Religious Questions for any Religious people. Thank You.

[JohnGalt2341]

a lot of funny cartoon videos posted in here lol

Here's another for ya. This reminds me of something but I can't seem to figure out what it reminds me of:

[MadTiger]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;** </style> <![endif]--> "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."—Albert Einstein

[JBT]

Answer these questions dummkopf (try not to blow your only fuse):

Random mutation, the heart of Darwin's theory, has been shown to be severely limited in evolving new functional genes. There is no known example of the formation of a new species. The slow steps of evolution through selection cannot explain the irreducible complexity of the 40-piece rotary motor in the bacterial flagellum. If just one part of the motor is not in place, the motor won't work.
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Can you answer what is the original cause of the relative positioning of the sun, moon and earth?????
You and your Neo Darwinist patsies have yet to propose a solid theory for the beginning of life. What environment and mixture of minerals, water, sunlight, temperature and atmosphere caused the first living cell to develop?
If evolution were a fact, then humans at the top of the evolution process should be the most advanced of all the species in all areas.
If evolution - and its survival of the fittest is true - why didn't the fastest runner, highest flyer, fastest fish, or the specie that produces the most offspring, or the specie that is the largest and strongest, evolve to dominate and wipe out their competitors?
What caused human beings to be the only “kind” to have a lumbar curve in their lower backbone, enabling us to stand and sit in an upright position, and carry heavy loads while walking?
Evolutionists say there are 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, more millions of bird and animal species. Yet, only one- humans - developed language. If evolution is true - that species evolve continually higher and better - why haven't other species developed language?

How did the sexes come to be?

What was in the beginning? If the universe was entirely empty space except for a small mass of matter that created the universe by spontaneously exploding and steadily expanding throughout empty space. What caused that small mass of matter to explode?
Why there is order in all of creation? How did nothing create everything? Why does every sane person have a conscience?

You are telling me to answer another one of "your" questions, just like you asked me to answer the question regarding the "lack" of water on the Moon. Well I answered that one, and since you apparently lack an argumented response and have nothing to say in your defense, you instead just chose to come up with another question? Are you kidding me?

Furthermore... Dude, I'm not here to defend every single theory or comment Darvin ever made. Not saying I agree with you on the question/thesis at hand, but I'm sure some of his findings are flawed, and certain things have since his days already been refuted (and corrected where possible) by modern day scientists. I am referring to the evolution as a whole, not here to defend every single detail of the theory - I am not a scientist, so my knowledge will obviously be limited. Unlike religion, science is not self-defined to be unmistakable. Even Einstein has been proven to be at least partially wrong on some of his wilder theories by modern scientists, but unlike you, science at least admits when it's wrong and tries to correct it. There's no shame in admitting you've been wrong, quite the opposite... but you wouldn't know about that now would you?

Keep in mind that just because scientists might not have all the answers YET, it does not mean the only possible answer is "God's creation." Scientists are still looking for the answers and are coming up with new findings/conclusions every day. Science, just like living beings, is ever evolving and there is no way to have answers to it all from the get go, without numerous years of research and even then some things might still be beyond our current knowledge/wisdom/capability to understand and interpret, but most of all - ability to ask our self the right questions, so we could come up with the correct answers. Some things might even never be explained, but that does not mean "creation by a magical force unseen" is the only possible answer. The difference is - scientists admit when they don't have an answer (or when they realize they are wrong), the so called "Jesus freaks" don't. Religion claims to know everything and yet it's failing to back up their claims time after time. It's about credibility, which you and those alike obviously lack.

Now here's the kicker... Good job on pretty much entirely copy-pasting your response to me from a 2008 article in Tampa Tribune, a commentary otherwise written by a dentist! Lmfao... For a second there, I actually thought you had the ability to form complex sentences, even if it reads like a final attempt of a man trying to preserve his fantasy intact, while the ground underneath his feet is starting to crackle... but at least now we know you can copy-paste! Hilarious and at the same time very sad indeed...

Based on that fact alone I refuse to waste my time any further with a comment, but if Mr. R. GEOFFREY WEIHE decides to pose HIS questions to me, I'll be glad to read into it and try to answer IF I can.

Why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself man...

[JBT]

Evolutionists say there are 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, more millions of bird and animal species. Yet, only one- humans - developed language. If evolution is true - that species evolve continually higher and better - why haven't other species developed language?

Are you seriously asking me why animals don't speak English (relax, I know you don't)? Because it's not like animals do not communicate with each other in their own "language"... And just because their "language" is more simple/primitive and for the most part not understandable to us, it does not mean they have not developed means of communication.

"What was in the beginning? If the universe was entirely empty space except for a small mass of matter that created the universe by spontaneously exploding and steadily expanding throughout empty space. What caused that small mass of matter to explode?"

I have no idea, but I am dying to know. Hopefully we get an answer to this one during my life time, as I really do wonder...

Consider yourself lucky, because you already seem to know the answer

[pronk]

Are you admitting that you don't know how to answer any of those q's, don't you? What do you know??? How to annoy people around yourself? The kicker here is in your big mouth pal, that's all.

[JBT]

Are you admitting that you don't know how to answer any of those q's, don't you? What do you know??? How to annoy people around yourself? The kicker here is in your big mouth pal, that's all.

What I am admitting to is that I could not be bothered trying to make out and then answering your poorly formatted and entirely plagiarized delusional claims/questions from the post in question.

I try to write informative, argumented responses on topic discussed and all you can come up with in reply are short primitive jabs, insults and plagiarism. You are not worthy of my attention, though I must admit my human side gets really annoyed by your idiotic posts... So good for you, at least we've finally found something you're good at!

And yes, It's really boggling my mind and I admit I have no idea how it all started in the very beginning and what was there before "it"... it's hilarious however that you actually believe that you do.

You're a joke man, if I were you, I would've locked myself into my room and died of embarrassment. I revealed you for an uneducated fake that you are, and did so on several accounts. You can leave now... no need to embarrass yourself any further.

[pronk]

The only thing you have revealed that you are a crazy pro-obama, neo-liberal atheistic pinko meathead and in all likelyhood a f\*g. I'm finished arguing with you jerk-Benny.

[QuantumLeap]

It only took you nine months.

Tell me, at what point does god step in and say "hold it right there fruit fly, that's enough change out of you"

As far as me taking 9 months, my DNA was already programmed at my conception and did not evolve. My cells multiplied as they were programmed.

As far as your fruit fly question is concerned, I'm not sure how much change there is in a particular species. I'm just saying that there are not consistent links from a single-cell organism to a human.

[uva3021]

As far as me taking 9 months, my DNA was already programmed at my conception and did not evolve. My cells multiplied as they were programmed.

As far as your fruit fly question is concerned, I'm not sure how much change there is in a particular species. I'm just saying that there are not consistent links from a single-cell organism to a human.

If only there were some way where genetic information is changed. Maybe if nucleotides underwent mutations, complexity could accumulate.

Does lying to yourself make you feel better? Even without fossil evidence, there is enough genetic evidence to suggest common ancestry, more evidence for common ancestry than the current models of gravity. Genes that are interchangeable from yeast to primate, such as eyeless, homeobox, MHC genes.

The fossil evidence clearly shows a smooth gradient of smooth morphological changes consistent with the mutation rate and sex. We have primordial gills, as do all chordates, in the early stages of embryology, as well as a tail. We have a useless appendix, that is evolutionary baggage from an early necessitated organ. The circuitous route of the laryngeal nerve in all mammals is absurd. The wing of a pteradactyl is homologous with our middle finger. Every single bone in our body, every chemical in the brain, is found in a chimpanzee. The only difference is we retain our juvenile features into adulthood (lack of hair, head straight atop neck). I mentioned earlier, you can see under a microscope (like a magic marker) where chromosome 2 fused when the divergence took place 5 million years ago.

Even the fact that we have a tendency to masturbate is a side consequence of intense sperm competition that our early ancestors were faced with (i.e. the Iguana has 2 cocks for which to masturbate, and the subordinate males have to get in a quick squirt before the dominant ones come over and force them off the female, thus masturbating prepares iguanas for a quick coitus).

This is one of about 5 million examples of clear evidence that shows common ancestry.

[uva3021]

There's a reason it's still called a "theory", because it hasn't been proven.

A "theory" in science are the explanations given to explain the fact the theory supports. Ala, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentricity, cell theory, germ theory.

Evolution is a fact, studying an organism and deciding whether optimality assumptions suffice to explain, or pure random mutations devoid of selection pressure account for the genetic variation in a population are examples of some "theories" used to explain the fact.

Nothing in science can ever claim to be above the status of theory.

[QuantumLeap]

If only there were some way where genetic information is changed. Maybe if nucleotides underwent mutations, complexity could accumulate.

Does lying to yourself make you feel better? Even without fossil evidence, there is enough genetic evidence to suggest common ancestry, more evidence for common ancestry than the current models of gravity. Genes that are interchangeable from yeast to primate, such as eyeless, homeobox, MHC genes.

The fossil evidence clearly shows a smooth gradient of smooth morphological changes consistent with the mutation rate and sex. We have primordial gills, as do all chordates, in the early stages of embryology, as well as a tail. We have a useless appendix, that is evolutionary baggage from an early necessitated organ. The circuitous route of the laryngeal nerve in all mammals is absurd. The wing of a pteradactyl is homologous with our middle finger. Every single bone in our body, every chemical in the brain, is found in a chimpanzee. The only difference is we retain our juvenile features into adulthood (lack of hair, head straight atop neck). I mentioned earlier, you can see under a microscope (like a magic marker) where chromosome 2 fused when the divergence took place 5 million years ago.

Even the fact that we have a tendency to masturbate is a side consequence of intense sperm competition that our early ancestors were faced with (i.e. the Iguana has 2 cocks for which to masturbate, and the subordinate males have to get in a quick squirt before the dominant ones come over and force them off the female, thus masturbating prepares iguanas for a quick coitus).

This is one of about 5 million examples of clear evidence that shows common ancestry.

As far as genetic information changing, I never said that it was not possible. I said there is not a consistent record for billions of years. There are gaps. There is not a smooth gradient that you claim. There cannot be unless billions of years are accounted for. If you disagree with me then your statement needs support.

As far as me lying to myself, do you state this simply because I believe differently than you? Or do you have specific reasons to believe I am lying to myself? If you do not have specific instances where you believe I am lying to myself then retract your statement or risk looking like someone who is reacting due to the emotion of someone having a different opinion.

As far as the common characteristics that we have with other organisms, we have something like 70% of the same DNA as a fruit fly. I am saying that this could be programmed into our DNA. It doesn't necessarily have to be due to a common ancestor. That is where the fallacy of evolution between species lies.

Think of it, in order for life on this planet to survive, there has to be many common things present for any organism to survive (gravity, sustenance, oxygen, etc.). If a higher intelligence (not necessarily God) were to create living organisms in a world such as this, there would have to be many things consistent between organisms in order to survive. To state that it is evolution requires consistent steps between organisms and that is just not present. Therefore it is still a supposition, not fact.

[QuantumLeap]

A "theory" in science are the explanations given to explain the fact the theory supports. Ala, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentricity, cell theory, germ theory.

Evolution is a fact, studying an organism and deciding whether optimality assumptions suffice to explain, or pure random mutations devoid of selection pressure account for the genetic variation in a population are examples of some "theories" used to explain the fact.

Nothing in science can ever claim to be above the status of theory.

If evolution is a fact then support it. Your statements of genetic variation have not been proven. Nor do they take into account conscious programming that I referred to in my previous post.

Your statement of genetic variation includes gaps that cannot be explained. I have mentioned that multiple times yet you continue to post the same unsupported "facts". Show where there is a smooth, non-gapped support of variation between species. Perhaps a link that supports some of your statements so I can refute some of the sources you have come to believe.

Simply stating that something is a fact, followed by your opinions is not a valid argument. There must be support for your statements so that support can be analyzed in order that I may refute it if I feel it is in error. These statements are fundamental to any support of any statement. This is basic debating.

[uva3021]

If evolution is a fact then support it. Your statements of genetic variation have not been proven. Nor do they take into account conscious programming that I referred to in my previous post.

Your statement of genetic variation includes gaps that cannot be explained. I have mentioned that multiple times yet you continue to post the same unsupported "facts". Show where there is a smooth, non-gapped support of variation between species. Perhaps a link that supports some of your statements so I can refute some of the sources you have come to believe.

Simply stating that something is a fact, followed by your opinions is not a valid argument. There must be support for your statements so that support can be analyzed in order that I may refute it if I feel it is in error. These statements are fundamental to any support of any statement. This is basic debating.

I gave factual instances, instances that have been observed in nature, of things that embody the fact of evolution. I didn't make up the fusion of chromosome 2, our vestigial tails/gills, the absurd route of the laryngeal nerve, masturbating lizards. I didn't even mention how our sperm can penetrate the egg of all "higher" primates (Gibbons, Chimps, Gorillas), while being incompatible with the pro-simians (lemers, sifakas, tarsiers). A nice example of a reproductive isolation event required for populations to diverge. There is no believing, or opinion, on the fact of evolution happening. You don't "believe" evolution doesn't exist, you are simply misguided and thoroughly misinformed. And these "billion year gaps" you speak of occurred during times where there were no hard parts to fossilize.

Changing of species has been observed in nature, in mice, in fruit flies, certainly in bacteria. They all have shorter life cycles, working under conditions that would speed up the pace of evolution. We wouldn't expect to "see" a speciation event happening to organisms with longer life cycles, unless you can tell me what animal an albatross will turn into (a clever man would say an eagle, a realist would say a bogey). Evolution would thus be proven false if we happen upon an animal giving birth to another animal. Change can only be identified retrospectively.

If you are looking for instances where there is genetic change in a population, or the interchangeability of DNA segments between species, then that mere statement shows how undereducated you are on the topic. So I'll just point you to some introductory sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Evolutionary_biology

If I were to provide even a fraction of the evidence, it would probably be so large it would crash the website.
Conversely, the evidence refuting such facts are non-existent, other than saying "but things are so pretty", "how come we see gaps", "where does consciousness come from." Which are all explained through evolutionary biology.

[QuantumLeap]

I gave factual instances, instances that have been observed in nature, of things that embody the fact of evolution. I didn't make up the fusion of chromosome 2, our vestigial tails/gills, the absurd route of the laryngeal nerve, masturbating lizards. I didn't even mention how our sperm can penetrate the egg of all "higher" primates (Gibbons, Chimps, Gorillas), while being incompatible with the pro-simians (lemers, sifakas, tarsiers). A nice example of a reproductive isolation event required for populations to diverge. There is no believing, or opinion, on the fact of evolution happening. You don't "believe" evolution doesn't exist, you are simply misguided and thoroughly misinformed. And these "billion year gaps" you speak of occurred during times where there were no hard parts to fossilize.

Changing of species has been observed in nature, in mice, in fruit flies, certainly in bacteria. They all have shorter life cycles, working under conditions that would speed up the pace of evolution. We wouldn't expect to "see" a speciation event happening to organisms with longer life cycles, unless you can tell me what animal an albatross will turn into (a clever man would say an eagle, a realist would say a bogey). Evolution would thus be proven false if we happen upon an animal giving birth to another animal. Change can only be identified retrospectively.

If you are looking for instances where there is genetic change in a population, or the interchangeability of DNA segments between species, then that mere statement shows how undereducated you are on the topic. So I'll just point you to some introductory sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Evolutionary_biology

If I were to provide even a fraction of the evidence, it would probably be so large it would crash the website.
Conversely, the evidence refuting such facts are non-existent, other than saying "but things are so pretty", "how come we see gaps", "where does consciousness come from." Which are all explained through evolutionary biology.

You've done a good job in bringing up isolated incidences. That is not a logical progression though. Bringing up isolated incidences isn't proof of the entire record. What you're doing is called extrapolation.

You are also avoiding addressing my points. Instead you rehash your isolated points.

[uva3021]

You've done a good job in bringing up isolated incidences. That is not a logical progression though. Bringing up isolated incidences isn't proof of the entire record. What you're doing is called extrapolation.

You are also avoiding addressing my points. Instead you rehash your isolated points.

Do you really want me to go into the intricacies of reciprocal altruism, genetic imprinting, parent/offspring conflict, embryology, and protein substrates? These are advanced concepts that have taken me the better part of 3 years to only begin to understand. You seemingly have little understanding of genetics, and find it hard that information can be changed to the level of altered phenotypes. Its ok, I mean if you don't study it no one would expect you to understand.

What else would you expect, though, other than "bringing up isolated incidences" on a degenerate web forum. I'm not going to walk you through every bit of evidence pertaining to each individual organism that leads to a full understanding of the topics. I can point you to some links, and you can do the research for yourself. I can assure you its fascinating. The Wiki evolutionary biology portal is abound with relevant links. If you want to start with the heavy stuff, you can read the papers of the brilliant Robert Trivers.

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=136

Just type the title of the paper into google.

Or if you require visual stimulation:

http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/content/downloads

[QuantumLeap]

Do you really want me to go into the intricacies of reciprocal altruism, genetic imprinting, parent/offspring conflict, embryology, and protein substrates? These are advanced concepts that have taken me the better part of 3 years to only begin to understand. You seemingly have little understanding of genetics, and find it hard that information can be changed to the level of altered phenotypes. Its ok, I mean if you don't study it no one would expect you to understand.

What else would you expect, though, other than "bringing up isolated incidences" on a degenerate web forum. I'm not going to walk you through every bit of evidence pertaining to each individual organism that leads to a full understanding of the topics. I can point you to some links, and you can do the research for yourself. I can assure you its fascinating. The Wiki evolutionary biology portal is abound with relevant links. If you want to start with the heavy stuff, you can read the papers of the brilliant Robert Trivers.

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=136

Just type the title of the paper into google.

Or if you require visual stimulation:

http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evol...tent/downloads

Insulting your verbal opponent without showing cause is a poor way to make your point and just makes you look petty.

What do the intricacies of those concepts have to do with extrapolating out the entire record? What you're attempting to do is bring up intelligent sounding words to bolster your case. That is not valid logic. Valid logic would use those words to argue against my point.

I never asked for you to bring up the intricacies of those concepts. In fact I'm asking the opposite. All I'm asking you to do is show logical steps to prove you can take the concepts of localized species change and extrapolate that to the entire record.

But that's all I've asked from the start when I pointed out that there were gaps in that record. I don't expect you to prove that since you have been dodging that point all along.

Dodge ain't just a city in Kansas to you.

[uva3021]

Not sure what you are looking for. There is fossil evidence, genetic evidence, embryological features, anatomical homologies, reproductive isolation events, and that's just for humans. I brought up humans because I figured its something you could relate to.

Again all we can do is extrapolate given the evidence because we can't build time machines, and genes are distributed over a vast population spanning millions of years. We will never see an animal change into another animal. That's not how it works. Its like we are detectives that have arrived on the murder scene, and we found a person's DNA, footprints, fingerprints, wallet, and that same person purchased a gun the night before. Based on that evidence, we assess the probability.

Your only way of "debating" the topic is personal incredulity, without presenting any evidence to the contrary. If you want me to hold your hand for you, well then I apologize for being restricted by the pixel dimensions on screen.

[Carloschihuahua]

...And personally, I know there has to be some sort of higher power because the Theory of Evolution is so obviously wrong.
...

May I ask why you believe that "evolution is so obviously wrong"?

[nobs]

I know that the old testament has at least 65 different prophecies which are pretty much fulfilled 100% by Jesus life. It was told in the old testament that a saviour would come to Earth born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem Judea, would be rejected by his people, he would be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, he would be put to death, he would rise again, etc. And about 50 more things were foretold in the old testament that Jesus life fulfilled to the T.

There is also pretty strong evidence that the old testament was written at least 1000 years before Jesus birth. In fact, it can be proven that it was written at least 450 years B.C. as that was when the first known translation was made that we have on record.

Just as the New testament gives prophecies about the second coming, the old testament prophecisized on jesus life. jesus came to the world and fulfilled the old testament.

If that were all the proof there was, I would be convinced.

But that is only about .0000000000000001 % of the proof that exists.

Yes there is proof that jesus is/was the son of god

[nobs]

The following description, surmised from the Gospels, would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg told LiveScience:
Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. and grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class. Jesus' father was a carpenter and he became one, too, meaning that they had likely lost their agricultural land at some point. Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life; he never intended to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as acting within Judaism.
He left Nazareth as an adult and met the prophet John, who baptized him. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision. Shortly afterwards, he began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God." He became a noted teacher and prophet, as well as a healer: More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.
He was executed by Roman imperial authority, and his followers experienced him after his death. It is clear, Borg said, that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "lord" or "the son of God." This article was provided by Life's Little Mysteries. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Contributing reporting by Heather Whipps.



So all these people were crazy and they all just "Thought" they saw Jesus after his death ? The Bible records hundreds if not thousands of people who saw Jesus after his death. You all just dismiss that like you dismiss all the other evidence.

[nobs]

Even if you want to believe in Evolution ( a THEORY which at some point REQUIRES Spontaneous Generation by the way ), the sequesnce of life in the Bible is exactly what Evolution says. Fish, birds, BEFORE land animals. So Evolution doesnt disprove God anyway. In fact, Evolution might even further the proof of god, if you are just determined to believe in it.


By the way, Spontaneous Generation, is a theory that used to be believed. If this were 500 years ago, you guys would be guaranteeing us that spontaneous generation is the answer to everything. It used to be believed, but has now been debunked and accepted as impossible by scientists.

However evolution has taken its place as the new guarantee, you cant question it, answer to everything. The problem is that at some point evolution requires that first life to come out of nothing. In other words, spontaneous generation.

[uva3021]

Even if you want to believe in Evolution ( a THEORY which at some point REQUIRES Spontaneous Generation by the way ), the sequesnce of life in the Bible is exactly what Evolution says. Fish, birds, BEFORE land animals. So Evolution doesnt disprove God anyway. In fact, Evolution might even further the proof of god, if you are just determined to believe in it.


By the way, Spontaneous Generation, is a theory that used to be believed. If this were 500 years ago, you guys would be guaranteeing us that spontaneous generation is the answer to everything. It used to be believed, but has now been debunked and accepted as impossible by scientists.

However evolution has taken its place as the new guarantee, you cant question it, answer to everything. The problem is that at some point evolution requires that first life to come out of nothing. In other words, spontaneous generation.

All it requires is light to form matter, which happens all the time. The rest is stardust. At no point is spontaneous generation required, that's what creationism is, or intelligence design, whatever. Its complexity spontaneously generated from the most complex entity(ies) imaginable who apparently requires no explanation for existing, and took little time on our backs and laryngeal nerves.

The New Testament was written to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament. It wasn't written as is. The Bible isn't accurate because its in the Bible, that's circular logic. And birds did not come before land animals, plants did not come before the sun. Nothing in the Bible has even remotely resembled a verifiable prediction. Jesus, and the whole story, is a character rehashed from various Ancient Greek and Roman texts.

WHy are you leaving out the 50,000 other religions that have come and gone?

[N.O.S.]

All it requires is light to form matter, which happens all the time. The rest is stardust. At no point is spontaneous generation required, that's what creationism is, or intelligence design, whatever. Its complexity spontaneously generated from the most complex entity(ies) imaginable who apparently requires no explanation for existing, and took little time on our backs and laryngeal nerves.

The New Testament was written to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament. (It's **** versa my unbelieving friend)
It wasn't written as is. is that so? How was it written?
The Bible isn't accurate because its in the Bible, that's circular logic. And birds did not come before land animals, plants did not come before the sun.

Nothing in the Bible has even remotely resembled a verifiable prediction.
The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about
Jesus, and the whole story, is a character rehashed from various Ancient Greek and Roman texts.
You must be very ignorant because you answer every question you asked

WHy are you leaving out the 50,000 other religions that have come and gone?

You need help buddy

[JBT]

So all these people were crazy and they all just "Thought" they saw Jesus after his death ? The Bible records hundreds if not thousands of people who saw Jesus after his death. You all just dismiss that like you dismiss all the other evidence.

I can probably find you tens of thousands of people TODAY who claim they saw Elvis after his death... and at least a few thousand will claim same about Tupac. Since all these people believe that's who they saw, it must be true, after all they aren't all crazy right? Yep, I call that indisputable evidence...

[JBT]

The problem is that at some point evolution requires that first life to come out of nothing. In other words, spontaneous generation.

And God? Who made/created/gave birth to him? How did he came to be and what was there before him?

[JohnGalt2341]

THIS video will help some people's arguments... and hurt others arguments. The truth can be seen here:

[uva3021]

You need help buddy

Says the guy who thinks the New Testament was written before the Old Testament, and plants existed before sunlight.

[BGboothA]

Lmao. I loved reading this thread. Education is awonderful thing.

[JBT]

THIS video will help some people's arguments... and hurt others arguments. The truth can be seen here:

Gotta love the #4 and #5, though all arguments were very well presented. We need more of these informational videos with a pinch of humor, because this thread is very, very depressing

"God hoo?"

[pronk]

Nobs, pay no attention to this stupid blind roach because his 1 oz. brain has been marinated in atheist urine ever since he "learned" how to talk. This unbelieving prick even questions the other guys picks day after day after day because his tiny medulla oblongatta isn't capable to make its own decisions.

[nobs]

I can probably find you tens of thousands of people TODAY who claim they saw Elvis after his death... and at least a few thousand will claim same about Tupac. Since all these people believe that's who they saw, it must be true, after all they aren't all crazy right? Yep, I call that indisputable evidence...

You can find 10,000 people who Knew Elvis when he was alive that will say they saw him after his death ? I call BS. You're on. Name just 1.

[nobs]

And will over half the world worship Elvis in 2000+ years ?

Or will noone alive even Know Elvis' name in just 100 years ?

[nobs]

Nobs, pay no attention to this stupid blind roach because his 1 oz. brain has been marinated in atheist urine ever since he "learned" how to talk. This unbelieving prick even questions the other guys picks day after day after day because his tiny medulla oblongatta isn't capable to make its own decisions.

These guys have gambled their souls that they are right that their great great (5000X) grandfather was a fish or a frog or whatever, so they have to defend their position hard, no matter how wrong it is.

[nobs]

All it requires is light to form matter, which happens all the time. The rest is stardust. At no point is spontaneous generation required

all it requires is light and stardust to create a new life in your opinion, therefore spontaneous generation is not required ? What you just described IS Spontaneous generation, and its impossible. NEVER have you and your know everything, but sure seem to be wrong a lot scientists been able to create any form of life out of non living matter in a lab.

, that's what creationism is, or intelligence design, whatever. Its complexity spontaneously generated from the most complex entity(ies) imaginable who apparently requires no explanation for existing, and took little time on our backs and laryngeal nerves.

God has existed from eternity and will exist for eternity. Do you understand the idea of infinity ? What is the largest number that exists ? God has always existed, there is no beginning just as there is no "highest number". God is not the same as humans, apes, birds, and fish, so you really are comparing apples to oranges here

The New Testament was written to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament.

so what you are saying is that the NT is just made up, regardless of how much proof exists that Pontius Pilate, Jesus, King Herod, etc, were all real people who lived ? On that we just totally 100000000000000000% disagree.

Nothing in the Bible has even remotely resembled a verifiable prediction.

Wow. There are at least 65 predictions of Jesus birth in the OT which his life fulfilled to a T. The problem is that you are like an OJ juror. Your mind is already made up and when the overwhelming evidence comes at you, you just dismiss it as some grand conspiracy theory, because the idea that you are wrong is something taht you just cant fathom.

Jesus, and the whole story, is a character rehashed from various Ancient Greek and Roman texts.

you fail, and history is 100% against you on this. Even the vast majority of Atheists wouldnt make this silly statement

WHy are you leaving out the 50,000 other religions that have come and gone?

Because God didnt "come and go". I dont think there have been anything near 50,000 other religions. And for the record, pretty much all the worlds religions today worship the same God. So you really cant call Judaism, Christianity, Lutheranism, Mormons, Pentecostals, Islam, etc Different religions. They all worship the same God. There hasnt been 50,000 other Gods for sure, and it does beg the question why has the beliefe in this one God lasted through the ages whereas belief in other Gods died out ? And please refrain from the :"christianity is only 2000 years old mumbo jumbo. The world has worshipped this God since the first humans walked the face of the Earth

[NrmlCurvSurfr]

Lmao. I loved reading this thread. Education is awonderful thing.

No kidding...some of the arguments in here are so preposterous.