Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
another dodge!what's this "we" shit ?
you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing "shall we gather at the river"...
Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.
but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.
Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
No I am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.
Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?
It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.
God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.
Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.
By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?
Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.
God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.
Taking yet anotherReally? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?
Oh. So NOW you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.
No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.
What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?
"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.
No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.
Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.
I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.
Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.
It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.
You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.
You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
- El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
- Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
- Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
- Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
- Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
- Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
- The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
- Viracocha in Inca mythology;
- Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
- Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
- Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
- Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
- Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
- Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
- Rod in Slavic mythology;
- Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.
, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?Taking yet another, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
You really do base your views in faith.
Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?Taking yet another, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
You really do base your views in faith.ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.
You could provide a link to the exact post where you "clearly showed the fallacy in [my] logic." And yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?You really do base your views in faith.ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.
Ask a question when asked questions that would be a dodge.
What do you need answered again ? Bcause I clearly showed the fallacy in your logic.
Unambiguous opportunity?
No I am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.
Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?
It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.
Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.
By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?
Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.
God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.
If you are gonna hang your hat on natural selection for making the ultimate mutation a human,then you have to admit your natural proces is indeed an intelligent designer.
Of course scientist can decode the language of the Genetic code. How do you think they can genetically modify food and organisms ?
LOLsome.I have been lurking for a while and after reading the last few pages, I just had a chuckle. It would seem that the materialists in this thread have more answers than their high priesteses, Dawkins and Hawkins.
To assert that Natural Selection is responsible for the genetic code is simply preposterous!! No scientist, Evo or ID, actually buys into this, but several posters have managed to make it all sound so easy and simple. The for real educated propenents of Darwinism admit that they have no clue how life began or how the first copying device made it into DNA. They admit there is some yet not understood force that was around "billions and billions" of years ago that doesn't exist today. You see, folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude must have forgotten this one tiny little fact. Every cell "alive" on the planet today, every plant, every bacteria, came from another live cell, which came from a live cell, which came from a live cell. Nothing exists that spontaneously generated. We all came from splitsville. So you would think this simple code, this simple thing called life, that randomly assembled itself into a complex structure would be more robust. But alas, when we place a cell in a test tube filled with a precise concoction of "cellular fluid" around it and use a teeny tiny needle to pierce the membrane of the cell, all of the goo (Darwin's understanding) or what we call, micro machines and chemicals and copying mechanisms begin to spill out into the fluid. We aren't talking random amino acids or random proteins but the actual building blocks of life... DNA and RNA are there, the digital protein building codes, the codes that take two cells and turn them into trillions of hair, brain, muscle, skin, eye cells. Now my little story brings me to the great question, which is posed to all you buffoons (actually, let's keep this respectful)... to all you folks that make it sound oh so simple. Once the membrane is pierced, how many millions of years do we need to wait around before the cell becomes alive again? (That sinking feeling coming over you now is your common sense screaming from within your bones.) It will NEVER come back to life. We can shake it, radiate it, fire neutrino's at it, heat it, freeze it, heck we could even try to push all the goo back in, but that little cell is DEAD my friends. Elvis has left the building. And all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Mr. Cell back together again. But we are supposed to believe that nature did it all by its little lonesome. I guess I have to ask, who are the real fools? Life is here and it is everywhere around us. But that "magical" unknown process that kick started it is no where to be found. And science with all its "answers" isn't any closer to unravelling the mystery.
And that brings me to my next argument. What is an idea? Can we measure it? Can we touch it? Can we prove it with science? If evolution is true, then I suspect that the God gene, that is, the gene that gives me the idea there is a God, is extremely prevalent. Isolated societies, having no contact with the outside world, when discovered strangely "worship" God or gods. Why won't this idea die???? I guess we have to look to natural selection. NS tells us that only traits that result in fitness survive. I guess the God trait has survived all of these years because it results in better fitness. That is why worldwide, people with the God trait outnumber atheists 100 to 1. So I'm not really that concerned with all you materialists on this forum. NS will have its way with you too, and sadly for you, the God gene will continue on, strong as ever.
I have been lurking for a while and after reading the last few pages, I just had a chuckle. It would seem that the materialists in this thread have more answers than their high priesteses, Dawkins and Hawkins.
To assert that Natural Selection is responsible for the genetic code is simply preposterous!! No scientist, Evo or ID, actually buys into this, but several posters have managed to make it all sound so easy and simple. The for real educated propenents of Darwinism admit that they have no clue how life began or how the first copying device made it into DNA. They admit there is some yet not understood force that was around "billions and billions" of years ago that doesn't exist today. You see, folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude must have forgotten this one tiny little fact. Every cell "alive" on the planet today, every plant, every bacteria, came from another live cell, which came from a live cell, which came from a live cell. Nothing exists that spontaneously generated. We all came from splitsville. So you would think this simple code, this simple thing called life, that randomly assembled itself into a complex structure would be more robust. But alas, when we place a cell in a test tube filled with a precise concoction of "cellular fluid" around it and use a teeny tiny needle to pierce the membrane of the cell, all of the goo (Darwin's understanding) or what we call, micro machines and chemicals and copying mechanisms begin to spill out into the fluid. We aren't talking random amino acids or random proteins but the actual building blocks of life... DNA and RNA are there, the digital protein building codes, the codes that take two cells and turn them into trillions of hair, brain, muscle, skin, eye cells. Now my little story brings me to the great question, which is posed to all you buffoons (actually, let's keep this respectful)... to all you folks that make it sound oh so simple. Once the membrane is pierced, how many millions of years do we need to wait around before the cell becomes alive again? (That sinking feeling coming over you now is your common sense screaming from within your bones.) It will NEVER come back to life. We can shake it, radiate it, fire neutrino's at it, heat it, freeze it, heck we could even try to push all the goo back in, but that little cell is DEAD my friends. Elvis has left the building. And all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Mr. Cell back together again. But we are supposed to believe that nature did it all by its little lonesome. I guess I have to ask, who are the real fools? Life is here and it is everywhere around us. But that "magical" unknown process that kick started it is no where to be found. And science with all its "answers" isn't any closer to unravelling the mystery.
And that brings me to my next argument. What is an idea? Can we measure it? Can we touch it? Can we prove it with science? If evolution is true, then I suspect that the God gene, that is, the gene that gives me the idea there is a God, is extremely prevalent. Isolated societies, having no contact with the outside world, when discovered strangely "worship" God or gods. Why won't this idea die???? I guess we have to look to natural selection. NS tells us that only traits that result in fitness survive. I guess the God trait has survived all of these years because it results in better fitness. That is why worldwide, people with the God trait outnumber atheists 100 to 1. So I'm not really that concerned with all you materialists on this forum. NS will have its way with you too, and sadly for you, the God gene will continue on, strong as ever.
I'll never understand the repeated attempts by opponents of evolution to peg well-known figures of science like Darwin and Dawkins as akin to religious figures.
You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a separate field.
Sometimes I wonder if creationists are deliberate profound practitioners of irony. Richard Dawkins actually discusses "idea genes." If you've been around the internet, you've heard of it. They're called memes.
There's also the irony in you wanting to apply natural selection to ideas, and declaring the 'God' trait to be supreme and stronger than the atheist trait. Any one with a knowledge of natural selection will note that an environment can change, and so changes the memes that survive in it. One could argue that in an age that knows more about the world and universe than any age before, and has come up with a rigorous system of skeptical inquiry, the god meme could no longer survive.
You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
I'll never understand the repeated attempts by opponents of evolution to peg well-known figures of science like Darwin and Dawkins as akin to religious figures.
You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a separate field.
Sometimes I wonder if creationists are deliberate profound practitioners of irony. Richard Dawkins actually discusses "idea genes." If you've been around the internet, you've heard of it. They're called memes.
There's also the irony in you wanting to apply natural selection to ideas, and declaring the 'God' trait to be supreme and stronger than the atheist trait. Any one with a knowledge of natural selection will note that an environment can change, and so changes the memes that survive in it. One could argue that in an age that knows more about the world and universe than any age before, and has come up with a rigorous system of skeptical inquiry, the god meme could no longer survive.
Wow, aren't you Captain Obvious? I guess I wasn't too far off the mark with the arrogance thing. Materialism is a religion my friend, and your belief in Darwinism requires just as much blind faith as my belief in God.
You would presume you are the only one that knows about abiogenisis? Panspermia, extremophiles.... yeah, I can read wikipedia too. My little story was aimed at furtherBB, who seems to think that life is so easily accomplished by undirected forces. It's not. You had to wonder if there was sarcasm and deliberate irony in that post???? If that went over your head, I wonder if you would know real science if it hit you in the face? Sparring is healthy isn't it? Darwinists love to call ID proponents Creationists as a putdown. Is it wrong that I like to call the materialists Darwinists as a jab?
As far as the God meme, those darn soviet socialists tried a little eugenics and attempted to snuff that little meme right out. But that little sucker has some staying power doesn't he? Nature abhors a vacuum. Russian Vodka could only numb the hopelessness of life without God for so long.
You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
Please enlighten me as to the specific point that one ends and the other begins.No, but you seem to be conflating the two (evolution and abiogenesis) together.
Someone missed my point entirely.
This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.
Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.
Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious. It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.
