bombs before what Trump has been saying comes true no matter WHO is president?  In say one years time...10? probably not.  100? there would be some talk for sure...  1000?  Bye Bye Muslims!!!


1. If that happens things will get really shitty for Muslims.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if only 1% of the Muslims in this country would be a suicide bomber to support Islam that's a hell of a lot of deadly weapons walking around just waiting for their marching orders.  In a million Muslims that's 10,000 potential suicide bombs going off.  Technically we are looking at 30lbs of well placed C4 each killing maybe 20 Americans a piece or 200.000 innocent victims blown to shit.
> 
> How many suicide bombs before what Trump has been saying comes true no matter WHO is president?  In say one years time...10? probably not.  100? there would be some talk for sure...  1000?  Bye Bye Muslims!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If that happens things will get really shitty for Muslims.
Click to expand...


That could spiral things out of control in a hurry.  The moment we seriously start deporting ALL Muslims then the ones that were borderline will probably go off the deep end and accelerate taking the path of suicide bombing.

It could easily jump from 100 to 1000 suicide bombings in just a few weeks.  Then non muslim Americans would start shooting Muslims with back packs in public places wholesale.  That would be a strange world until it settled down.  Even the Mexicans would stop entering the country because they have darker skin and look a little like Mid Easterners.  In a heartbeat ALL immigrants with darker skin would be at risk.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if only 1% of the Muslims in this country would be a suicide bomber to support Islam that's a hell of a lot of deadly weapons walking around just waiting for their marching orders.  In a million Muslims that's 10,000 potential suicide bombs going off.  Technically we are looking at 30lbs of well placed C4 each killing maybe 20 Americans a piece or 200.000 innocent victims blown to shit.
> 
> How many suicide bombs before what Trump has been saying comes true no matter WHO is president?  In say one years time...10? probably not.  100? there would be some talk for sure...  1000?  Bye Bye Muslims!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If that happens things will get really shitty for Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could spiral things out of control in a hurry.  The moment we seriously start deporting ALL Muslims then the ones that were borderline will probably go off the deep end and accelerate taking the path of suicide bombing.
> 
> It could easily jump from 100 to 1000 suicide bombings in just a few weeks.  Then non muslim Americans would start shooting Muslims with back packs in public places wholesale.  That would be a strange world until it settled down.  Even the Mexicans would stop entering the country because they have darker skin and look a little like Mid Easterners.  In a heartbeat ALL immigrants with darker skin would be at risk.
Click to expand...

Look at how less religious us american Christians have become in 100 years. My hop is Muslim grandkids will Americanize. 

But stop letting more in


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if only 1% of the Muslims in this country would be a suicide bomber to support Islam that's a hell of a lot of deadly weapons walking around just waiting for their marching orders.  In a million Muslims that's 10,000 potential suicide bombs going off.  Technically we are looking at 30lbs of well placed C4 each killing maybe 20 Americans a piece or 200.000 innocent victims blown to shit.
> 
> How many suicide bombs before what Trump has been saying comes true no matter WHO is president?  In say one years time...10? probably not.  100? there would be some talk for sure...  1000?  Bye Bye Muslims!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If that happens things will get really shitty for Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could spiral things out of control in a hurry.  The moment we seriously start deporting ALL Muslims then the ones that were borderline will probably go off the deep end and accelerate taking the path of suicide bombing.
> 
> It could easily jump from 100 to 1000 suicide bombings in just a few weeks.  Then non muslim Americans would start shooting Muslims with back packs in public places wholesale.  That would be a strange world until it settled down.  Even the Mexicans would stop entering the country because they have darker skin and look a little like Mid Easterners.  In a heartbeat ALL immigrants with darker skin would be at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at how less religious us american Christians have become in 100 years. My hop is Muslim grandkids will Americanize.
> 
> But stop letting more in
Click to expand...


You? were right that the Fundi Christians like having the Muslims here because it gives them cover for their own brand of insane beliefs.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Science has already disproved the basis of many, perhaps Most, gods.



Never has a more ignorant thing been stated. Science never disproves anything, much less things that aren't physical. Most people learn this the first week they take a Science class. 



abu afak said:


> There is no difference between macro and micro, just continued mutation for continued distance.
> Science, through the Fossil Record, DNA, etc, already Strongly "supports" Evolution



There is a huge difference and no, it doesn't. Even IF it did... "strongly supports" is not "proven fact" and never will be. 

And if you think coming in here and spewing ignorant statements makes you right and proves me wrong, you're mentally disturbed.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet... That's EXACTLY what you do with Evolution, Origin, Abiogenesis and God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  See why I love this website?
> 
> There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Number 40.
> 
> And you want me to type this myself rather than cut and paste when this site debunks every point you make so brilliantly?
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> I'm perfectly ok with finding out macro evolution isn't real.  I would LOVE to find out that the reptiles and birds and amphibians and fish are not related to us.  If the scientific community ever decides this, I'll be the first one to admit you were right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science can't disprove your faith.
> Macro evolution is not real until it is supported with science.
> Micro evolution is only real in certain circumstances.
> 
> Science has not disproved God and never can.
> Just as Science can never prove God.
> 
> You are copying and pasting OPINIONS from blogs!  That's not Science!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists look at what humans look like the day they are conceived and they look at all other animals and it appears we all start off the same.
> 
> This is just one of 1000 reasons they believe common ancestry but that seems to confuse you. You can argue the 999 other reasons macro evolution is real.
> 
> You don't believe we all crawled out of the water. So you don't believe in evolution. That's a fact not a theory
Click to expand...


Of course, science is *not* simply looking at something and claiming a fact based on how it looks. As a matter of fact, this is specifically WHY Science was invented. If we're going to say that facts are based on how things appear, then it's a fact the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around it. We need not question this because it's how things look and science has proved it. 

You've not shown any evidence to support the idea that we crawled out of water. All you can show are theories, opinions, ideas... there is no science to support it.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.



Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist. 

So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe. 

It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person. 

It's really about as pathetic as you can be.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
Click to expand...

I've hinted to my brother I don't believe. In fact you know I've told my father there is no God and he and my brother have discussed how I don't believe.

I just haven't had the discussion with my brother because he's a Christian.

My father admits organized religions are man made so I can tell him how I feel but you can't tell a Christian Mary was a whore. They take it too personally.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
Click to expand...

I became a fully committed atheist after watching the cosmos with an atheist.

Do you think it's something to be proud of that despite all the information you've been given you still suffer from delusions?

I think it takes a very smart and courageous person to look up and realize that there is no God.

It's not because I'm unhappy. It isn't because I was ridiculed and it's not because I'm mad at God. I now just realize there is no God.

It was all in my head. And now it's gone.

This is the best place to take on God. I believe this is what God invented the internet for.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
Click to expand...



"I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."

Christians......behead?????

I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.


Today's vocabulary lesson:

Syncretic
noun
1.
the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
the definition of syncretic


----------



## Vandalshandle

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hinted to my brother I don't believe. In fact you know I've told my father there is no God and he and my brother have discussed how I don't believe.
> 
> I just haven't had the discussion with my brother because he's a Christian.
> 
> My father admits organized religions are man made so I can tell him how I feel but you can't tell a Christian Mary was a whore. They take it too personally.
Click to expand...


Atheists, unlike christians, are of a 'live, and let live" philosophy. We do not feel that it is necessary to piss on Christians' parades. My brother, too, is as fundy, and I am sure that he knows that I am an unbeliever, But, since I expect him not to preach to me, i respect him by not preaching to him. Nothing positive can come out of that. if he finds comfort in his religious persuasions, who am I to ruin his peace? It has nothing to do with being a coward. I found out after my mother's funeral that she had wanted cremation, but he intervened, and has his way. If I had know that at the time, I would have spoken up for her. To make sure that does not happen to me, I have prepared a will, and a living will. Just to be sure, I have also made pre-need arrangements and have paid for the cremation myself.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
Click to expand...

Aren't you a warrior for the babies?


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hinted to my brother I don't believe. In fact you know I've told my father there is no God and he and my brother have discussed how I don't believe.
> 
> I just haven't had the discussion with my brother because he's a Christian.
> 
> My father admits organized religions are man made so I can tell him how I feel but you can't tell a Christian Mary was a whore. They take it too personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists, unlike christians, are of a 'live, and let live" philosophy. We do not feel that it is necessary to piss on Christians' parades. My brother, too, is as fundy, and I am sure that he knows that I am an unbeliever, But, since I expect him not to preach to me, i respect him by not preaching to him. Nothing positive can come out of that. if he finds comfort in his religious persuasions, who am I to ruin his peace? It has nothing to do with being a coward. I found out after my mother's funeral that she had wanted cremation, but he intervened, and has his way. If I had know that at the time, I would have spoken up for her. To make sure that does not happen to me, I have prepared a will, and a living will. Just to be sure, I have also made pre-need arrangements and have paid for the cremation myself.
Click to expand...

I don't want to piss on his parade either.  You should see him he is so sweet when we get started on a long trip he makes the sign of the cross, grabs his cross on his rear view mirror and I think he kisses his fingers???  Now I can't remember the exact motions he makes but I think it is sweet and he is such a good man no fucking way I would tell him I think he is delusional and brainwashed.  But he is.  Doesn't mean I hate him.  Doesn't make him a bad person.  It just makes him the typical gullible theist who clearly has cognitive dissonance issues.  

I'm curious to see if his kids will continue to go to church after they grow up.  I can't see that happening unless they marry Greek women and continue the Greek Orthodox religion.  If they marry Americans you can forget about them going to church every Sunday like they do now.  Unless of course they marry a Catholic Lutheran Protestant Presbyterian or Born Again but I don't see that happening either.  Chances are they'll meet a nice American girl who says she believes in God but doesn't go to church.  That's what most of us are today.  

Right now they ask me why I don't go to church.  I tell them I do, I'm a muslim and I go to a mosque.  They know I'm kidding but luckily they don't push it too much.  But if they did I would just tell them I don't think church is necessary to have a relationship with god.  Technically I'm not lying, right Boss?  Boss doesn't go to church but he's just as devout as any christian fundy bible thumper.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
Click to expand...




Ready for your vocabulary test?


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that it's pretty much a waste of time trying to talk to those who are brainwashed and WANT to be brainwashed.  I can see where the fairy tales give them comfort.  Why ruin it for them?  As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
Click to expand...


You act like all Christians think and act the same.  You would be wrong.  

Cult members get death sentence over McDonald's killing - CNN.com

Yang Xiangbin, left, and the group's founder, Zhao Weishan. Group members believe Yang is the reincarnation of Jesus.

A court statement said the victim, a 37-year-old woman named Wu Shuoyan, was attacked after refusing to give her phone number to the group, who were allegedly attempting to recruit new members.
Zhang Fan and Lyu called her an "evil spirit," before Zhang bludgeoned her head with a chair, then jumped on her and trampled her head, the statement said.
Zhang Lidong bashed the victim's head with a mop hard enough to break it, and stomped on her face and head, while Lyu kicked her waist and prevented McDonald's staff from intervening, the court statement said.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready for your vocabulary test?
Click to expand...

Yes

Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan. 

Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
Click to expand...

Are you going to suggest they don't really have evidence for this?

“Our discovery, if confirmed, would explain how these monster black holes were born,” said Fabio Pacucci, lead author of the study, of Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy. "This new result helps to explain why we see supermassive black holes less than one billion years after the Big Bang."

For years astronomers have debated how the earliest generation of supermassive black holes formed very quickly, relatively speaking, after the Big Bang. Now, an Italian team has identified two objects in the early Universe that seem to be the origin of these early supermassive black holes. Using data from Hubble and two other space telescopes, Italian researchers have found the best evidence yet for the seeds that ultimately grow into these cosmic giants.

Now you and my dad can't understand the science behind this so you are skeptical about what you don't understand.  And trust me, if you ask a question about it, you can bet science has already asked and answered that question.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a waste of time.
> 
> Survey Says: Atheism is on the Rise Worldwide (and in America)
> 
> Pew Survey Predicts Rise In Atheism In US, Europe Despite Growing Religiosity Worldwide
> 
> Why ruin it for them?  Because I don't want a 15 year old boy thinking if he blows me and himself up for Allah he will have 42 virgins waiting for him in heaven.  Because I don't want stem cell research stopped because of these stupid fuckers.  Because I don't want gay people feeling bad about themselves because these people have been brainwashed by a cult.
> 
> I truly believe religion has held us back 10,000 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready for your vocabulary test?
Click to expand...

A woman in Phoenix is under arrest after telling police she shot and killed an atheist for not believing in God.

The Phoenix Police Department reports that 39-year-old Anitra Braxton has been charged with murder after police found the body of a woman on her couch inside her apartment on December 26.

- See more at: Arizona Woman Shoots And Kills Atheist For Not Believing In God


----------



## Boss

I just love how you justify your cowardice. Here, you break your necks to "inform" us how God isn't real and we're a bunch of idiots for believing... exacerbating the world's problems with our religions... wasting our time with fairy tales and nonsense... but when it comes to your own family who you purport to love, you clam up and go along with the program. 

Conveniently, you claim this is "live and let live" philosophy but we never see that side of you here... we see "search and destroy at all costs!"  It's just funny how your deep convictions seem to abandon you when confronted with family members. 

I bet you guys are really cute when called on to give grace. You probably sit there acting all shy and embarrassed, insisting someone else do it... not courageous enough to tell them you don't believe in their god. Or maybe you mutter through with a "god is good, god is great, let us thank him for our food... amen!" It's just a few words that don't mean anything to you, right? And what's the harm as long as you're all getting along and it gets you to the potato salad?


----------



## sealybobo

On the night of October 18, 2004, *Arthur Shelton* called the cops… on himself. He had just shot and killed his atheist roommate *Larry Hooper*. The reason?

… *Shelton stated that Hooper was the devil* and that he shot Hooper “hopefully enough” and “as many times as I could; I still want to keep going.” Shelton indicated he wanted to make sure that Hooper was “gone.”

…

Officers soon arrived on the scene and arrested Shelton, who was cooperative. *Shelton told the officers several times that he did not want to talk to anyone unless that person believed in God.* He further stated that he trusted the officers because he believed that the officers believed in God. Shelton also stated that he shot Hooper because Hooper was “evil” and “possibly the devil.” Shelton talked to the officers about God and being an Eagle Scout. Shelton stated that he could be trusted to tell the truth because he was an Eagle Scout.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you going to suggest they don't really have evidence for this?
> 
> “Our discovery, if confirmed, would explain how these monster black holes were born,” said Fabio Pacucci, lead author of the study, of Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy. "This new result helps to explain why we see supermassive black holes less than one billion years after the Big Bang."
> 
> For years astronomers have debated how the earliest generation of supermassive black holes formed very quickly, relatively speaking, after the Big Bang. Now, an Italian team has identified two objects in the early Universe that seem to be the origin of these early supermassive black holes. Using data from Hubble and two other space telescopes, Italian researchers have found the best evidence yet for the seeds that ultimately grow into these cosmic giants.
> 
> Now you and my dad can't understand the science behind this so you are skeptical about what you don't understand.  And trust me, if you ask a question about it, you can bet science has already asked and answered that question.
Click to expand...



What the hell are you even yammering about? Do supermassive black holes somehow disprove God???    Where is the Science?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I just love how you justify your cowardice. Here, you break your necks to "inform" us how God isn't real and we're a bunch of idiots for believing... exacerbating the world's problems with our religions... wasting our time with fairy tales and nonsense... but when it comes to your own family who you purport to love, you clam up and go along with the program.
> 
> Conveniently, you claim this is "live and let live" philosophy but we never see that side of you here... we see "search and destroy at all costs!"  It's just funny how your deep convictions seem to abandon you when confronted with family members.
> 
> I bet you guys are really cute when called on to give grace. You probably sit there acting all shy and embarrassed, insisting someone else do it... not courageous enough to tell them you don't believe in their god. Or maybe you mutter through with a "god is good, god is great, let us thank him for our food... amen!" It's just a few words that don't mean anything to you, right? And what's the harm as long as you're all getting along and it gets you to the potato salad?


That's exactly right.  Even at church or a funeral I do the cross thing with my hands.  BFD.  It really means NOTHING to me for me to say it because I'm saying it to NOTHING.  

But yea, I don't want to rock the boat.  What I want is for religion to go away so in 100 years my great great great nephews can sleep in on Sundays and stop pretending because mama, gramma, the priest and every other family member won't shun you if you admit you don't believe.

My brother sorta kinda knows I don't believe.  I've said a few things hinting at it but when I got a theistic reply back, I stopped discussing.  I don't want to hurt his feelings or lose my relationship with him.  You on the other hand I don't give two shits about.

If we can't come here and speak the truth, where can we?  USMB is my church.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But boss suggested I tell my christian brother who I get along with great what I think. He might not chop my head off but I'm sure he'd be highly offended. But at least he's not forcing his religion on me so I won't insult his God.
> 
> Now if he comes to this thread I'll let him have it. Any theist who comes here should expect to be mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that I was right and you're a sniveling little coward in real life who can't stand up for your own convictions. You'd rather let your family pay thousands of dollars and all their time praying over you to send you into an afterlife you believe is a joke and doesn't exist.
> 
> So, first you revealed that you became this "atheist-agnostic" because your buddies ridiculed you believing in God. Now, you don't have the courage to be honest with your family about what you really believe.
> 
> It's sad that in order for you to feel good about yourself, you need to come here and ridicule others as you hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. Your little band of friends chiming in to decorate your posts with ornaments of appreciation makes you feel like a big person.
> 
> It's really about as pathetic as you can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you going to suggest they don't really have evidence for this?
> 
> “Our discovery, if confirmed, would explain how these monster black holes were born,” said Fabio Pacucci, lead author of the study, of Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy. "This new result helps to explain why we see supermassive black holes less than one billion years after the Big Bang."
> 
> For years astronomers have debated how the earliest generation of supermassive black holes formed very quickly, relatively speaking, after the Big Bang. Now, an Italian team has identified two objects in the early Universe that seem to be the origin of these early supermassive black holes. Using data from Hubble and two other space telescopes, Italian researchers have found the best evidence yet for the seeds that ultimately grow into these cosmic giants.
> 
> Now you and my dad can't understand the science behind this so you are skeptical about what you don't understand.  And trust me, if you ask a question about it, you can bet science has already asked and answered that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even yammering about? Do supermassive black holes somehow disprove God???    Where is the Science?
Click to expand...

Right in front of your face dumbass.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> On the night of October 18, 2004, *Arthur Shelton* called the cops… on himself. He had just shot and killed his atheist roommate *Larry Hooper*. The reason?
> 
> … *Shelton stated that Hooper was the devil* and that he shot Hooper “hopefully enough” and “as many times as I could; I still want to keep going.” Shelton indicated he wanted to make sure that Hooper was “gone.”
> 
> …
> 
> Officers soon arrived on the scene and arrested Shelton, who was cooperative. *Shelton told the officers several times that he did not want to talk to anyone unless that person believed in God.* He further stated that he trusted the officers because he believed that the officers believed in God. Shelton also stated that he shot Hooper because Hooper was “evil” and “possibly the devil.” Shelton talked to the officers about God and being an Eagle Scout. Shelton stated that he could be trusted to tell the truth because he was an Eagle Scout.



Oh... so NOW we're going to the nut bag?  Well... as an Atheist, you should certainly avoid dropping acid. An atheist friend of mine from high school tripped on acid and thought he was Jesus returned. He ended up carving a cross in his chest, standing on the roof outside the 2nd floor dormer of his bedroom where he dove head first into the patio below to prove his immortality. Turns out, he wasn't the messiah after all.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the night of October 18, 2004, *Arthur Shelton* called the cops… on himself. He had just shot and killed his atheist roommate *Larry Hooper*. The reason?
> 
> … *Shelton stated that Hooper was the devil* and that he shot Hooper “hopefully enough” and “as many times as I could; I still want to keep going.” Shelton indicated he wanted to make sure that Hooper was “gone.”
> 
> …
> 
> Officers soon arrived on the scene and arrested Shelton, who was cooperative. *Shelton told the officers several times that he did not want to talk to anyone unless that person believed in God.* He further stated that he trusted the officers because he believed that the officers believed in God. Shelton also stated that he shot Hooper because Hooper was “evil” and “possibly the devil.” Shelton talked to the officers about God and being an Eagle Scout. Shelton stated that he could be trusted to tell the truth because he was an Eagle Scout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... so NOW we're going to the nut bag?  Well... as an Atheist, you should certainly avoid dropping acid. An atheist friend of mine from high school tripped on acid and thought he was Jesus returned. He ended up carving a cross in his chest, standing on the roof outside the 2nd floor dormer of his bedroom where he dove head first into the patio below to prove his immortality. Turns out, he wasn't the messiah after all.
Click to expand...

How can he be an atheist if he believes in messiah's?  I call bullshit.

Here is another nut job who has issues with god.

CALGARY, Alberta –  A Canadian man has been found not criminally responsible for killing five people in a stabbing rampage.  The 24-year-old admits he killed five people at a house party in 2014.   During the trial, the judge heard that de Grood became withdrawn about a month before the attack and started posting about the end of the world, religion, vampires and Darth Vader on Facebook.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> How can he be an atheist if he believes in messiah's? I call bullshit.




I guess you missed the "tripping on acid" part?


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how has that worked out for you so far in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready for your vocabulary test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan.
> 
> Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder.
Click to expand...



This is based on your insane post stating that Christians aim to behead those who don't believe.

Now...using the term I just taught you...'syncretic'....explain what is wrong with this bumper-sticker:

"Kill a Commie For Christ!!"

or

"Support Mental Health Or I'll Kill You!!"



No erasing and no crossing out.

Take your time.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready for your vocabulary test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan.
> 
> Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is based on your insane post stating that Christians aim to behead those who don't believe.
> 
> Now...using the term I just taught you...'syncretic'....explain what is wrong with this bumper-sticker:
> 
> "Kill a Commie For Christ!!"
Click to expand...

First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.  Not one bit.  It's murder they have a problem with.  So is it that you 
a.  Don't know that?
b. Or were you trying to trick me?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.



Then you don't understand Christianity.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Saying grace? I have not 'said grace" since I was 9 years old. For one thing, i never sit down to eat with people who would be rude enough to ask me to do that. if they did, I would probably go into some sort of Flip Wilson Routine:


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist
> 
> Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania, and the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Atheist Law Student Hacked To Death In Bangladesh
> 
> I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sure Christians wish they could behead us."
> 
> Christians......behead?????
> 
> I'd suggest you confine your posting to topics about which you know anything...but then you'd be mute.
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary lesson:
> 
> Syncretic
> noun
> 1.
> the attempted reconciliation or union of differentor opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
> the definition of syncretic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a warrior for the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready for your vocabulary test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan.
> 
> Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is based on your insane post stating that Christians aim to behead those who don't believe.
> 
> Now...using the term I just taught you...'syncretic'....explain what is wrong with this bumper-sticker:
> 
> "Kill a Commie For Christ!!"
> 
> or
> 
> "Support Mental Health Or I'll Kill You!!"
> 
> 
> 
> No erasing and no crossing out.
> 
> Take your time.
Click to expand...

"Real" Muslims don't believe in murder either but define a "real Muslim" or a real Christian for that matter.  You think you are a real Christian because your preacher told you that you are and that what he is teaching you is the real teachings of Christ.  Maybe the next preacher won't teach the same shit you learned.

I'll give you that out of all the delusions yours is the nicest one.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand Christianity.
Click to expand...

I'm just repeating what Christians have told me.  If a burglar broke into their house, they would have no problem killing that person.  They say killing and murder are two different things.  

Maybe Christians don't understand Christianity.

You certainly don't.  That's why you aren't one.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can he be an atheist if he believes in messiah's? I call bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the "tripping on acid" part?
Click to expand...

*Being on drugs would explain why they believe in god.  What's your excuse?*

*Personal revelation are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.*


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I'm just repeating what Christians have told me.



Well then, they don't understand Christianity. 

One of the main commandments in Christianity is "Thou shalt not kill." ...Doesn't say "murder" it says "kill."  The doctrine of Jesus Christ teaches love and forgiveness. You should love and forgive the person who broke into your house... that's what a Christian is mandated to do by God.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Being on drugs would explain why they believe in god. What's your excuse?



Again, I believe in Spiritual Nature because I experience it. I'm a very weak believer in anything without evidence. If I didn't have a spiritual experience, I couldn't believe in Spiritual Nature.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand Christianity.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the thread "is killing abortion doctors a moral right?" You're a Christian apologist cherry picker. You now make me laugh. I used to take you seriously now you're just being intellectually dishonest and stupid


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the thread "is killing abortion doctors a moral right?" You're a Christian apologist cherry picker. You now make me laugh. I used to take you seriously now you're just being intellectually dishonest and stupid
Click to expand...


I know a good deal about Christianity, I've given the religion a great deal of thought. My thoughts go deep tissue.  I love to explore and discover. So over the course of my 56+ years, I have absorbed a good deal of information about this particular religion. "Apologist cherry picker" are pretty strong words, I wouldn't say that's what I do at all. I am attempting to inform you as to what I know. I don't profess beliefs in any religion, I've already told you that numerous times. 

Your problem is, you don't know how to handle ME in an argument because I am not Christian and you can't attack me on that. I'm also not a Muslim or Jew. I don't profess a "Religious" belief... other than, Spiritual Nature, which sometimes in conversation, I may call "God" for convenience. Unlike you, I respect people who have Christian faith and uphold it. I know people like that, they are exceptional human beings and if everyone were like them, we'd have heaven on Earth.  That said, I also know a healthy dose of people who CLAIM they are Christian but have no clue.... there are literally Atheists who are more "Christian" in their behavior. 

But not being able to tie me to a Religion, you find it hard to argue against me... over and over, in thread after thread, we get to this point where you just start acting silly. You're totally lost as to what to do with me. I can't tell you how much enjoyment I get out of reading your attempts at hiding this frustration. I just thought you'd like to know that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Christians don't have a problem with killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the thread "is killing abortion doctors a moral right?" You're a Christian apologist cherry picker. You now make me laugh. I used to take you seriously now you're just being intellectually dishonest and stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a good deal about Christianity, I've given the religion a great deal of thought. My thoughts go deep tissue.  I love to explore and discover. So over the course of my 56+ years, I have absorbed a good deal of information about this particular religion. "Apologist cherry picker" are pretty strong words, I wouldn't say that's what I do at all. I am attempting to inform you as to what I know. I don't profess beliefs in any religion, I've already told you that numerous times.
> 
> Your problem is, you don't know how to handle ME in an argument because I am not Christian and you can't attack me on that. I'm also not a Muslim or Jew. I don't profess a "Religious" belief... other than, Spiritual Nature, which sometimes in conversation, I may call "God" for convenience. Unlike you, I respect people who have Christian faith and uphold it. I know people like that, they are exceptional human beings and if everyone were like them, we'd have heaven on Earth.  That said, I also know a healthy dose of people who CLAIM they are Christian but have no clue.... there are literally Atheists who are more "Christian" in their behavior.
> 
> But not being able to tie me to a Religion, you find it hard to argue against me... over and over, in thread after thread, we get to this point where you just start acting silly. You're totally lost as to what to do with me. I can't tell you how much enjoyment I get out of reading your attempts at hiding this frustration. I just thought you'd like to know that.
Click to expand...

To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.

But usmb would be less without you


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.




Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%. 

You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%. 

So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
Click to expand...

Right


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
Click to expand...


Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.


----------



## sealybobo

TheGreatKing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.
> 
> So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.
Click to expand...


Are you really going to try to challenge the theory of evolution?  YOU?  Little old you?  You fucking retard.  Science agrees but here comes fucktard thegreatqueen and YOU are going to be the one to falsify evolution?  Ok, go for it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

*Introduction*


Universal Common Descent Defined
Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
What Counts as Scientific Evidence
Other Explanations for the Biology
How to Cite This Document
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

*Phylogenetics introduction*


Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods

Statistical support for phylogenies
Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
*Part I.* A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

Unity of life
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies
Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows

Chronology of common ancestors
*Part 2.* Past history

Anatomical vestiges
Atavisms
Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
Humans tails

Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
Snake embryos with legs
Embryonic human tail
Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

Present biogeography
Past biogeography
Marsupials
Horses
Apes and humans

*Part 3.* Evolutionary opportunism

Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function
*Part 4.* Molecular evidence

Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses
*Part 5.* Change

Genetic
Morphological
Functional
The strange past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.
Click to expand...

Really?  Because I'm a completely normal person.


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Because I'm a completely normal person.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one that showed me the 29 evidences for macro evolution?  Now the Great Queen is going to debunk all of that and logically explain to us how science is wrong.  I won't hold my breath.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Because I'm a completely normal person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one that showed me the 29 evidences for macro evolution?  Now the Great Queen is going to debunk all of that and logically explain to us how science is wrong.  I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...


Who's the "great queen?"


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Because I'm a completely normal person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one that showed me the 29 evidences for macro evolution?  Now the Great Queen is going to debunk all of that and logically explain to us how science is wrong.  I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's the "great queen?"
Click to expand...

Thegreatking wanted to see my evidence for macroevolution and I think it was you who showed me that link with it all laid out.

Bottom line is we had to ultimately come from a water breathing creature. Let's just put that out there. Either you believe that or you believe a God poofed all the first land breathing monkeys and birds and bears and squirrels and wolves into existence.

The chicken wasn't always a chicken. It too once had an ancestor that crawled out of the water.

And if we all originally come from something that once lived in the water, were probably all related. There's tons more evidence to support this. I'm no scientist but when 9 out of 10 dentists choose crest


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> And I know Boss talks to this god so
> 
> 1.  *I feel a personal relationship with god OR I experienced god.*
> 
> Argument from personal experience.  A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.  Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.  Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called ‘revelations’ never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.  Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation.   The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


This one is most important for boss because I think he understands all the logical reasons there is no God but he believes he communicates with it. Hard to reason logically with someone on how invisible dragons aren't real when he believes he has one.

And this explains why man came up with God.


----------



## Boss

Guys... Talkorigins.org is a propaganda site. All they do is produce propaganda for secularist non-believers to attack religious-based ideology and arguments which include intelligent design. This is not a Science organization and they're not compiling scientific information, they are constructing clever propaganda... because they are activists with a mission. I'm sorry but that just isn't Science.  

Everything in their little "29 reasons" essay is speculation, conjecture and pure bullshit. They do just as you do here and present opinions as facts. Again... that is not Science. Opinions are philosophy. I have never claimed that some people don't have this opinion about "common descent" ...that would be kinda boneheaded to claim. What I have consistently said is there is no scientific evidence to support that opinion and this little propagandist essay is full of "two-dollar words" that most common people don't understand, but that doesn't mean it is supported by evidence. It's STILL an opinion... AND... you are perfectly free to believe that opinion and think it's true.


----------



## IndependantAce

Fact is there's no hard evidence of humans evolving from apes; most of it is just speculative.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Bottom line is we had to ultimately come from a water breathing creature. Let's just put that out there.



You're free to "put that out there" as your OPINION which isn't supported by any scientific evidence. 



sealybobo said:


> Either you believe that or you believe a God poofed all the first land breathing monkeys and birds and bears and squirrels and wolves into existence.



Again, pointing out to you.... Science doesn't do this. Scientists don't do this. In fact, you are illustrating beautifully, the very reason humans invented science. It was so that we have a system of exploring what we don't know. 

What YOU are doing... the SillyBoob Method:
1. We don't know. 
2. Must be that MY opinion is true because I find YOUR opinion absurd. 
3. We must all believe in MY opinion as fact or face ridicule. 

We covered the issue of "poofing" earlier. Regardless of what you believe, the concept of "poofing" had to happen. Now, we should clarify that "poofing" means something wasn't there, and then, it was. Whether you believe original life spontaneously generated itself or was created, you believe in "poofing."


----------



## Boss

IndependantAce said:


> Fact is there's no hard evidence of humans evolving from apes; most of it is just speculative.



It's worse. There is NO kind of evidence, hard OR soft. Common ancestry beyond genera is just not supported by science and contradicts biological principles. All of it, not most of it, is a speculation. 

Homo sapiens likely 'evolved' from homo erectus, another member of the genus _Homo_. That is essentially all of what science can support with evidence and it's still only a likelihood, not a fact. 

Much ado is made over the similarities of things. However, just because something appears to be like something else, doesn't mean anything to Science. To illustrate my point, let's use something we can all agree does exist and has evidence to support.... electronic devices.  

Okay, we know that electronic devices are made by companies with factories. (Created) Is it a shocker that when we bust open an iPhone and a laptop, we see remarkably similar components and structure? Not at all, because creators often repeat what works. So similarity is not some kind of incriminating evidence against God, but a rather expected observation. You certainly wouldn't expect to crack open an iPhone and find hot fudge.  Living systems have many of the same features because that's what works in nature. Just as transistors, diodes, chipsets and CPUs work in electronics.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is we had to ultimately come from a water breathing creature. Let's just put that out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to "put that out there" as your OPINION which isn't supported by any scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you believe that or you believe a God poofed all the first land breathing monkeys and birds and bears and squirrels and wolves into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, pointing out to you.... Science doesn't do this. Scientists don't do this. In fact, you are illustrating beautifully, the very reason humans invented science. It was so that we have a system of exploring what we don't know.
> 
> What YOU are doing... the SillyBoob Method:
> 1. We don't know.
> 2. Must be that MY opinion is true because I find YOUR opinion absurd.
> 3. We must all believe in MY opinion as fact or face ridicule.
> 
> We covered the issue of "poofing" earlier. Regardless of what you believe, the concept of "poofing" had to happen. Now, we should clarify that "poofing" means something wasn't there, and then, it was. Whether you believe original life spontaneously generated itself or was created, you believe in "poofing."
Click to expand...

When a new bubble appears in a lava lamp it just poofs into existence. Same thing with a universe. There are infinite universes and there is no beginning and no end of time. Our universe or bubble will exist for about 23 billion years. And like in a lava lamp new bubbles form all the time.

The cosmos has always existed. What starts a universe? We don't know. There's a lot we do know though and from what we can see no God cares


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> When a new bubble appears in a lava lamp it just poofs into existence. Same thing with a universe. There are infinite universes and there is no beginning and no end of time. Our universe or bubble will exist for about 23 billion years. And like in a lava lamp new bubbles form all the time.
> 
> The cosmos has always existed. What starts a universe? We don't know. There's a lot we do know though and from what we can see no God cares



No, a lava lamp is fluid mechanics in action. It is two substances interacting with each other to create a visual effect. We understand exactly what is happening and nothing is poofing into or out of existence. 

You're making STATEMENTS here... as IF they are established facts. There is ZERO scientific evidence supporting your statements. They are 100% faith-based beliefs at this point. 

"Eternal time" is a concept physics can't support. You can believe it.... lots of people do. God is timeless. Spiritual Nature is timeless... they're also not supported by physics... but you can believe it. Physics actually demands that time have a beginning and ending or many of it's principles have no explanation-- from Newton's Laws of Motion to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. An infinity is a nightmare for a physicist. 

You are simply repeating what your idol Neil DeGrasse Tyson has pontificated and not supported with science. It's a THEORY... and hey... I don't have any problem with theories. I think theories are great to have and explore. BUT... Whenever you've established a theory that cannot be tested or evaluated by physics, then you have something that isn't science anymore. Science has to be able to test and measure and how do you measure infinity or eternal? These are SPIRITUAL concepts, not Science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a new bubble appears in a lava lamp it just poofs into existence. Same thing with a universe. There are infinite universes and there is no beginning and no end of time. Our universe or bubble will exist for about 23 billion years. And like in a lava lamp new bubbles form all the time.
> 
> The cosmos has always existed. What starts a universe? We don't know. There's a lot we do know though and from what we can see no God cares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a lava lamp is fluid mechanics in action. It is two substances interacting with each other to create a visual effect. We understand exactly what is happening and nothing is poofing into or out of existence.
> 
> You're making STATEMENTS here... as IF they are established facts. There is ZERO scientific evidence supporting your statements. They are 100% faith-based beliefs at this point.
> 
> "Eternal time" is a concept physics can't support. You can believe it.... lots of people do. God is timeless. Spiritual Nature is timeless... they're also not supported by physics... but you can believe it. Physics actually demands that time have a beginning and ending or many of it's principles have no explanation-- from Newton's Laws of Motion to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. An infinity is a nightmare for a physicist.
> 
> You are simply repeating what your idol Neil DeGrasse Tyson has pontificated and not supported with science. It's a THEORY... and hey... I don't have any problem with theories. I think theories are great to have and explore. BUT... Whenever you've established a theory that cannot be tested or evaluated by physics, then you have something that isn't science anymore. Science has to be able to test and measure and how do you measure infinity or eternal? These are SPIRITUAL concepts, not Science.
Click to expand...

There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago



Huh?  Are you serious? 

"years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy. 

Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?  

If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists. 

Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?  

If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape. 

The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe. 

But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Guys... Talkorigins.org is a propaganda site. All they do is produce propaganda for secularist non-believers to attack religious-based ideology and arguments which include intelligent design. This is not a Science organization and they're not compiling scientific information, they are constructing clever propaganda... because they are activists with a mission. I'm sorry but that just isn't Science.
> 
> Everything in their little "29 reasons" essay is speculation, conjecture and pure bullshit. They do just as you do here and present opinions as facts. Again... that is not Science. Opinions are philosophy. I have never claimed that some people don't have this opinion about "common descent" ...that would be kinda boneheaded to claim. What I have consistently said is there is no scientific evidence to support that opinion and this little propagandist essay is full of "two-dollar words" that most common people don't understand, but that doesn't mean it is supported by evidence. It's STILL an opinion... AND... you are perfectly free to believe that opinion and think it's true.


Guys... Talkorigins is a science related site that is firmly grounded in established, peer reviewed principles of science. 

It's the bible thumping Christian fundamentalists such as bossy who feel frightened and intimidated by science and thus tend to lash out at any entity which conflicts with their notions of gods and spirit realms.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
Click to expand...

You think so small you fail to realize time goes on after you stop counting.

Just because this universe and clocks stop existing doesn't mean time stops too. Do you get that? 

What about 1 minute before the big bang.

Your problem is you think this universe is all there is. So naive


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
Click to expand...

You keep referring to this universe. And there is so much wrong scattered in to the facts you post, I don't even know where to begin. Time "as you know it" or space "as we know it" but make no mistake there were seconds minutes days weeks months years leading up to the big bang.

Einstein can't tell you about before the big bang.

I don't think you grasp the word infinite. You certainly put your God in a box


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
Click to expand...


If the idea of inflation is correct, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.

What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It's kind of fun coming to this thread occasionally to read Dark Age philosophy. It is kind of like going to a Renaissance Fair and having the opportunity to try to shoot an arrow into a target. But, the dark Ages, being further back in time than the Renaissance, is more interesting because one would expect to find torture implements from the Inquisition on display. Also, one would expect some monk to be walking around selling lifetime indulgences for a guaranteed trip to heaven.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think so small you fail to realize time goes on after you stop counting.
> 
> Just because this universe and clocks stop existing doesn't mean time stops too. Do you get that?
> 
> What about 1 minute before the big bang.
> 
> Your problem is you think this universe is all there is. So naive
Click to expand...


You're about the dumbest person I know who thinks he's smart. 

Time is the fourth dimension of our physical universe and it is relevant according to Albert Einstein. There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature. So are you talking about "Spiritual Time" or something?  

*Your problem is you think this universe is all there is.*

This is hilarious. I believe in Spiritual Nature and you claim you don't. Yet, you believe there is something more than the universe without any physical science to support that. Sounds like we have basically the same exact FAITH and we're simply defining it with different words.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You keep referring to this universe. And there is so much wrong scattered in to the facts you post, I don't even know where to begin. Time "as you know it" or space "as we know it" but make no mistake there were seconds minutes days weeks months years leading up to the big bang.
> 
> Einstein can't tell you about before the big bang.
> 
> I don't think you grasp the word infinite. You certainly put your God in a box



God, what a total nut bag you are!  Do you believe in God or not? You claim over and over that you don't, then you espouse these concepts that defy physics and physical nature and insist they are facts. I ask you again, how can a dimension of something exist before the thing itself exists? 

An Infinity (∞) is a nightmare for a physicist. Mathematics can't calculate or measure an infinity. And yet... here you are, pretending that an infinity is perfectly natural in physical nature.  I wish you'd show the mathematical formula which proves your theory because you would be famous... the man who proved God is physically real!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.



Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic! 

So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*


----------



## Boss

Vandalshandle said:


> It's kind of fun coming to this thread occasionally to read Dark Age philosophy. It is kind of like going to a Renaissance Fair and having the opportunity to try to shoot an arrow into a target. But, the dark Ages, being further back in time than the Renaissance, is more interesting because one would expect to find torture implements from the Inquisition on display. Also, one would expect some monk to be walking around selling lifetime indulgences for a guaranteed trip to heaven.



It's kind of fun watching you pop in now and again to let us know you still lack the intellectual wattage to participate in the debate but couldn't resist the urge to slap around some Christians.


----------



## Old Rocks

No, what we have is a question mark, instead of the fiat of some priest or shaman. And that is when progress begins. That is how the theory of evolution was developed. A question mark, and then letting observations and evidence that nature provides give us the answers.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think so small you fail to realize time goes on after you stop counting.
> 
> Just because this universe and clocks stop existing doesn't mean time stops too. Do you get that?
> 
> What about 1 minute before the big bang.
> 
> Your problem is you think this universe is all there is. So naive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're about the dumbest person I know who thinks he's smart.
> 
> Time is the fourth dimension of our physical universe and it is relevant according to Albert Einstein. There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature. So are you talking about "Spiritual Time" or something?
> 
> *Your problem is you think this universe is all there is.*
> 
> This is hilarious. I believe in Spiritual Nature and you claim you don't. Yet, you believe there is something more than the universe without any physical science to support that. Sounds like we have basically the same exact FAITH and we're simply defining it with different words.
Click to expand...


YOU are the dumbest person who thinks he's smart.  How can you not realize that time existed 1 million years before your universe started?  I'm not talking about Post Big Bang Time.  

What do you think your god was doing 1 million years before the big bang?    

Are you confusing generic time with the time you experience in this universe?  I understand everything that Einstein was saying about "time" but that doesn't mean god didn't exist prior to 13.5 billion years.  There are other universes you know.  

Are you suggesting God was born with the big bang too?  If not, where did he live and what did he do for infinity before before the big bang?  

If the big bang happened 13.5 billion years ago, what was your god doing 15.5 billion years ago?  Explain it to me since I'm so dumb.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
Click to expand...

There are things  you will never get an answer to.  So, why is the universe?  What is the purpose?  Maybe there is no purpose?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to this universe. And there is so much wrong scattered in to the facts you post, I don't even know where to begin. Time "as you know it" or space "as we know it" but make no mistake there were seconds minutes days weeks months years leading up to the big bang.
> 
> Einstein can't tell you about before the big bang.
> 
> I don't think you grasp the word infinite. You certainly put your God in a box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, what a total nut bag you are!  Do you believe in God or not? You claim over and over that you don't, then you espouse these concepts that defy physics and physical nature and insist they are facts. I ask you again, how can a dimension of something exist before the thing itself exists?
> 
> An Infinity (∞) is a nightmare for a physicist. Mathematics can't calculate or measure an infinity. And yet... here you are, pretending that an infinity is perfectly natural in physical nature.  I wish you'd show the mathematical formula which proves your theory because you would be famous... the man who proved God is physically real!
Click to expand...


Nothing I say defies physics.  Physics is something we use within this universe.  It doesn't apply itself to before the big bang.  I'm just talking logically.  Of course if there was a 10 second count down to the big bang then time existed before the big bang.  What was YOUR god doing a day before the big bang?


Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to this universe. And there is so much wrong scattered in to the facts you post, I don't even know where to begin. Time "as you know it" or space "as we know it" but make no mistake there were seconds minutes days weeks months years leading up to the big bang.
> 
> Einstein can't tell you about before the big bang.
> 
> I don't think you grasp the word infinite. You certainly put your God in a box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, what a total nut bag you are!  Do you believe in God or not? You claim over and over that you don't, then you espouse these concepts that defy physics and physical nature and insist they are facts. I ask you again, how can a dimension of something exist before the thing itself exists?
> 
> An Infinity (∞) is a nightmare for a physicist. Mathematics can't calculate or measure an infinity. And yet... here you are, pretending that an infinity is perfectly natural in physical nature.  I wish you'd show the mathematical formula which proves your theory because you would be famous... the man who proved God is physically real!
Click to expand...

Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
Click to expand...

If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. 

What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective

Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of fun coming to this thread occasionally to read Dark Age philosophy. It is kind of like going to a Renaissance Fair and having the opportunity to try to shoot an arrow into a target. But, the dark Ages, being further back in time than the Renaissance, is more interesting because one would expect to find torture implements from the Inquisition on display. Also, one would expect some monk to be walking around selling lifetime indulgences for a guaranteed trip to heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of fun watching you pop in now and again to let us know you still lack the intellectual wattage to participate in the debate but couldn't resist the urge to slap around some Christians.
Click to expand...


Guilty as charged.....


----------



## sealybobo

So God can't go past the edge of our universe?  God is essentially in a box.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think so small you fail to realize time goes on after you stop counting.
> 
> Just because this universe and clocks stop existing doesn't mean time stops too. Do you get that?
> 
> What about 1 minute before the big bang.
> 
> Your problem is you think this universe is all there is. So naive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're about the dumbest person I know who thinks he's smart.
> 
> Time is the fourth dimension of our physical universe and it is relevant according to Albert Einstein. There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature. So are you talking about "Spiritual Time" or something?
> 
> *Your problem is you think this universe is all there is.*
> 
> This is hilarious. I believe in Spiritual Nature and you claim you don't. Yet, you believe there is something more than the universe without any physical science to support that. Sounds like we have basically the same exact FAITH and we're simply defining it with different words.
Click to expand...

You wrote: " There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature"

Listen to what Hawking had to say about this:  Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. 

So I don't think Einstein is saying that time/space/matter/other universes/the cosmos/god didn't exist back before the big bang.  But for us, as far as we can see, all we can go by is from the big bang and forward.  Anything like multiverses and time before the big bang can only be speculated.

I just find it crazy you believe that nothing, not even god, existed 14 billion years ago.  Really?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no beginning of time. We can only talk about what happened 13.5 billion years ago but make no mistake there was 15 billion years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you serious?
> 
> "years" are merely a measurement humans equate with motion of our planet around a sun. Our entire universe is in perpetual motion which only happens with time for it to happen in. So how can there be "years" before a universe? You don't even know what you're talking about anymore, just rambling idiocy.
> 
> Are Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion valid or not, silly boob?
> 
> If they are... then the universe HAD a beginning and will HAVE an end!  Time will also have a beginning and ending, correlating with said universe in which it exists.
> 
> Is Albert Einstein wrong with Theory of General Relativity or not, silly boob?
> 
> If he is correct, Time is directly related to space and is a byproduct of an expanding universe. So it can't exist if the universe doesn't exist and isn't ever-expanding. Furthermore, time is relative. At the speed of light, time become nil. The reason a black hole is black is because time doesn't exist beyond the event horizon. There is literally no time for light to escape.
> 
> The universe is in motion, it's actually expanding all the time and it is accelerating in it's rate of expansion, according to observations. If we can believe Newton and Einstein are correct, we have to assume the "cyclical universe" theories which have persisted the last century or so, are incorrect. We don't have an "expanding/contracting" universe.
> 
> But now... ONE last point I would like to make about this revelation you've made on the Eternal and Everlasting Universe and Endless Time....  It strikes me this is pretty much the same faith in "something greater" that the "believers" have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think so small you fail to realize time goes on after you stop counting.
> 
> Just because this universe and clocks stop existing doesn't mean time stops too. Do you get that?
> 
> What about 1 minute before the big bang.
> 
> Your problem is you think this universe is all there is. So naive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're about the dumbest person I know who thinks he's smart.
> 
> Time is the fourth dimension of our physical universe and it is relevant according to Albert Einstein. There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature. So are you talking about "Spiritual Time" or something?
> 
> *Your problem is you think this universe is all there is.*
> 
> This is hilarious. I believe in Spiritual Nature and you claim you don't. Yet, you believe there is something more than the universe without any physical science to support that. Sounds like we have basically the same exact FAITH and we're simply defining it with different words.
Click to expand...

One guy said logic dictates that we're left with one of two possibilities:


The universe had some sort of beginning, in which case we're left with the very unsettling problem of what caused the universe in the first place.
The universe has been around forever, in which case there's literally an infinite amount of history, both before and after us.

Neither of these is satisfying. Take the Old Testament view, for instance. We're to understand that God created the world. In that case our universe has a definite beginning. However, God himself is supposed to be eternal. What was he doing before he created our universe?

But then he says “It's no more satisfying to assert that the universe has been here all along. Is there literally an infinite amount of history? That doesn't make sense.”  I think you and this person are missing a couple different possibilities.  What if there are multiple universes and this is just one of them?  And eventually our universe will die, and our bubble in the lava lamp will collapse back in on itself and be absorbed back into the dark matter that surrounds us now.  And then one day eventually we will be recycled and turn up inside another bubble/universe.  And as far as these multiverses, there was never a beginning and never an end and there is infinite universes in infinite cosmos.  Is that too much to imagine?  Fine, then image 1 god and just this universe.  I can see how that is easier to grasp for some people. 


The cosmos and this one little universe are two different things.  Get that through your head first.


----------



## sealybobo

So many possibilities







Better than the god theory.  The god theory is for uneducated superstitious primitive monkeys not humans.  

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5881330/what-happened-before-the-big-bang


For a long time, cosmologists played around with the idea that the universe might ultimately collapse on itself. Then, in 1998, two teams discovered that the universe was accelerating, essentially demonstrating that we were _way_ off base. You may also recall that these folks won the Nobel prize this year for their discovery.

Now Boss would laugh at me if I said the universe will one day collapse on itself because the universe is expanding and at a faster and faster rate.  So what?  What happens in 10 billion years when the last star dies out?  If that happens of course.  But what happens then?  Then the place is just a dark empty space and with no suns to heat up the hot air balloon, it will collapse.

Even though on the surface it doesn't look as though our universe will ultimately collapse under its own weight, there is still a great deal of allure to this picture. If the universe were somehow to end in a big crunch, then maybe what's really happening is that we'll eternally undergo a series of expansions and contractions, on and on for infinity. Our universe, in this case, is just one in an infinite series.



View attachment 76557


----------



## sealybobo

But in recent years, there have been a number of new cyclic models that allow an eternal universe to exist. In 2002, Paul Steinhardt, of Princeton University, and Neil Turok, of Cambridge, devised a model that exploits the extra dimensions found in string theory. String theory supposes that our universe might not be three-dimensional at all, but might have as many as ten spatial dimensions. Our own universe might simply live on a three-dimensional membrane (or "brane" for short) that is floating through the universe, barely interacting with the other universes.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems like it's you against everyone else telling you you're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.... I have 14,333 Messages and 1,465 Thanks... almost 10%.
> 
> You have 42k with 2,584 Thanks for just over 6%.
> 
> So if more people are agreeing with me and I'm "nuts" then what are you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most of the people who post here are also nuts, so that's not saying much.
Click to expand...

I love it.  Boss says I'm one of the dumbest people who thinks they are smart.  But when I do a search I find this guy who basically says everything I'm telling Boss.  And who is that guy?  An _Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University.  So from now on when Boss tells me my ideas are stupid, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt.

Talk about close minded.  Boss is so sure about creationism that he won't even entertain multiverses and string theory.  He will deny and fight those theories in order to hang on to his.

I have no theories.  I don't love the big bang or evolution.  At least I'm not married to them.  I would love for someone to prove them wrong in my lifetime.

What makes me sick is boss wants his creation theories to get as much respect as multiverses and string theory.  Sorry Boss but your shit is not acceptable for so many reasons.  But keep calling me stupid.  Coming from you that's a compliment.  _


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> There are things you will never get an answer to. So, why is the universe? What is the purpose? Maybe there is no purpose?



Maybe not, but that is a conclusion. Science can't do a thing with a conclusion.

When I stop and take the time to look at the life around me, the beauty in nature, even in the night sky across the cosmos, I see something very special and incredible. I look at the mechanics of our solar system, our planetary ecosystem, laws of thermodynamics, incredible molecular structures and atomic bonds that make things like water possible. And intricately balanced and tuned system of gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism. All of these things essential for the miracle and wonder of life to exist. And life POOFS into existence.... I don't care what you "believe in" ...that is what happened. 

Now.... YOU can believe that this has no purpose. But I think this is the root of the whole debate, not everyone can believe that this has no purpose. In fact, a functional, rational, logical, objective and intelligent person would think... there is probably a reason for all of this. I mean... we have logical explanations for all kinds of things in our universe... that's sort of what Science does, explores possible explanations. So, to think there isn't a purpose and reason for our universe to exist is contrary to everything we are as a species. You have formally devolved yourself into a lower subspecies of human. Congratulations!


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
Click to expand...


While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Nothing I say defies physics. Physics is something we use within this universe. It doesn't apply itself to before the big bang. I'm just talking logically. Of course if there was a 10 second count down to the big bang then time existed before the big bang. What was YOUR god doing a day before the big bang?



Physical Time did not exist BEFORE the Big Bang!  DUMBASS!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You wrote: " There was no "one minute before the big bang" because there couldn't be. How can a dimension of something exist before the something exists? This theory of yours defies physical nature"
> 
> Listen to what Hawking had to say about this: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.



*YES! HE IS MAKING MY FUCKING ARGUMENT AND REFUTING YOURS! DUMB ASS! *


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> But in recent years, there have been a number of new cyclic models that allow an eternal universe to exist. In 2002, Paul Steinhardt, of Princeton University, and Neil Turok, of Cambridge, devised a model that exploits the extra dimensions found in string theory. String theory supposes that our universe might not be three-dimensional at all, but might have as many as ten spatial dimensions. Our own universe might simply live on a three-dimensional membrane (or "brane" for short) that is floating through the universe, barely interacting with the other universes.



The Brane Theory is a completely different theory than Cyclical Universe, and is actually the result of disproving the Cyclical Universe theory through Hubble's observations of accelerated expansion. So the Brane theory is one of the more recent new theories to replace the old Cyclical theory. The problem with this is.... it's not Science anymore. 

For it to be Science, we have to be able to observe, measure, test hypothesis and we can't. We are stuck in our physical dimensions of our own physical universe and we can't do anything with regard to examining others. We can't confirm they exist, we can't detect them or even know where to look for them. So this becomes simply a piece of philosophy in terms of what we can do with it at this time. It is interesting... they could do some great Sci-Fi with it... but there is no way for Science to support it or explore it at this time.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things you will never get an answer to. So, why is the universe? What is the purpose? Maybe there is no purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but that is a conclusion. Science can't do a thing with a conclusion.
> 
> When I stop and take the time to look at the life around me, the beauty in nature, even in the night sky across the cosmos, I see something very special and incredible. I look at the mechanics of our solar system, our planetary ecosystem, laws of thermodynamics, incredible molecular structures and atomic bonds that make things like water possible. And intricately balanced and tuned system of gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism. All of these things essential for the miracle and wonder of life to exist. And life POOFS into existence.... I don't care what you "believe in" ...that is what happened.
> 
> Now.... YOU can believe that this has no purpose. But I think this is the root of the whole debate, not everyone can believe that this has no purpose. In fact, a functional, rational, logical, objective and intelligent person would think... there is probably a reason for all of this. I mean... we have logical explanations for all kinds of things in our universe... that's sort of what Science does, explores possible explanations. So, to think there isn't a purpose and reason for our universe to exist is contrary to everything we are as a species. You have formally devolved yourself into a lower subspecies of human. Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Sorry boss but there is no purpose.  The universe is much bigger than you.  That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach.  What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?  

You have a purpose.  The human race has a purpose.  Live & Prosper.  But the universe just is.  What do you think it's purpose is or our purpose?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in recent years, there have been a number of new cyclic models that allow an eternal universe to exist. In 2002, Paul Steinhardt, of Princeton University, and Neil Turok, of Cambridge, devised a model that exploits the extra dimensions found in string theory. String theory supposes that our universe might not be three-dimensional at all, but might have as many as ten spatial dimensions. Our own universe might simply live on a three-dimensional membrane (or "brane" for short) that is floating through the universe, barely interacting with the other universes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brane Theory is a completely different theory than Cyclical Universe, and is actually the result of disproving the Cyclical Universe theory through Hubble's observations of accelerated expansion. So the Brane theory is one of the more recent new theories to replace the old Cyclical theory. The problem with this is.... it's not Science anymore.
> 
> For it to be Science, we have to be able to observe, measure, test hypothesis and we can't. We are stuck in our physical dimensions of our own physical universe and we can't do anything with regard to examining others. We can't confirm they exist, we can't detect them or even know where to look for them. So this becomes simply a piece of philosophy in terms of what we can do with it at this time. It is interesting... they could do some great Sci-Fi with it... but there is no way for Science to support it or explore it at this time.
Click to expand...

Agree.  And yet even though these things might be things science can't explore, that doesn't mean they don't exist. They are still possible and in fact I think most probable.  I believe there must be alternate universes and of course time existed before our universe and of course it will after the last star in our universe dies.

And of course our universe is expanding and picking up speed.  Have you seen how many stars are out there?  It's like putting a lot of hot air in a hot air balloon.  The more hot air you put in the bigger it gets, right?  But what happens when all the stars in our universe die?  Science thinks 10 billion years is all we have left.  What happens when hot air stops filling the balloon?  The universe will then collapse.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I say defies physics. Physics is something we use within this universe. It doesn't apply itself to before the big bang. I'm just talking logically. Of course if there was a 10 second count down to the big bang then time existed before the big bang. What was YOUR god doing a day before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical Time did not exist BEFORE the Big Bang!  DUMBASS!
Click to expand...

Not as far as humans on planet earth are concerned but what about for things that lived in other universes?  What about for your god?  God didn't know time before the big bang?  That's interesting.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Why?  What do you think?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Sorry boss but there is no purpose. The universe is much bigger than you. That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach. What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?



I understand the universe is much bigger than me. I don't know where that came from or why... I never said otherwise. Stating there is no purpose is simply stating your opinion. You have made a conclusion and science can't explore, examine, observe or measure a conclusion. It's not like asking what purpose a grain of sand has on a beach... it's like asking why there is sand on a beach. If we conclude there is sand on the beach just because... that is not any different than concluding there is sand on the beach because God did it. Both are conclusions and science can't do anything with conclusions. 

We observe a fish called a salmon... we see it swim upstream. We don't draw conclusions, we use science and explore answers... we ask ourselves, what purpose does the salmon have for swimming upstream. We find there is a reason.  This is how Science works, not by drawing conclusions or throwing up our hands and saying "just because!"  Virtually everything Science dares to explore, it finds reasons... purpose. Nothing just happens because.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Not as far as humans on planet earth are concerned but what about for things that lived in other universes? What about for your god? God didn't know time before the big bang? That's interesting.



Time can't exist for anything if it's universe of which it is a fundamental dimension doesn't exist. God is Spiritual, not Physical. Time means nothing to God. It has nothing to do with God not knowing it... he created it with the physical universe. 

I totally understand what you're trying to articulate and it's simply incorrect according to physics. You are trying to image the sensation of time existing before the universe.... but that is not so. The sensation of time is the passing of time and time can't pass if there is no space or universe for it to pass in. We've known this for over a century. 

As for other universes, where is your scientific evidence they exist?  You see... all you have, all you'll ever have with that idea... is an opinion. A piece of philosophy that Science can't examine. Oh, maybe one day in the distant future we'll discover something groundbreaking that changes the game... anything is possible in Science. But for here and now, and in your foreseeable lifetime, there will be no validation of multiple universes.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  What do you think?
Click to expand...


Brainwashed, but not stupid, although his arguments here on this issue are kind of stupid.  Lol.  People fear the unknown (death), and so these wild tales make them feel better about it.  They are actually scared though.  Scared to even examine that they COULD be wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry boss but there is no purpose. The universe is much bigger than you. That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach. What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the universe is much bigger than me. I don't know where that came from or why... I never said otherwise. Stating there is no purpose is simply stating your opinion. You have made a conclusion and science can't explore, examine, observe or measure a conclusion. It's not like asking what purpose a grain of sand has on a beach... it's like asking why there is sand on a beach. If we conclude there is sand on the beach just because... that is not any different than concluding there is sand on the beach because God did it. Both are conclusions and science can't do anything with conclusions.
> 
> We observe a fish called a salmon... we see it swim upstream. We don't draw conclusions, we use science and explore answers... we ask ourselves, what purpose does the salmon have for swimming upstream. We find there is a reason.  This is how Science works, not by drawing conclusions or throwing up our hands and saying "just because!"  Virtually everything Science dares to explore, it finds reasons... purpose. Nothing just happens because.
Click to expand...

What do you think humans purpose is?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as far as humans on planet earth are concerned but what about for things that lived in other universes? What about for your god? God didn't know time before the big bang? That's interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time can't exist for anything if it's universe of which it is a fundamental dimension doesn't exist. God is Spiritual, not Physical. Time means nothing to God. It has nothing to do with God not knowing it... he created it with the physical universe.
> 
> I totally understand what you're trying to articulate and it's simply incorrect according to physics. You are trying to image the sensation of time existing before the universe.... but that is not so. The sensation of time is the passing of time and time can't pass if there is no space or universe for it to pass in. We've known this for over a century.
> 
> As for other universes, where is your scientific evidence they exist?  You see... all you have, all you'll ever have with that idea... is an opinion. A piece of philosophy that Science can't examine. Oh, maybe one day in the distant future we'll discover something groundbreaking that changes the game... anything is possible in Science. But for here and now, and in your foreseeable lifetime, there will be no validation of multiple universes.
Click to expand...

But multiple universes is scientifically possible. It is also an alternative possibility to the folks that think it must be a God.  If anything the possibility at least puts holes in your hypothesis that it has to be a creator.

The cosmos are eternal not a god.


----------



## rdean

We where shimmered into being from dirt.

Like this:


----------



## ScienceRocks

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry boss but there is no purpose. The universe is much bigger than you. That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach. What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the universe is much bigger than me. I don't know where that came from or why... I never said otherwise. Stating there is no purpose is simply stating your opinion. You have made a conclusion and science can't explore, examine, observe or measure a conclusion. It's not like asking what purpose a grain of sand has on a beach... it's like asking why there is sand on a beach. If we conclude there is sand on the beach just because... that is not any different than concluding there is sand on the beach because God did it. Both are conclusions and science can't do anything with conclusions.
> 
> We observe a fish called a salmon... we see it swim upstream. We don't draw conclusions, we use science and explore answers... we ask ourselves, what purpose does the salmon have for swimming upstream. We find there is a reason.  This is how Science works, not by drawing conclusions or throwing up our hands and saying "just because!"  Virtually everything Science dares to explore, it finds reasons... purpose. Nothing just happens because.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think humans purpose is?
Click to expand...


What does he think humans purpose is? My opinion of it is
1. To worship god be he real or not!
2. To die working for the greedy rich and be lucky to have a roof over your head.

Boss probably worships the devil


----------



## sealybobo

Matthew said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry boss but there is no purpose. The universe is much bigger than you. That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach. What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the universe is much bigger than me. I don't know where that came from or why... I never said otherwise. Stating there is no purpose is simply stating your opinion. You have made a conclusion and science can't explore, examine, observe or measure a conclusion. It's not like asking what purpose a grain of sand has on a beach... it's like asking why there is sand on a beach. If we conclude there is sand on the beach just because... that is not any different than concluding there is sand on the beach because God did it. Both are conclusions and science can't do anything with conclusions.
> 
> We observe a fish called a salmon... we see it swim upstream. We don't draw conclusions, we use science and explore answers... we ask ourselves, what purpose does the salmon have for swimming upstream. We find there is a reason.  This is how Science works, not by drawing conclusions or throwing up our hands and saying "just because!"  Virtually everything Science dares to explore, it finds reasons... purpose. Nothing just happens because.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think humans purpose is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does he think humans purpose is? My opinion of it is
> 1. To worship god be he real or not!
> 2. To die working for the greedy rich and be lucky to have a roof over your head.
> 
> Boss probably worships the devil
Click to expand...

He does strike me as the typical theist. Believing in God certainly doesn't make him a better person. Not that I can tell. Isn't he an asshole Republican dick? Guys like this believe in God but cherry pick what they want to believe so they can justify being rude, condescending, vulgar, honest, greedy mean and just plain mean.

But it's OK because as long as you believe a story, you are in the club and God forgives your dickishness


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry boss but there is no purpose. The universe is much bigger than you. That's like asking what purpose does a grain of sand have on a beach. What was the purpose of dinosaurs and trilobites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the universe is much bigger than me. I don't know where that came from or why... I never said otherwise. Stating there is no purpose is simply stating your opinion. You have made a conclusion and science can't explore, examine, observe or measure a conclusion. It's not like asking what purpose a grain of sand has on a beach... it's like asking why there is sand on a beach. If we conclude there is sand on the beach just because... that is not any different than concluding there is sand on the beach because God did it. Both are conclusions and science can't do anything with conclusions.
> 
> We observe a fish called a salmon... we see it swim upstream. We don't draw conclusions, we use science and explore answers... we ask ourselves, what purpose does the salmon have for swimming upstream. We find there is a reason.  This is how Science works, not by drawing conclusions or throwing up our hands and saying "just because!"  Virtually everything Science dares to explore, it finds reasons... purpose. Nothing just happens because.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think humans purpose is?
Click to expand...


I don't know and it doesn't matter. You're trying to intentionally misconstrue "purpose" and get me to say something like "god has a purpose for every grain of sand" or something.... which he MAY have, I don't know! That's not the point and not what I was talking about. Purpose is Reason... things happen for a reason.... when you drop an object, it doesn't travel to the ground for no particular reason, does it?  No... it's gravity.  Gravity serves a purpose... it keeps us from whirling off out into space. It keeps our planet revolving around a sun, and a moon revolving around our planet. Gravity serves millions of purposes and that's what we generally find in nature... things exist for a purpose and reason. And it's the very things we can't find purpose for that intrigue us most in science because we haven't discovered the purpose.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Brainwashed, but not stupid, although his arguments here on this issue are kind of stupid. Lol. People fear the unknown (death), and so these wild tales make them feel better about it. They are actually scared though. Scared to even examine that they COULD be wrong.



The main argument I make against the "fear death" meme is that we observe this behavior nowhere else in nature. No other species of living thing gets so distraught over death that it has to create security blankets to cope.... that doesn't happen in nature. AND... according to the very principles of Darwin's theory, this doesn't work anyway. We don't retain behavioral characteristics which are superficial and serve no purpose to survival. 

You have this completely backwards and you're hard headed about it.  We have this so-called "fear of death" because we're humans who are spiritually aware. Our minds comprehend something beyond the physical... we understand mortality because we comprehend immortality. Our actual fear is of what happens to the part of us that isn't physical after our physical vessel has expired.


----------



## IndependantAce

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainwashed, but not stupid, although his arguments here on this issue are kind of stupid.  Lol.  People fear the unknown (death), and so these wild tales make them feel better about it.  They are actually scared though.  Scared to even examine that they COULD be wrong.
Click to expand...

Belief in God is innate in humans, as well as possibly animals, It can only be conditioned out of them by outside forces. This is why atheists treat "science" as a religious surrogate, they are naturally religious creatures.

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

Animal faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus if one is an atheist they can't believe in anything, such as private property. One for example can't prove that constitutional or legal rights exist using "emperical evidence", so they are therefore as much of a fairy tale as God is.

Marxism or nihlism is therefore the only logical conclusion of atheism.


----------



## ChrisL

IndependantAce said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because!    ....Now there is some sound scientific logic!
> 
> So.... Instead of *"God did it"® * we have *"just Because!"™*
> 
> 
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainwashed, but not stupid, although his arguments here on this issue are kind of stupid.  Lol.  People fear the unknown (death), and so these wild tales make them feel better about it.  They are actually scared though.  Scared to even examine that they COULD be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Belief in God is innate in humans, as well as possibly animals, It can only be conditioned out of them by outside forces. This is why atheists treat "science" as a religious surrogate, they are naturally religious creatures.
> 
> Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
> 
> Animal faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Plus if one is an atheist they can't believe in anything, such as private property. One for example can't prove that constitutional or legal rights exist using "emperical evidence", so they are therefore as much of a fairy tale as God is.
> 
> Marxism or nihlism is therefore the only logical conclusion of atheism.
Click to expand...


That's not true at all.  And I am neither of those things.


----------



## IndependantAce

ChrisL said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the idea of inflation is correct, and it might be, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.  What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be.
> 
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective
> 
> Do you fucking get it you fucking retard.  You think so small.  You don't have all the answers but act like you do.  You're the most retarded USMB theist on these boards.  At least the other fucking idiots have an excuse.  They've swallowed a lie and believe this god visited.  OH YEA I forgot this god has visited you too.  Boss, you're a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree at all with Mr. Boss on this issue, he is far from being the dumbest poster here.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainwashed, but not stupid, although his arguments here on this issue are kind of stupid.  Lol.  People fear the unknown (death), and so these wild tales make them feel better about it.  They are actually scared though.  Scared to even examine that they COULD be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Belief in God is innate in humans, as well as possibly animals, It can only be conditioned out of them by outside forces. This is why atheists treat "science" as a religious surrogate, they are naturally religious creatures.
> 
> Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
> 
> Animal faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Plus if one is an atheist they can't believe in anything, such as private property. One for example can't prove that constitutional or legal rights exist using "emperical evidence", so they are therefore as much of a fairy tale as God is.
> 
> Marxism or nihlism is therefore the only logical conclusion of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true at all.  And I am neither of those things.
Click to expand...

Fact is you can't prove that Constitutional rights exist using empirical testing, so atheists who believe in any type of rights have to agree that they believe some things which can't be proven with "scientific evidence".


----------

