Bitcoin Forum

Question #4

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg

Question #5

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg

Question #9

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-16553-1391576896-6.jpg


Etc, etc.... Enjoy! ;)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?sub=2976539_2391851

If you replace "star" with "universe" then question 21 is clearly the best.

Creationism and evolution can coexist.

Suddenly I got huge urge to slap around these people...

Or maybe this is satire...
I kinda like this as the best cop out...
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-19479-1391576850-9.jpg

Grammar fail  ;D.

This is so hilarious!  :D

I liked this one best:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-27562-1391576936-1.jpg

These people are a prime example of evolution occurring with a pathological selection criteria.

These should be turned into a meme.

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

Did you guys watch the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

What's the less crazy alternative?

Mustn't.... Give in... To stupid creationist trolling!........

Answer to question 5: http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/earth_rotation_axis.jpg


...... Failed miserably :(

I'm sure it will be if it hasn't been already.

First they ask what you believe in.
Then they say it's a heresy.
Next they burn you at the stake.

Although it was an interesting listen, I wasn't all that impressed by either side.  Like I mentioned above, David Berlinski is an AGNOSTIC, and he makes some incredible points against evolution.  Here is a good clip of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

I watched.  For the most part I really liked it.  Although I completely agree with Ken Ham on almost all his points, I really wish he had not made as many references to the Bible, or at least saved it until the end when someone asked if he would ever change his mind or what was the most important thing to him.  To use the Bible as a point of reference is irrelevant to those who do not believe in the Bible.

Also, there was more observational scientific facts that he could have shared for a few topics.  One being that there are some reasons why the stars can appear so far away even though the earth is young (It has to do with Einsteins theory of relativity.  To learn more research Dr. Russel Humphrey's studies in his book "Starlight and Time") and there is evidence in the fossil record of plenty of sea animals that are in areas that would not be expected that can only be explained with a world-wide flood, just for a couple of things. But there is only so much time I guess.  At least the discussion was started.  It really is important to seperate the historical science that cannot be observed from the present day observational and experimental science that we can all agree on.  That was a good point Ken Ham made.

And, for those that watched the debate, what was up with Bill Nye's discussion on fish sex?  I still don't really get the point he was trying to make there completely. ;)  I never have thought much about it though!   :P

Yah, I didn't get that part either, lol.

I hope everyone understand this "22 bla bla" is mocking with creationists...


I watched this debate...

I do not like this kind of debates... Because there is not a debate regarding this issue. There are certain kind of religious folk who want to push their particular religion on other folk, and this only happens in USA, this kind of Christian extremism only happens in USA, there are not creationist out of USA, at least with this kind of propaganda...

So extremism only comes from Christians in the USA "and this only happens in USA".

Got it.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

Yeah it is refreshing to listen to someone who is truly unbiased when he looks at the data and the facts. He can clearly see a correlation between the MONEY behind the studies, and how that has swayed the "science" behind evolution. It's like how the government has "ended the debate" over the safety of GMO's. If they put enough money into a study, they can get whatever outcome they want

Creationism vs. Evolution should not be a discussion anymore. Agreeing to disagree is the only way the two sides are going to survive in harmony... there is literally no logical way that either side can make any headway with the other. If someone wants to believe something, they will. If the two opposing sides begin a debate, you can always see how each side simply tries to trick the other into agreement. No one learns anything, and nothing gets solved...so why do people still have this talk?

tl;dr: Creationism says: "Science doesn't know everything. I could be right.". Evolution says: "Science is trying to understand things. You could be wrong."
Everyone flames and no one wins.

Russell's Teapot, etc.

Evolution is a scientific theory. So it is testable, and observable under laboratory conditions. You can observe it in nature.

The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. The earth is not a closed system. The sun gives energy to the earth. Decaying radioisotopes in the earth also give it a lit of energy. The moons orbit also gives it some energy. Furthermore some energy is lost to space.


Most of those questions are really unintelligent. If any of these people were designed for today's society I'd say their brains were unintelligently designed.

How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?

An agnostic and atheist are not one in the same.  One can be agnostic and be theistic but they admit that there is no proof of that existence.  It seems that David Berlinski is very much a philosopher and I would think his claim of being "agnostic" was one in which he takes a more neutral stance in his belief in God.  There is more about him on Wikipedia though.

How do you explain easter without the bunny...

Honestly. That question makes more sense than most creationists questions

I'm aware of that, but how can someone believe in intelligent design whilst remaining agnostic? By definition you need a creator for that.

Wikipedia seems to think it is possible:  


I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be. 

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

Perhaps because he has no way of proving God one way or another?  One of David Berlinski's quotes that is circulating is:

Someone wrote (by accident) that "God" created the world in 6 days because he didn't know better, and 3500 later after knowing a bit more about the Universe, we're still discussing what that dude wrote ?!

Who created God? What is God made of?

http://www.ibtimes.com/22-responses-buzzfeeds-22-messages-creationists-evolution-origin-life-1553534

Do these people only read 2000 year old fairy tales?
We have internet, libraries, good documentaries and brains. Use them!

Whoever wrote that article is far more patient than I ever could be.

omg this is hilarious :D thanks

But he believes he was intelligently designed, so how can he be agnostic?

And you can't really disprove that something doesn't exist. Can the scientific community disprove a baboon god that I have just made up doesn't exist? No. God (and my baboon god along with all the other ones we made up) do a pretty good job of proving they don't exist all by themselves by not existing.

Those questions could be answered by my students. They have all been considered by science in past decades and even centuries. What am I supposed to make of their ignorance?

"How do you explain a sunset if there is no god?" Jesus H. Christ  ::)

You missed the grammar fuck up too.

Perhaps he is misusing the word "agnostic" or the meaning of "agnostic" has just evolved over time. ;)

Regardless,  I like the guy. I think he brings up many valid points.  This topic has not been "laid to rest" as many who hold to the evolutionary theory as if it was the one thing that held more truth than absolutely everything else in the universe.

I had a debate on Facebook with a friend of mine this week about this.  He said he was "unimpressed" with Dr. Berlinski's video and then proceeded to send me links of transitional fossils and even (in order to put the nails in the coffin) sent me several links to show how there are fossils of fish becoming amphibians.  So I responded that if the fossils showing fish becoming amphibians was indeed some true scientific observational evidence of evolution then YES!  There is some small piece of proof to base a theory on.  However, is that all I get?  Just a few fossils of fish becoming amphibians?  Can't I at least get a transitional fossil of a fish becoming a bird?  Is this too much to ask if I am going to base my entire belief system on this and throw out the potential that there was an Intelligent Designer that had a hand in how beautifully organized and complex our universe is and works together?  Of course he just threw the millions and billions of years that it took.  However, even with billions of years is there enough time to allow for each small change to happen to get where we are now?  It is mathematically impossible.  Plus there just is no observational record of these changes.  Otherwise it is just "faith" in evolution.  We have a choice then, faith in evolution or faith in an intelligent designer.  It really is that simple.

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

From the link:  -
Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

Here, go and educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I can't find anything on that site that shows me an observable example of one kind changing into another.  Lot's of speculation and plenty of thoughts on the subject for sure.  From the site you sent me was this quote  

But since we are throwing websites around, here is one with plenty of evidence and scientific reasons why evolution is not viable if you want to educate yourself.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/education (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/education)

Seriously? Is ignorance really bliss?

Answers in Genesis is propaganda, religious propaganda to be precise.

From the wikipedia page
So no.  

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

If you can't grasp simple stuff like the age of the earth or the age of the Universe, you can't expect to understand that.

You can start by learning how fossils are formed.

And by the way there are no "kinds", there is some debate on how to define a species and one doesn't need to be a supergenius to understand.

I am totally open to any of these theories.  I am even open to the idea that there are no "kinds" as you say.  But I, unlike what is being taught as "science'' in our schools today, stick with the scientific method which requires some tests be put to theories.  

Can a dog mate with a cat?  Why not?  Why do kinds stay within their own kinds?  Why did we not evolve so that we could have cat/dog/human mixes?  If there are no "kinds" as you say then what caused the amazing order and structure within species that we see all around us and how would that just happen by chance?

Wow!

I have a 13 year old niece that's way more educated than you!

If you can't understand the basic concept of species or "why a dog can't mate with a cat" your school system/parents/educators/society/whatever has failed you.

I think if you asked a bunch of 6 year olds to write down questions you'd get the same ones.  Did these people even attend High School?

My point was that they can't.  Because there are strict scientific rules and order within kids/ How can one kind evolve into another kind if they mammals cannot mate with each other?  That was the point I was trying to make.

Even 2 year olds understand that dogs are dogs, cats are cats and fish are fish.  Where is the proof of one kind changing into another in our fossil record?

Yes. Some people beleive god created the big bang. A world that just "appeared" doesn't seem right to me. I beleive in got but no religion.

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way ;)

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't (or don't want to).
I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change. Understanding complexity doesn't come by itself, it requires alot of effort and brainpower, so some opt for cheap easy options to find comfort or other irrational reasons.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of rational vs. irrational humans (nicely put), there's definitely room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

It's not "politically correct", but the lazy, the stupid and the irrationals have always been easy targets for religious infection. Harvesting & converting (= brainwashing) the sheeple has always been the prime task of clergymen. Limited effort by a small number of people, is successful allows for an entire army of autonomous but controlled drones = power & control. Business as usual amongst humans...

The concept of the Prime Mover is very different from creationism, creationism is Christian propaganda or some type of American Christians propaganda, the Prime Mover is a philosophical hypothesis for the beginning of the universe, it has nothing to do with gods or creationism.

But who are really the robots?

Although I could be considered a "Jesus Freak" I try really hard to see all sides, study all religions and understand where people are coming from.

However, this is not the case for my point of view.  I get laughed at, ridiculed called "stupid" etc.

And still no one has shown me the one thing I have been asking for over, and over and over again.  Just ONE observable example of a KIND changing into another KIND.  Where is it?  If that can't be produced then who has really been brainwashed?  What is the truth really?  Maybe the entire culture has just decided to go along with what is now taught as good "science" when in reality it is faith in something without any proof at all.

I don't quite get that... Look no further than the human genome itself and its recorded evolution (in scenarios of mixed populations as well as scenarios of long times of isolation due to climate or geography).
Pretty self-evident.
Not sure how much these tests cost nowadays, but you can get your evolutionary "mix" analyzed by common genetic laboratories within a short time, naturally limited by today's available technology and scientific knowledge.

Also, many don't seem to be aware what little genetic evolution is required to result in rather drastic differences. It takes only 1% generic difference to have two entirely different (genetically/mating incompatible species) that just share similarities upon closer inspection. It's the difference between a small ape and a fully developed human. Add 1% more difference (more advanced genome than ours) and one can only speculate what kind of massive intelligence potential such a lifeform could have compared to us. Take it a step further and allow for a full 10% difference in advanced genome, these levels would simply be way beyond our current comprehension. Einstein, Hawking, Tesla and alikes would be like mentally handicapped cockroaches compared to that.

The issue with the fossils is that those are eons old, an extremely high percentage was destroyed by the environmental changes/erosion etc. over time, and that relatively few scientists are actively looking for them around the world - and this only since a very short time in human evolution (I don't have an exact figure but I reckon it's something like 150-250 years roundabout).
It's a common occurence that discoveries are rather random finds i.e. during construction, not long ago these finds were simply ignored (due to general lack of education) and they ended up being discarded/structures built upon or ended up completely disregarded in landfills. Who knows if our ancestors even had an eye for these things at all, probably not.
Additionally, it takes very specific conditions to create and preserve a fossil from an otherwise bio-degradable/erosive/consumable material that otherwise is left to its environment and other lifeforms to "work on", hence they are extremely rare especially for land-based ones.

Likely the best spots would be in beneath the sediments of our today's oceans, having the best chances of being untouched and not exposed to atmospheric erosion since a long time - but such efforts/possibilities are still very new, limited by technology and very expensive. I don't think I'll live to see the day our very own planet is actually being systematically searched for fossils/artifacts i.e. by affordable robots or anything like that (they'd have to dig/scan a mile deep on land as well as beneath the oceans).

To me what is happening today (even with all our technology) is something I like to compare to i.e. a Mars Exploration Rover. Despite being a milestone achievement, it merely scratches the surface on a few isolated spots and digs a few inches deep, not more. That leaves far more than 99.999999% of the remaining possible finds absolutely undetected. Basically right now this is all we have done, in 200 years on this planet. Technically speaking, we barely have investigated our own planet yet and know only tiny bits so far (just enough to once a while take a 2nd look and keep doing it at an oozingly slow pace with extremely limited efforts).

Things would probably look different if mandkind didn't toss so insanely much effort & resources at typical points of self-centered human interests like war, to name just one example. In that respect, humans are still very tightly connected i.e. to territorial shimpanzee populations - and unfortunately it shows. Sometimes the motives and behavioural differences are so small, it's plain shameful.

Genetics actually supports intelligent design.  The complexity of humans is such that it would be mathematically impossible for a human to evolve from a monkey by chance. Even for one small thing to change in a single cell causes the cell not to function properly.  How could something so advance in it's design just happen by chance?  Logic says it is not possible.  But the universal genetic code is far too complicated for me to even understand but here is a link for those that need something more to read on the subject matter: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/the-genetic-code-proof-of-intelligent-design-t25736.html

Of course, small changes within the human race is evident.  This is adaptation or micro-evolution.  We can observe that. I want evidence that supports macro-evolution.  The evolution that everyone puts so much of their faith into.  The evolution that we all just came from a big bang and evolved from some goo in the ground.  Where is that evidence?

Whenever I have these discussions it always comes back to "It just took millions of years" or "We do not have the evidence because it happened millions of years ago."  All this speculation about millions of millions of years is just a way to find any excuse so the theory of macro-evolution can be justified.

All that said, nothing I say here would every change anyone's mind regardless.  

And I still have not seen evidence of one kind changing to another.  It is all speculation with millions of years thrown in to back it up.  That is not observable science.  It is "faith" in a belief.  

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean god did it.

I understand what you're saying, but in evolution there's no advancement, only change and adaptation, we are not superior or more advanced than a cockroach, we are different, and our intelligence may be an evolutionary disadvantage because we have the power to extinguish ourselves and cockroaches will still be here.


I have pointed you to some places where you can learn all you need, here's another: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection

Go visit museums, go back to school, do what you need to learn if you're willing to do so, but you can't expect that in a forum thread we explain you what took us years of our lives to learn and understand, but I suspect that you don't really wanna learn because it will probably go against your particular sect of Christianity and apparently ignorance is bliss.

To understand something takes intelligence.  If our genetic code is so complicated that it is hard to understand then it should tell us something.  Maybe someone intelligent designed the genetic code perhaps?

And who designed that intelligent designer? Where did the designer come from?

You don't solve anything by postulating the existence of a god. You merely introduce a superfluous variable that, itself, needs to be explained. Nothing is explained by inserting imaginary gods/designers into the equation; the equation only becomes unnecessarily hard and is no longer backed by empirical data.

Stick with Occam's razor.

Do you have parents?

Yes?

There you go! A "kind" changing into another "kind".
(BTW: "Kind" is a biblical term, and isn't widely used in evolutionary biology.)

It would be easier for you to understand evolution if you stopped thinking in terms of the "kind"/"species" labels and similar arbitrary mental prisons/boxes. Think of individuals (or even individual genes) instead, and you'll notice that evolution becomes more fathomable.

Here's a simple explanation of evolution for you:

1: There is heritability. (E.g.: My siblings and me have inherited certain traits from our parents.)
2: There are variants. (E.g.: My siblings and me are somewhat similar, but also somewhat different from one another.)
3: Some variants produce more offspring than other variants. (E.g.: My siblings have a couple of kids each. I have zero.)

Voila! That's basically all you need for evolution to occur. Notice how they're easily verifiable facts. And notice how there's no need to draw up an arbitrary, imaginary line between "macro-" and "micro-evolution". Such lines are figments of the creationist's imagination.

Do you perhaps deny the existence of heritability, variants and the fact that some variants produce more offspring than others?

I think this quote says it all:

"At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers"

So evolutionists believe that over 4 billion years, with millions of species "evolving" they only found hundreds of examples of this??? And what they call "transitional fossils" are usually no more than bone fragments. Go look at the actual physical evidence. It's just not there.

Also I wonder why some species decided to stop "evolving", like alligators?

No, it means you're not smart enough to understand it.

Are you swayed by arguments that aren't really arguments but are just "Maybe" followed by something silly followed by a question mark?

Maybe you should give me a million dollars perhaps? 

I apologize that I am not "smart enough to understand" the complexities of our cell structure.  I assume you are an expert in molecular biology then by your statement.

Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of how complex our human bodies are.

Here is one quote:  I found this with a quick google search on this site: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175858397/somewhere-over-the-brainbow-the-journey-to-map-the-human-brain

Furthermore, mutations in the human body, or any other living organism are most often not helpful.  There are some instances where there can be some accidental benefits but most mutations lead to things like Muscular Dystrophy or Downs Syndrome.  So any changes in the cell structure and how the human body was designed to operate is a negative thing.  

Evolution is based on mutation after mutation that leads to positive outcomes.  This is not observable in our world.  Chaos does not lead to order, ever.

Again, I have provided you several times websites that explain all that stuff, you are simple mocking us by asking the same stuff again and again, can't you use Google or read the material we have provided you?

Of course most mutations are bad, probably 99.99% and that's how natural selection works, only the fittest survive, is that so hard to grasp?

We should be able to observe mutations that are beneficial if evolution was an observable scientific theory even if natural selection had removed all of the "unfit" genes.  We still have more negative mutations passed on from generation to generation.  In fact, we are getting more mutations that are not beneficial as time goes on.

Great, so god exists because life sucks.

Sin is what make life sucks, which entered the world because man chose to disobey God's laws.  Every good and perfect gift comes from God but God gets blamed for all of our bad choices.  That does not really seem fair to me.

creationism is purest form of bullshit.

And where, exactly, does your god come from? Who created her?

Care to share the maths behind this please? We're all professional cryographers here!

I'm not sure that you're logic is the best for this job, no offense but you seem pretty ignorant and indoctrinated.

As for your 'kinds' question. What is a 'kind' (where did you learn that term for something?) Do you mean why can't a dog fuck a sheep and make a dog-sheep? Thats biology, something you have to learn by STUDYING, not just applying your brainwashed logic to ("OMG so a dog cant fuck a cat therefore evolution can't be real!")  ???

Are you actually trying to request a fossil of some sort of half monkey fish bird or something? This is like asking for proof of the same skeleton to prove babies grow into adults. Well there are no skeletons of the exact same baby and the same adult skeleton, therefore babies cannot grow into adults. The changes in evolution are tiny and appear over thousands/millions of years, and it's not just physical fossil evidence but also DNA.

You can't begin to comprehend how a cellphone works, so god must have made your iphone.

Hundreds or thousands? I have found hundreds of fossils myself.
There are millions of fossils in museums and universities, and they are all transitional fossils. Evolution never stops and each individual who successfully breeds creates unique offspring. Even an alligator. So why do alligators look the same as many of their ancestors? Simple, their body and behaviors still work. Their is no evolutionary driver to cause change when things are working.
If you go back far enough you will find many species of alligators that lived far from water and galloped around like horses when they ran. They did not survive, but ambush hunting in the swamp is still a good strategy. The crocks that followed that path are still here.   

If I was walking in the wilderness and saw a cellphone lying on the ground would the thought ever cross my mind "Wow.  What a strange thing that has evolved out of the dirt?"  A cell phone is a complicated device that obviously had someone intelligent design it.  So then to look at the complex structure of the human body or all other living organisms (which are far more complicated in design then a cell phone) and say, "Wow.  How did humans just evolve out of the dirt?"  Is just as illogical.

God did not make our cell phone.  But he gave us the intelligence we needed to do so.  Without Him we could not make a cell phone because without Him we would not exist to begin with.

What scientific testable method do you have for god? I don't understand how you can pick holes on the theory of evolution and claim it's faith, yet you deny evolution based on lack of evidence (even though there is lots), but believe in god without any evidence at all?

Why are you not applying that same logic to god? So it's ok for god, a being far more complex that both us and phones, to come out of nothing? He must've been designed according to your logic.

God is eternal and omniscient, all powerful and all knowing.  He created time and we cannot understand things beyond those limits in our human form.  This is one of the things we have to take on faith. We do not have the capacity to understand everything, even though with pride man thinks they know more than God most of the time. 

All that said, there is more evidence that leads to design.  Both evolution and creation need some leap of faith.  We cannot understand how evolution could just "happen" either.  The question becomes is there more proof of intelligent design in our world or a world where things just happen on their own?  It takes less faith to believe in a designer.

*ugh* what ?
Evolution = Advancement over time, where the term "advancement" also equals ability of survival in a dynamic environment (genetic fitness)

If you seriously think that were not more advanced than a cockroach, then you should revisit school (or get some education from scientists/teachers in general)
While I agree on the intelligence also having certain downsides, that is simply how life works : potentials and risks.
And while we're able to do great harm, our ability to adapt (in ways a cockroach could never do) also ensures our potantial for survival as a species, even after a full-blown global thermonuclear war. Nature doesn't care if 7 Billion humans live on the planet's surface or 50 Million survivors live a mile deep underground.


And here we go again. Clear sign of a human brain capitulating due to lack of knowledge and processing capability - to believes (the EZ shortcut for those that don't, can't or don't want to get it).
Terms like "Leaps of faith" are human inventions and don't exist in nature in that context. Nature (pardon my french) doesn't give a sh*t. Adapt & survive or die and have your habitat replaced by other species. Eat and get eaten, harsh and simple as that.

While you cannot understand how evolution happens, that doesn't mean I or others share the same unfortunate fate. We do understand (to the best of your abilities and knowledge), that's the main difference. Btw. it doesn't "happen" (typical religious vision of things) it occurs over time due to mutation (transgenetic, radiation), stochastics (random genetic malfunctions that turn out useful) and genetic evolution (breeds) over long timeframes (all put in very inaccurate, layman's terms).
And by time, I don't mean some magic few days of creation, a few years or a few generations. I'm talking tens, hundreds and thousands of millena, these are timeframes that (for some reason) seem to be incompehensible dimensions for religious people. Eons of time. Our own planet, solar system and galaxy formed over even much bigger timeframes, so much we know already (and another creationist/religious myth is busted)

When your only arguments are "I have no idea... so god!" and "just trust me -- it's god," you automatically lose.

If you understand evolution as you say you do then give me the one answer I have been looking for here.  Give me an example in the fossil record of how a fish became a dog or any kind changing into another kind.  I want just ONE fossil that proves this.  But there isn't one.  There is no concrete evidence otherwise.  These so called "transitional fossils" are not enough evidence to support this.  The fossils that are found are one that show micro-evolution, which is basically adaptations that happen within a species but not outside of the species.  Changes do and can occur within a species for sure but dogs cannot mate with cats, and so on.  Also, mutations are not observed as beneficial in our world.  They lead to major problems, such as Down's syndrome and other serious issues. The only "solution" is to throw unobservable millions of years at the problem and then that is called good "science."  That is pure speculation without any evidence to support it.  The evidence supports that animals cannot mate outside of their own kinds and when changes do happen because of mutations problems occur.

BTW,  if the earth really was millions and billions of years old the temperature of the sun is a major issue to consider.  The temperature of the sun would have been too cold back then to support life at all.

Are you really requesting that we show you a fossil of a half dogfish? Can you show us one piece of evidence for god?

To look at a newborn baby and observe how beautifully he/she has been created is enough evidence for God that I will ever need, but that won't mean anything to most people here. ;)

My point in wanting ONE fossil that shows how one kind has changed into another kind is to make the point that there is not solid observable evidence that supports the theory of evolution.  Therefore it takes "faith" to believe in it.

Your faith in evolution is not much different in my faith in creation.

Don't know how to break this to ya... But you can't find a single fossil that (somehow) is supposed to demonstrate evolution in a single lifeform. You're asking for a fossil of a lifeform that somehow managed to reach an age of 150 Million years and transform.
You're looking in to wrong place, fossils are merely puzzle pieces, plus they're a terribly bad place to look for precise genetic evolution (the genetic material is non-recoverable with todays technology, thus all that remains is the shape and basic construction, which allows a limited reconstruction of its habitat and a bit of its lifestyle).

I already gave you one of many possible answers earlier in the thread, your question is long solved.

What you however are asking for is a complete timeline - by fossils and artifacts - that demonstrates the entire string of evolution. That does not exist (yet), but I also wrote the reasons for that earlier in the thread.
Take a mammoth and an elephant instead, or a sabre tooth tiger and a modern tiger, these are better suited examples if you (for some reason) refuse to look at the various well-documented human evolution steps.

And never confuse "faith" with verifyable scientific proof, another general mistake (not by accident I presume) religious people often make to avoid giving up their "faith", as they lack every little bit of proof themselves (and historically just about every single claim they made about the universe ended up being the delusional type where they originated, once a scientific verification was undertaken).
Myth and makebelieve superstitions... Sheeple, mindless robots, at least one thing is certain : de-evolution is also possible in a sense, they demonstrate that often enough.

Once again, it's proven pointless handing verifyable scientific proof to religious robots - even on a silver plate right under their noses - as their arguments are as fake as their believes.
They don't want to learn, they want to spread seeds of doubt to the scientifically illiterate/undereducated to convert them and join their army of the mindless believers.

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

What do you see when you look at a hideous miscarried deformed baby? What do you see when you see a child starving and dying of AIDS? Why did your loving all powerful and infinitely intelligent god create AIDS and give it to that beautiful innocent baby in the first place? Why can god not create a cell free from cancer? Why are people born blind and deaf? Look at the horrors of the world and ask yourself what sick fuck would create all that tragedy then do fuck all about it? I've got a reason, AIDS evolved just like everything else did and cancers and deformities and mutations just happen. But maybe you're right, and god did create everything, but then he's a horrible evil bastard and personally I wouldn't want anything to do with him on principle alone.

Is God an atheist or maybe an agnostic?

Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  Then sickness entered the world because of man's disobedience, as well as death.  We are living in fallen world with disease and sickness and pain and suffering.  Jesus came to bring life and hope.  He even healed the sick, and still does.  Most hospitals were started by Christians/Catholics to help bring healing to those that are suffering.  Most charities are religious in nature because God places it in the heart of us to reach out and love others.  

Yes, this life if filled with pain and suffering.  We will all die.  We will all be accountable for God's law, even if we don't believe in it or not.   We can choose to believe whatever we want about Him.  We can deny Him.  We can be angry with Him because things seem so "unfair."  But God out of His great love for us sent His son, Jesus, to pay the price for our sins so we can be restored to Him and have eternal life and He wills that everyone come to Him. And who should we blame for all the sin, sickness, death, pain, abuse in the world?  Satan is the deceiver.  He is the one that is behind it all.  But in rejecting God man is taking sides with the one that is behind all of these atrocities.  We have a choice.  

This is like asking us to show you a growing fingernail to prove to you that it grows. We could show you fingernails at all the different stages of growth, but if we show you a half or fully grown one you're not going to accept it unless you can see it growing.

And your faith is much different. We look for evidence, you look for none except the argument from beauty.

i've been accused so far on this forum (amongst other things) of being a religious zealot  ???

I'm nothing of the sort - and I don't know how I might have given that impression. Perhaps because I have a sense of morality ? I dunno.

I can admit that there may be a God - but can the "creationist" admit that there might not ?

That aside, the point I want to make is that I'm not particularly an anti religious zealot either, in the fashion of Richard Dawkins for example.

My approach to religion is one of pragmatism - if it helps some people to lead a better and more moral life, and it doesn't affect me one way or the other - then who am I to complain ?

Have a look at William James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience) on religion - hopefully this reference at least will have some resonance amongst the majority US contingent of Bitcointalk  ;)

  I'm trying to reach my arm out across the Atlantic here fellas  ;D

So god decided to create cancer and AIDS because of Adam and Eve, so he punishes everybody who has ever lived because of them two plebs? If Jesus or god can cure the blind, why not cure blindness altogether? Why not cure all diseases? Why even make them in the first place? Why must everyone suffer? How can someone be so cruel and evil? He has the power to do everything, yet he does nothing? You claim he's all knowledgeable, but didn't foresee what people would do? Can you not see that only humans could create a being so repugnant as this god character? I honestly don't know whether you're trolling or not.

I am not trolling.  I am very passionate about my faith as you can see.

But I will admit that your way of thinking is much more popular than mine.  If I was trying to win a popularity contest with my belief in creation as well as God I would be in huge trouble!  :D

That said, I have contemplated how to best answer your accusations of the unfairness of God.  I would say the best thing to do is to take it up with Him.  We have all had questions as to His fairness, or lack thereof.  But for me it comes down to putting blame where blame is due and I am partially to blame in that I have made choices in my life that have gone against God's laws. Have I sinned against God?  Yes.  Do I deserve the punishment for that sin?  Yes.  Am I thankful for God's promise of forgiveness and grace and a hope of eternal life beyond this crappy world?  Definitely!  But many people in this world have no understanding of even the slightest need for God in their lives, or they just believe he does not exist at all.

Sorry but one "kind" as you call it (In science there is no "kind". It's a therm creationists made up) dosent turn in to another over night. Thats not what the evolutiontheorty teaches so you will never find it. Its a prosess that takes many many ears. All species are a transission from one species to another. Its an neverending prosses.
That is often the problem when you are debating people that are opposed to the theory.... They have no idea what the theory they oppose really is

How do I take it up with him? If I ask I wont get any answers. Just silence which already speaks loud and clear. Do you not think all these answers are just excuses though? Where do all these answers come from? The bible or has god told you these personally? I'm sure you've just had these answers drilled into you by someone. I was raised a Catholic and went to all Catholic schools, but once you start to think for yourself it quickly becomes apparent that there's not a single piece of evidence for any gods whatsoever.

No, it's change over time, and only individuals with some characteristics survive.

You can dispute what I said by saying the complexity of organisms increases over time and this can be interpreted as advancement, but natural selection doesn't care for complexity.

And I don't think we're more advanced than any other animal or plant, we're just different, we have different capabilities.

The anthropocentric view is very common even amongst scientists and teachers, we all like to feel special.

"Hearing God" is another entire discussion.  I admit that in my own life there have been many times when it felt like God was not there or not listening.  But I can tell you that if you sincerely keep asking He will respond.  He has made Himself know to me in many ways (reading the Bible, prayer, using others around me) but it is a spiritual journey.  I will pray that you will hear begin to hear Him more clearly though.  

Please don't waste your time on me. I never heard or felt him in the first place, I was just told he existed and I believed it because that's what naive children do. I also like the phrase one pair of hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer, so go do something useful or altruistic instead.

Ah.  But James 5:16 says that the prayers of a righteous person are powerful and effective.  I guess this will be more of a test of how "righteous" I am then you are then. ;)  As for your point that you have moved beyond being a "naive" child, we have to come to faith like a "naive" child really.  The world around us thinks that they are just smarter than God.  It really is just pride and pride is considered the most dangerous sins of all, probably because with it no one will ever even come to God.  Why would they?  They think they know more than God and do not need Him.  Although we all need Him.  Some just won't realize that until it is too late.

An old book is never a proof of anything, so quoting the bible will get you nowhere. It was written in a time when our brains were less developed and most people halisounated from too much mushrooms on a daily basis

If there was a god I wouldn't think I was smarter than him/her/it, and I don't think anyone would, but I guess by default I'm smarter than something that doesn't exist to me. I'd also say we don't need him and some wont realise that until the end.

People "believe" in God, they "understand" evolution.

If you understand biochemistry and molecular biology and related subjects, all these criticisms of evolution sound absurd.

There is a well-established process for increasing the size and diversity of the genome. Quite simply, DNA copying is an imperfect copying process, such that at random intervals there is a chance that the copy is imperfect. Such imperfections include cutting out portions of code, duplicating portions of code, or switching individual code elements. Sometimes the changes do not affect the organism, sometimes they are beneficial, sometimes they are detrimental.

Also remember that not all of the genetic code is operative; there are large sections of our genes which apparently do nothing. So changes can happen slowly to that section, then if another part changes to start executing that code it will make a big change in the organism.

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

One can be observed the other cannot.  One is fact the other is theory.  What used to be taught as a "theory" is now taught as fact.  People now believe a "theory" as fact.  People have faith in this theory above all other theories.

There are HUGE differences.

 

Have you seen the study done by researchers at Michigan State University where they reproducibly saw the evolution of one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria when they carefully constrained the food sources available to the microbes?

To understand evolution, keep in mind it is generally a divergent process, so species A becomes species B and C, not a convergent one where species A and B join to make species C (except on the microscopic level, like how amoeba-like organisms joined with blue-green algae to form plants). An easily understood example is the split between the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo: they were one species until less than a million years ago, but then two populations were separated by the Congo river, with the bonobos on the south and the chimpanzees on the north. Neither can swim such a large river, and so the populations could not intermingle. The two areas have different climate and food options, and so the two populations diverged into two species.

OK, since you are about the same understanding level as a 6 year old, this is how I explain evolutionary paths to my daughter in 1st grade: If you go back in the fossil record, you will find a time when there were fish but no dogs (or any other land animals). There were many types of fish, some ray-finned fish like a goldfish, and some lobe-finned fish like the lungfish. Lobe-fins look like legs, in fact some of these creatures moved onto land and adapted to breathing air and walking and they became salamanders. Some of the salamanders stayed salamanders, but some of them developed scales and eggs with shells, which allowed them to live away from the water, those we call reptiles. Some of these reptiles stayed reptiles, some developed hair so they could stay warm and milk to feed their babies, these became mammals. The first mammals might have looked something like large shrews. Some of these survived by eating meat of other animals and developed into the carnivore class, like wolfs. At some point some wolves and people started living together and the people selectively chose the animals which were good companions and we now have the modern dog.

A somewhat related note, I was once watching a documentary about dogs, they mentioned that the dog family has a stretch of genes where the physical characteristics are stored (size, shape, color), but unlike most animals the dogs have this section copied a whole bunch of times, causing a huge amount of variability. So many changes can be made to the dog physical appearance and bred to what is desired. This is why breeding dogs has led to such a huge variance in dog appearance in a single species, while other animals like cats or horses have a much smaller range of breed-able variance.

In all of this the only real scientific data you can give me is one type of bacteria becoming another type of bacteria.  It is still bacteria.

And the changes in dogs?  They are still dogs.

I see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs anywhere.

You also lack understanding on what a scientific theory is, here you go:

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

I mentioned that study as an example of people observing evolution. Evolution is such a long term process that observing it directly is very hard to do. Instead, we must look at related evidence: fossil record and genetics. The fossil record does not show every animal that ever lived, most animals leave no trace behind, but clearly there is an order in which species appeared and disappeared. But you can look at the genetics of current animals: by finding commonalities and differences you can group animals in clades, species A and B have this sequence in common, but species C does not, so A and B are more closely related to each other than C. Thus we can build a genetic tree showing which animals are related to each other. Amazingly, this tree matches what we observed from the fossil record! We see fossils which have characteristics of A and B from the same time we see a fossil which resembles species C, so that supports the theory that A and B are related.

tldr: you see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs because you are not looking at all the evidence.

A theory is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How is macro-evolution repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation?  

This is why I keep asking for just ONE transitional fossil that shows how a fish became a dog, or cat or anything other than a fish?  I do not get anything that is repeatedly confirmed through observation for that at all.

I am not even sure it should even be a "theory" at all.  The evidence is so weak to support it.

macro-evolution is repeated confirmed by the fossil record and by molecular genetics studies.

I shall add something that the OP also seems missing (education ? Come on...)

Both the mentioned fish and the dog are already relatively high in the evolution chain/tree. That means a fish has actually never turned into a dog, as both are developed indivdual species with distinct genetic footprints and different compexity.

So looking for a fossil of a fish that later developed into a dog (regardless of time involved) is futile. A dog is a mammal, not a fish.
You'd need a willing laboratory and some sort of frankenstein experiment to either make a dog breathe water or make a fish bark :P

Anyway, I stand by what I wrote earlier. This is not a serious discussion.
The Thread title should rather read 22 funny Messages from convinced believers** to people who actually have an education
** self-contradictory, but that little detail never bothered a believer

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

All of them have the same answer: "Because you are too dumb to use Google." Sorry if I am repeating another post.

You wouldn't even need to go to such an extreme.  A simple embryology text would suffice.  If you compare the embryologic morphology of a chicken to say that of a human, it is difficult to tell the two apart until the later stages of gestation.  These two organisms are very far apart from an evolutionary standpoint, yet they both use similar mechanisms of development.  This conserved process suggests a common ancestor.  Genetic sequence analysis lends further evidence to this assertion.  These two organisms will share a much larger component of their DNA than say a human and a sponge (technically an animal).  This correlates with a diversion much more recently than the pre diploblast (sponge)/pre triploblast (all other animals) split.  

What scientific degree do you hold that makes you an expert to confirm or deny evolution?

A degree should not be required to support or refute scientific evidence.  That being said, Ms. Bitchick has provided substantially little data to support her claim.   

There is only one universal response to all of these questions.... Bahahaha

I confess I am limited in my expertise.  Hence why at the beginning of this thread this video was posted:  Dr. Berlinski is a professor at Princeton.  He is Jewish so he does not have the same "Christian" angle that I confess colors my worldview if you want to call it that. 

Plenty of things to think about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

Exactly. You can observe tons of examples of "horizontal" (different dog breeds for example) fossil variation, but none at all that would show an indication of change from one kind to another. There just isn't any physical evidence to back up the Darwinian Theory.

This is not a matter of religious sect or denomination.  Berlinski's critique of modern evolutionary theory could be applied to any of the lab based sciences.  This includes biology, chemistry, and physics.  He says evolution is wrong because it cannot be mathematically modeled.  He says one can not create a simple model that yields the variety of life forms we see in the world around us today.  What he fails to understand is that the mechanism of genetics is not a rigid phenomenon.  The Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel, realized this back in the late 1800's.  Heritability is a matter of probabilities.  Therefore, the odds of creating a computer model that can predict the outcome of a massive number of probabilities, combined with selective forces, yielding what we observe around us today is pretty much a mathematical impossibility. (Perhaps quantum computation could solve this problem).  

Ultimately, any result that is measured has a certain level of uncertainty, whether it is the mass of a subatomic particle, or the allelic frequency of a certain gene within a population.  This is due to the inherent imprecision within the measuring tool and the uncertainty of human observation.  Yet, people are still willing to trust the results of such tests when it comes to things like crash tests on cars or the safety of wireless internet and cell phone usage.  By Berlinski's logic, because we cannot mathematically prove every possible outcome of a car crash, we should never drive a car, or that radio waves definitively don't cause adverse health effects, we should not use mobile devices.    

Micro-evolution (very small changes in a small time scale) x Long time period = Evolution.

There is no "dogs turning into fish" or other such (to use your language) 'kinds' turning into 'kinds.

Look, read this, even Pope Benedict XVI thinks creationism is absurd because "there is so much scientific proof in favour of evolution":
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

Enjoy your epiphany on the house.

I will admit that he does say afterwards that the true origins of life and the universe are still open to elements of creationism, but this is not something any evolutionary scientist can scientifically refute, and no-one does.

What they will refute is asinine beliefs that the world is only 6000 years old (WE ******* KNOW IT ISNT) and that evolution did not happen (apart from "micro-evolution") because fossils. The same rubbish you have been indoctrinated with and are repeating here.

So you want us to somehow dig up a fossilised video or something showing one species morphing in to another? Think about what you're saying.

Unless we somehow manage to confirm the existence of god religious people will be backed further and further into a corner as their logic gets proven wrong each time until eventually they'll either be forced to accept what they've been indoctrinated to believe is wrong or they'll go inquisition on us and kill all the non-believers. Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

Also, even if god did exist, he's a son of a bitch who has a lot to answer for regarding letting millions of people suffer under his watch and it is awfully convenient that when people started to question why god would let people suffer Satan was suddenly invented to explain this, I feel sorry for him because he seems like a scapegoat for gods' incompetence.

https://i.imgur.com/BFseCgv.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvqiDft0swA

People in every corner of our beautiful (flat) Earth will soon start accepting Bitcoin... This is a God given FACT!

If you don't believe this, what do you believe?

There are many people with many different opinions. I like the way the are trying to prove their faith of evolution "to the other side"

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

They're only copying their maker  :D. And I don't think god and Jesus want us to love people more than them apparently.

Where did you hear that? In over 150 years there has not been a single finding that is not consistent with evolutionary theory. That is why modern biology and medicine is based on it. There are literally millions of fossils that confirm evolution. Even the DNA in your body contains a physical record of your family going straight back to the earliest life on Earth. Not only is there a vast amount of physical evidence, there is no contradictory evidence.   

How about Jediism?

Taken to the other extreme are the Priests of Wall (do they still exist?) or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To be honest, this is why I respect Buddhism a lot and maybe Zoroastrianism ( Sun Worship ) they're both for the most part pretty neutral in their belief systems which is why you don't often hear about people like this blowing themselves up or persecuting certain people, because the beliefs tend to be pretty clear cut as well and you can discount any psychopaths who try to use the religion for their own ends or as an excuse to kill people.

I don't think you need any religious tag to live a decent life. Maybe just be a humanist or altruist instead.

I don't have a religion lol :P I'm talking about the people who do seem to need it though :P

Yes.  We call them by their other name, dragons.  Large, reptilian creatures that were acknowledged by every culture on earth before they went extinct and became a "myth".  Once their bones were found, because dragons were a "myth" nobody could call them that and so a new mythology of "dinosaur" was born.


If by age, you mean the observable evidence that they are young enough to have red blood cells still in the marrow and usable DNA, then yes.  I believe they were created with all the other land animals and man on Day 6.  Two of each kind were passengers on Noah's Ark.  And they were seen after the flood by every nation from Daniel, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, Chinese emperors, Europeans, American Natives, etc.  The last known sighting of a small dragon was in 1611.

The Chinese, in fact, were very confused when westerners came along and told them that their family business handed down for hundreds of years of selling dragons and dragon bones was impossible.  In fact, there isn't even a separate word in Chinese.  They have the same word for both.


Do *you*?  In observational experiments, the only way we have been able to replicate fossils is with lots of water and soil similar to concrete (at some level).  Bones that sit out in the sun become brittle in about a year or so and do not fossilize.

And how do you get fossils with a meal still in their belly or in the process of eating another animal if it wasn't a cataclysmic process?


During a flood, it's much more likely.  And we should expect to see lots of fossils all at once, which we do see.  And they should be mixed around, which we do see.  And we would expect to see marine fossils in Kansas, which we do see.


Lets see.  The Jewish year which purports to count from creation is 5774.  That sounds about right.  There's no reason to think they can't count.  So 5774-(2014-1611) = 5371.  So compared to other land animals, 5371/5774 = 93% of the time.


Bitchick deferred these questions to me, but if you want to know the Creationist position on anything you can go to www.answersingenesis.com/get-answers

There are topics down the left hand side.  For instance, clicking "Dinosaurs" takes you here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

Another source for serious evidence about creationism is here: http://www.kidsgen.com/fables_and_fairytales

Thanks for the laugh, but if you're not trolling, you have serious mental issues.

Dinosaurs and all other animals were created on the 6th day and 2 by 2 we sat on a big ark. You know how something like that would end? With lots of blood. :D

Hilarious, really hilarious, thanks for the laugh. That stuff made my day :)

Now seriously, since we've spent some time talking about genetics... Are you aware (rhetorical question, since I'm 100% certain you have no clue whatsoever) that 2 individual members of a species cannot procreate beyond a small number of inbred generations before dying out due to deterioating genetic fitness ?

It's due to the genetic effect called homozygosity, leading to the following (Wikipedia quote) :

- Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
- Increased genetic disorders
- Fluctuating facial asymmetry
- Lower birth rate
- Higher infant mortality
- Slower growth rate
- Smaller adult size
- Loss of immune system function

So whenever you hear someone (anyone) talking about "Adam and Eve" or Noah's Ark - you know they are talking pure BS. And any stories and myths that originated from these fables are identical BS.

An actual Dragon (as displayed by ancient or modern drawings or descriptions) has never existed outside the fantasy of human storytellers and naturally not a single piece of evidence exists.
(my best guess is that thousands of years ago people found the remains of a pterodactyl or similar bones and - lacking any scientific skills or knowledge but lots of superstition at that time - started the rumors of "dragons" which made it into today's fantasy stories over time)

I guess if you're into Dragons, you also believe in elves, orcs, hobbits etc. and likely are a frequent World of Warcraft player with severe personality disorders.... :P

PS.
The last sighting of the Loch Ness monster in the UK was in 2011...
Still, we all know that Loch Ness monster never existed, but that detail doesn't matter, right?  ;)

PPS.
The old saying (now considered "politically incorrect") still holds true :
There's some smart people and there's a whole lot of dumb people roaming the earth. The dumb however, generally seem to multiply in greater numbers. Always has been that way.

While it may seem harsh to say - it's unfortunately 100% correct - and in the end, it always boils down to that simple fact of life.

I'll watch that movie, pitch that to Asylum, they'll do it, hehe.

http://www.theasylum.cc/

The Asylum makes crappy movies :P

Not sure why I am bothering to reply but the inbreeding would not have been as big of an issue back then.  There were less mutations.  There are more mutations each generation.  The amount of mutations that have occurred is steady and observable and would be much more if the world was millions of years old.  One more piece of evidence that supports creation.

Stories of dragons throughout history were most likely exaggerated, but that does not mean that they did not exist.  If all cultures have stories about them, the Chinese still believe in them, we should sit back and ponder this at least.  Of course there are other creatures that are myths.  But these "dinosaur" bones that have just been discovered are nothing "new" in the world.  

And as for the ark, the animals would have most likely been very young and small.

Of course we are considered crazy.  That is fine. It really doesn't matter if you think we are crazy or not.  What matters more is everyone's personal relationship with God.  Each person will be accountable with what they do, or don't do with what they are given and everyone will be accountable to God's law, regardless of their belief in the law or not.  To stand before God and say, "It all seemed to stupid" or even "I was a good and moral person" is not enough to avoid eternal punishment.  You can shoot the messenger but it does not change the message or the truth behind the message.

How do you know? Sounds like reasonable guy. What happens to people in the middle of nowhere in some tribe that has never even heard of God or Jesus or babies that die not knowing god? They burn in hell because nobody bothered to go tell them about this crap? If there was a god I think religions would be a pretty big insult to his intelligence. Shame you can't see this.

A small T-rex will still use you as diner. Every carnivore couple would have eaten another herbivore couple and some weaker carnivores, you really think they wouldn't start eating each other for 150 days? lol, not many animals can survive for 150 days without food. If they are big enough, they will eat each other, if they are really too small, they will just die. If you would feed the really small ones, they would be big enough to find their own food on the ark after 150 days.

Would be fun if you stand before god and you say "Hello god" and he answers you with "My name is Allah, you infidel". :D

Your almighty god created the whole universe but even if you are a good person, that's not enough. He needs his worshipping else you will get eternal punishment? Your god has some real issues there.

The Bible says that there is only "one way to the Father through Jesus Christ" and "every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,"  "all have sinned and fallen short"  and "Whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life."  I did not write the Bible. I just read what it says and follow it to the very best of my ability, this is how I "know."

As for babies, tribesmen etc, I believe that the Catholic idea of "Purgatory" is not too far off, although there is not necessarily any evidence of being able to pray for the souls there, but the English translation of the Bible has done a disservice of simplifying "Sheol" and "The Grave" into "Hell."  In a nutshell, God is fair.  He puts fairness into our hearts.  Jesus took the "keys of Hades" during the three days before his resurrection and during that time may have very well spoken to the souls that are there in what may be a timeless place and gave them the fair chance to accept or deny Him.  This is my belief.  Granted, many Christian churches do not preach this.  They have more of a "black and white" view, but I don't think that is necessarily correct and even the Bible supports my viewpoint and I agree that it would not be fair to send someone to eternal damnation without giving them a fair chance.
  

Sharknado is great! :D

Yeah, but another book says it's Muhammed and another says it's Mozes. How do you guys choose which book is right? Maybe it is better to read a book where the things said are actually verifiable and real.  ;)

Ha, more like 4 hours of terror.

And what evidence do these so called scientists have that Noah didn't have a bionic eye and nuclear powered arc?  None!  It must be true.

And you know the bible is legit because...? I'm going to have a guess and say this book is the particular one you were brainwashed with? If you grew up in Palestine you'd be telling us about Allah and if you grew up in Israel you'd be telling us about YHWH.

You might not've wrote the bible, but neither did god. It was people.

Since you seem to have amassed all the knowledge in the universe (going by the way you phrase your posts), please explain how the Bible was written by 40+ people over a span of 1500+ years, yet it is one cohesive book.  Some authors were farmers or shepherds, some were physicians and Kings.  Yet they somehow managed to create one book that is still in print today.  Don't you think it HAD to be by supernatural origin that the Bible was even formed in the first place?

On a side note, debating creationism vs "evolution" with someone who has never read the Bible is like debating Calculus with a preschooler.  Its pointless.

That is exactly how I feel when discussing evolution (or science in general) with a religious nutcase.

Not sure if you're trolling, but how does the way I phrase my posts indicate I've amassed all the knowledge in the universe? How exactly is the bible cohesive? It contradicts itself several times. The bible wasn't formed by supernatural origin. It was formed in the same process all stories and books are created: by people.

And I've probably read more of the bible than you have. 


Haha. Good point.

I have read the whole Bible, have you read a biology textbook?

Have you read the Bible? I would not call it cohesive. It is clearly written by many people, parts of it seem to contradict one another. How do you know that the Hindu Vedas are not the true scripture, they are older than the Bible?

Religious logic is highly flawed. Every idea has to be examined from an unbiased point of view.

Such is the word of the flying spaghetti monster.

Ramen.

I actually like the Gospel of Thomas quite a bit, it has all the teachings of Jesus about being nice to other people without so much of the incomprehensible miracles that are stated in the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, John, and Luke.

Do you know what Jesus sounds like to me:

when they said he could walk on water
what it sounds like to me
is he could float like a butterfly
and sting like a bee
literal people are scary, man
literal people scare me
out there trying to rid the world
of its poetry
while getting it wrong fundamentally
down at the church of "look,
it sez right here, see!

- Ani DiFranco

Anyone find it ironic that creationists ask for evidence of evolution but they accept god based on nothing but a book?

If there is a god, why do religious people believe the god they believe in, out of so many religions out there, is THE god who created everything?

All depends on where and who brought you up.

MC Hawking solved this argument in the early 00's already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_k-MZcjCFI&feature=kp

Haha, haven't heard that in years.

Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists!

Such kindness and respect.  It is actually considered a blessing to be persecuted for the sake of Christ so "thanks!"  :)

At least I don't kill babies and send them to hell. And persecuted, please. It's a joke. If there is a god I'm sure he can appreciate humour. After all, he must have a sick one.

I have been trying to point out that it takes "faith" to believe in evolution just as it takes "faith" to believe in God.  

In some ways the debate can seem a bit futile.  I often wonder why I even bother because I am usually just ridiculed, called stupid, etc.  Even though there is excellent science that supports Intelligent Design. I guess deep down the hope is that somehow there will be a small seed of doubt in all the evolution propaganda that is being taught like it is the "truth" and that will help someone realize that perhaps there is more to the "big picture" than they have shown.  Maybe they will crack open a Bible and begin to read it, maybe even with the plan to prove me wrong, but in doing so God will begin to reveal Himself and then the person will realize that they have a need for God in their life. That is my true hope in it all.  Really, God could have used a big bang if He wanted to so the creation/evolution debate really is not the main issue.  The point that is the most important is "Is God real?"  And if God is real, "What will I do about that?"  

Without intelligent design, it is almost impossible to create a starting point.

I.E. Who created the matter that caused the big bang, that created the universe.

Apologize for Double Post, edit doesn't work well on my phone.

Well if we go by the word of the aforementioned MC there is a God and he did create the world. The problem with the 22 photos is that the people who are holding them have by no means a sufficient conception of what they are talking about. They are creationists, and fuck them.

So it's okay to have faith in god based on nothing, but faith in evolution based on facts and masses of evidence is a no go? There is not excellent science that supports ID. If there was it would be the scientific consensus and it is not.


And who created the god that created god?

In theory, a god has always been around.

But in theory, ID and Evolution could easily coexist.

Why is it matter can't come from nothing, but a fully formed god is perfectly reasonable? Why can god always have existed, but not the universe?

Only something "supernatural", that is governed outside of the laws of nature, would be able to have existed forever.

And you base this on? If this is true then any god or being could exist so what makes one god particularly stand out? Why can't the universe or multi/metaverses have existed for ever or be "supernatural"?

The laws of nature exist only within human comprehension. Anything outside of the laws of nature exists outside of human comprehension. We have a word for that. Its God. A Dutch junkie-poet once wrote a poem titled 'The Universe'. And translated it goes:

The farther we looked
The larger it seemed

Any question we solve breeds a horde of new questions, and adds to what we don't know. We call that great unknown God. Scientists are working daily to add to his Glory.

I like the Bible. It has all the basics of philosophy and its printed on very many very thin papers. Serves as a loo roll and as a Rizla. And yes we can wipe our asses and smoke our spliffs because we all have the message in our heads already. Talk about decentralized.

What make the God of the Bible unique?

All religions are based on ways to earn salvation by something we do to attain a "higher position" or some sort of nirvana.

Christianity is the only religion that says the only way to salvation is to admit that there is no way we can earn it.  It is not about being "good enough."  Salvation is a free gift from God.  All it takes is humbly asking God for forgiveness of falling short of his laws (the 10 commandments which we have all broken) Humility is something people just don't want to have!  From the beginning of time it has been a struggle.  Men just think that they are smart as God, or that they don't need Him.

However, we all need Him!  We can't get to heaven on our own merit.  

No, they cannot!

One is knowledge the other is propaganda from a particular christian sect.

Around 74% of the world believes in a religion, based on intelligent design, so not simply one "sect".

Secondly, one could believe that a world was created by an intelligent being, and that creatures evolved since then.

You believe the world was created in one day a few 1000 years ago and that you can put dinosaurs and humans in one big boat and they will walk away without a scratch, and people call you stupid? Wonder why they would say something like that.

Why would someone need an imaginary friend? After some age you really should grow out of it.
And we can't go to heaven on our own merit? Try a spacecraft.  ;)

Man, that there are still nutjobs like this in 2014, go read a book and think a little bit about how stupid your ideas really are with the knowledge we have today. 2000 years ago I can imagine it was perfectly sane to believe these things, now we know better. You can still believe something created the universe, but at least acknowledge the things that are just plain wrong.

Sure, you can believe the big bang was done by an intelligent being, it's a theory. I don't think it's a good one but we don't exactly know the right answer yet, so in the meantime someone can call it god. There is no reason to believe there is a personal god though and there is enough evidence that we can say the world isn't created in a week and surely not some 1000 years ago.

Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible specifically, it never refers to a specific distance from the creation of the earth, to modern days; Christ ≠ World Creation.

Also, a day has not always been standardized, assumedly the "7 Days", is not made up of 24 hour days. The way it is written, it likely refers to a period of time only.

Or it's probably just not true and written by plebs. Read the first page of the bible and do you honestly think it's an acceptable explanation for the creation of the entire universe? I think it would be pretty insultive to god's intelligence if there was one.

Do enlighten me, how it is "insultive" to someone's intelligence...

Why don't you tell me how it isn't?

Let me correct that statement of yours :
Inbreeding would have been just as big of an issue back then as it was now, as these genetic laws are timeless and not dynamic in nature.  There were near-identical degrees of mutation, but the short timespan would have killed off adam & eve's offspring long before natural mutations (i.e. caused by transgenetic effects or radiation) could have set in, as these occur over far greater timespans.  There are similar amounts of mutations over each generation, as influenced only by environmental factors. The amount of mutations that have occurred are relatively steady and observable and would be nearly identical regardless of earth' age. One more piece of evidence that clearly tells us a) creationists have no clue about reality a.k.a. science and therefor never get their facts straight and b) there's (surprise) no actual evidence that supports creation or any other religion whatsoever.

Anyway, just another religious/superstitious crackpot on the internet that has no education but brabbles ill-derived pseudo-arguments in order to spread its own disease (religion)... Nothing new.

This is all ok.  :)

 I don't believe in any Gods but countless wonderful people do. People I could be friends with, people who share an ancient mystical idea that relies on faith in the supernatural rather than logic and science. That is true of most people on the planet. We should be able to choose as long as we stay out of each others kool-aid, right?

As an atheist I'm not really looking for converts, so there was no need for me to use the " ::) guy" earlier in the thread. I apologize if that offended anyone. I should just stick to the questions people wrote. Assuming these people want to know answers, that would be a better use of time for us all.

Involution.

Never heard of that guy, watched him talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM

Pure nonsense, it's hilarious!  :D

Surely Religions are nothing more than books full of anecdotes?

The entire "debate" can be summed up in one quote: Science is questions which may never be answered, and religion is answers which may never be questioned." I would much rather admit I don't know that accept made up answers based on bad or no evidence!

There is more to religion than what is written in a book. True religion is about what you do, not what you say. A true Christian is somebody who loves all people, not somebody who says "I am a Christian".

It's always nice to have a catchy phrase, but that implies that evolution is up in the air.

I agree that true Christianity is all about love.  That pretty much sums up the main point Jesus made when he said the greatest commandment was "to love your neighbor as yourself."  So with that perspective, this debate is not the most important thing. But it does have an effect on the fact that many people discredit the Bible now entirely.

Also, you can call it crazy that we take the Bible literally, and many other Christians think we are as well.  But the problem with just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we agree with or don't agree with is that we are undermining the Bible.  We are in essence saying that it could all be "fairy tales."  Which parts are then made up?  Do we just pick what makes sense based on what scientists are speculating is true?  If we don't like some of God's laws do we just ignore them?  Where is that line?  And in essence, do we trust God or science?  That is what it comes down to for me.  If God is a God of miracles, which I believe He is, then He is able to do anything outside of the "rules" of science anyways.  

Logic. I think sometimes unbelievers forget that people of faith are not acting illogically if you understand their premiss that God is magical. If you believe that God is a real and supernatural being then science means noting in discovering the truth of God. There are no laws of nature in religion because they can be changed at any point. Therefore pointing out the impossibility of a 6000 year old Earth cannot be argued.

LOL, "true Christianity"!

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

Ahem, you have it wrong. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "love God with all your soul", loving others comes in second.

If you believe there is a god, then why not just ask him which parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally?

True.  In loving others we are loving God so they very much go together I believe so lving God with all our soul should then cause us to love our neighbors as our self.

I used to believe that evolution was a non-issue but over time have begun to realize that the Bible should be taken as literally as possible.  Granted, not with a legalistic mindset (It can often go hand in hand it seems and I understand that)  But to fear God for me is to respect Him and His word and to live it out as much as possible in every area of my life.

This is a key part. You only love or believe in him out of fear. It's exactly like an abusive relationship. If god really loves us all I don't think he'd be bothered when people use their god-given intelligence to cast doubt on his existence. Especially when the only evidence for him is in a book. I'm also not sure how we're meant to know which book is true or not. What if the bible is the work of the devil and the Koran (or something else) is the one true book?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  It is foolish NOT to fear God.

Shouldn't we fear and respect the one that has the power to send us to hell?

The Koran is not a book of Love. Sure there are some "truths" in all religions, or people would not follow them.  Like I said in other posts, the one thing that differentiates Christianity from the rest is that Christianity is not about what we can do to earn our way to "heaven" or whatever heightened spiritual place the religion teaches.  Christianity is all about what God, out of His great love for us, has done.  We have the choice to accept that or reject that.  Then out of fear and reverence we then follow Him because of His love.  It is like a healthy father/child relationship.  One where the child knows the Father's place and listens to Him and does what He asks, even when it does not always make sense because we can trust He really does know what is best for us.

He only seems to have love for those who grovel out of fear to him. There's no choice or love there. It's love me or else you'll pay. It's 100% an abusive relationship. You also didn't answer how you know the bible is the correct book. How do you know you've not been duped by Satan into believing the wrong religion? There's also lots of hateful things in the bible.

To truly grasp that God, out of love for us, would send His only son to die for our sins, is what changes the perception of a vengeful God into a merciful God.  That said, He still is to be respected, just as we would respect our Father figure (or should respect our fathers.  Many kids do not seem to anymore unfortunately.)

The Bible is also a historical book that shows man's evil choices and even God's vengeance on those that have made their choice against Him.  Usually God's hand is moved out of compassion on those who are trying to serve Him and are being abused.  I know that I have experienced this in my life first hand.  A strange and sudden death occurred for a guy that had abused me and other kids.  It was several years the abuse occurred for me but perhaps God said "enough" and then allowed His sudden death?  I will never know for sure. God is patient but there does come a time when he removes His hand and allows people to suffer the consequences of their choices.   That does not change who He is though.  He is faithful, just, forgiving and kind and compassionate to those that truly seek Him.

Religion = excessive Paranoia married with Stockholm syndrome...

Are you serious? He sent down his only son to be crucified? How exactly did him dying save anyone? How did he die for my sins? Why was it even necessary? It's bizarre and completely perverse to think a loving god would do this. And how is Jesus his only son? Aren’t we all his children. I also wouldn't respect my father if he had me crucified and threatened that I'd burn forever if I didn't love him. That's pure psychological abuse and murderous sadomasochism.

And if god gave a shit about you or anyone else he wouldn't let abuse happen in the first place.

If we are accountable to God's law of 10 commandments, wouldn't it be loving of God to provide a way to be saved from the price we needed to pay for our crimes?  That seems like a pretty amazing gift.  Basically Jesus paid our life sentence for us and what do most people do, they mock Him, laugh, say it is "bullshit."

It seems far riskier to live life laughing at God then serving Him.  Let's say I am totally wrong.  Let's say that I am asking God for forgiveness for breaking one or two of the 10 commandments only to die and realize that I was "wrong."  Then what?  I won't suffer any different fate than those of you that don't believe.

But what if I am right?  What if Hell is a real place and the only way to heaven is through accepting Jesus?  The logical choice is to accept Him.  

How did Jesus save anyone?
Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.  They were cast from the garden.  But God promised He would send them salvation through a "child" which was Jesus. Then God established a relationship with the Israelites (now the Jews) in which he gave them the 10 commandments.  These were God's laws that we are all accountable for.  There needed to be a sacrifice for sins and it was done in the form of a lamb.  (I am not sure why God chose this for the payment of sins but that is what God did.)Jesus became the ultimate atonement for our sins.  He paid the price and all we have to do is accept His payment for our sins or we can just deny that we have any sin or deny that God is real.  We have that choice but we are still accountable to the 10 Commandments.  I personally do not want to die and stand before God without having my sins be atoned for.  That won't end well.  I am forever grateful for what Jesus has done for me.

Or maybe the logical choice is to accept one (or several) of the other 300 million gods invented by humans?

I would encourage all of you bashing God and the Bible to read through it, and ask yourself if you really think the contents were written without supernatural influence.  Do you think the truth, wisdom, predictions concerning the state of the world were simply put down on paper by 40 random people by chance?  By accident?  Just for fun?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

And women are property!

Yes, not only were they written without any such influence, even their original scripts got lost and oldest remaining versions could not even be correctly translated anymore.
All bibles we know are based on interpretations of earlier interpretations of a very shaky and broken translation attempt.

Technically speaking, "the bible" has ceased to exist approx. 400AD and is non-recoverable. So even when avidly reading the oldest translated versions you could find, you're not even reading "the bible" anymore.
You're reading something like "The holy bible, 25th Edition, 25th revision", Lost-in-Translation-Special Edition.

They didn't put all that stuff in there for no reason. It's likely the first recorded example of "applied psychology of the masses" that allowed a small group of clergymen to control a very large part of the population and impose rules/taxes/control that otherwise would have been logistically absolutely impossibly to achieve.
In that respect, it is the most successful Instruction Manual "how to effectively herd human livestock" in existence. With all the known, catastrophic results that made a very small group of people masters of large parts of the planet at virtually no cost and allowed them to accumulate insane amounts of wealth - at a very high price for the herd which got abused/squeezed/bled out and killed left&right over millenia.

I've read it. There's not much truth or wisdom in it, unfortunately. The "predictions" are wrong, and the whole book is full of oxymorons, inconsistencies, lies, fairytales, delusions and -- last but not least -- immoral, evil behavior (by God) that would be frowned upon by most modern humans, including self-professed Christians. Some "predictions" are so vague and general, however, that they can be interpreted to fit into any historical era, in any culture. Sort of like the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Historically Jesus was really here so Jesus was not "invented."

Also, like I said in other posts, the one thing that differentiates Christianity from other religions is that the other ones required salvation to be earned by our own merit.  Christianity is not about what we can do to earn our way to heaven, it is about what God already did and our response to that.  Do we accept or reject?  It is really that simple.  Of course, in accepting Jesus our lives do change.  He changes us from the inside out.  Instead of hate he puts love in our hearts as we let Him change us and we have more compassion on others and so on.

Historically, a Person named "Jesus" existed, but historically nothing of what he was claimed to do is proven to have ever happened. Those few sources reporting "wonders" or anything alike all point to the same human sources and are therefor not reliable.

Also, every religion has something that "differentiates itself from other religions" (that's not a one-way-road).
"Do we accept or reject ?" is a manipulative pseudo-argument well-known and understood in behavioural sciences. If given this question, I would answer "Option 3 - none of all above".

And I hate to mention that, but Jesus does nothing anymore. He's dead (so much we know, which is of little surprise). Let that poor guy (whoever that was) RIP.

Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, was never here. Outside of the Bible, there are practically zero historical documents speaking of him. But sure, there were lots of people who believed they were the Messiah back in those days, just like there are today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants)

I will provide this link: http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm
Basically a rundown of historical sources outside of the bible supporting the existence of Christ.

that's actually not true, I know that Cornelius Tacitus did write about him, altough the thing I think you wanted to write is that no one wrote that he actually resurrected except for the bible..

Not if you're following the wrong religon. If Islam is true you're probably fucked. Personally, even if there was a god I'm not going to give into bullying and death threats. If god won't take me as I am and how he made me he can go to hell.

I said this in my other post.  Christianity is the one religion where we don't have to change to come to God.  We come just as we are.  It is up to God to make the difference in our lives.  It is not about us being "holy" on our own.  We can't be, even if we wanted to be.  It is admitting we are not perfect then accepting Jesus. 

Islam is about earning salvation.  It is pointless to try to earn it and any religion that encourages Jihad or killing others for a higher "ranking" in the eternal world is problematic.

I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory.

It's testable just like any other thing.

If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution.

Or that time travel is possible, let's not jump to conclusions...

Isn't it Christianity that's about earning salvation? Pretty sure they use that word a lot in the bible and prayers. Fundamentalist Islam and hate preachers might encourage killing and jihad, but this is not a view shared by most moderate Muslims. The god of the bible encourages killing people and unbelievers, yet most people ignore these parts. You've also stil failed to answer how you know the bible is the true word of god and not the Koran or any other book.

Of course the word "salvation" is used but we are not able to save ourselves.  Salvation can only come through repentance, basically saying that we need Jesus.

In the Old Testament there were wars.  There are still wars today.  But one of God's commandments is "Thou shalt not kill."  Killing is not something God wants.  Does He allow for wars?  Sometimes war is necessary.  Let's take Hitler for example.  Wasn't that war necessary?  God does not like war.  God does not wish that anyone would kill.  It is part of the "fallen" world we live in though. 

Nothing I say will convince you that the Bible is the truth.  The Bible itself gives reasons for why Jesus is the only way.  He says, "I am the way the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  The Bible is very clear that there will be false teachers and in a way the Bible itself becomes the measuring stick in which to gauge what is truth.  But the problem is that if someone does not believe the Bible is true then this becomes irrelevant to them.  If you are sincerely curious about this the book I recommend is "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel.  A journalist decided to end the debate once and for all and show how Jesus was a fraud by doing investigative journalism, like he had done for other stories.  In the process He realized that there was too much evidence to deny that Jesus really was who He said He was. 

The bible says. On what grounds is the bible an authority? Why do you not say the Koran says or this bit of paper says. If the bible is very clear about false teachers, how do you know it or Jesus are not one?  How do you know it's not the work of Satan? I want to know what reasoning or evidence you have for believing the bible. You can't just say "it says". Why do you believe the words in it are those of Jesus and God? Why do you not believe in all the other regions that essentially say the same thing?

Why do I believe?  Because God has made Himself very real to me.  How do I know my husband?  How do I know my daughter?  How do I know my best friends?  It is very much the same with my relationship with God. One thing God has spoken to my heart on many occasions is the verse "My sheep know my voice."   Also, there are "gifts" God gives and one is called "discernment" which is the ability to discern spirits and right from wrong.  I have been in a room and could literally feel that someone possessed by a demon was there somewhere only to have the person then lock eyes with me in a creepy way a few minutes later, but I felt the dark spirit before I even saw the person.  I am not afraid of the demon because I know "Greater is He that lives in me then He that is in the world."  To know Jesus really opens the door to see the world in a more spiritual way.  And like I keep saying, all religions are NOT the same.  Christianity is about being humble and realizing we cannot earn anything. God is the one that changes us and opens our "eyes" if we let Him to see. We don't do anything on our own strength.  Show me another religion that tells us that? 

That qualifies as testing?

That method of "testing" seems more like observation.

You're either nuts or trolling. "How do I know my husband? How do I know my daughter? How do I know my best friends?" But they physically exist. You can't hear or see god. He appears to no one, does nothing and says nothing, so how can anyone be held accountable for being sceptical? And you shouldn't be scared of demons or ghosts because they don't exist, but you should be scared of people. Murderers and rapists are the nutters you need to be worried about. Demons wont rape or murder any one.

You might think that god has made himself real to you, but a lot of Muslims probably say that about Allah and Mohammed (peace be upon him). Has god told you the bible is legit? Why can't you believe (or not believe) in god and just live a good honest life without the bible? Surely that is good enough for god?

You say demons won't rape or murder? Where do you think a person's desire to rape and murder comes from?  

Even if I lived what appeared to be a perfect life it is not enough to earn a way to heaven in doing so.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what the Bible says.   Our "righteousness is as filthy rags" is another verse.  It is like a white sheep that looks really white on a lawn of green grass but on a fresh layer of snow this same sheep would look dirty.  That is the way we are before God.   And where is the line?  Where is the "I am good enough to go to heaven" line at?  Humans seem to arbitrarily decide they are good enough just by comparing themselves to other people.  It is almost like they plan on dying and going to heaven and then telling God, "I was better than the guy that murdered someone" or "I never raped anyone" or so on. Then they expect God to say, "Ah yes.  I grade on a curve and  you are in the middle so you are OK."  But that is not in the Bible anywhere.  In fact God tried to make it very clear that we can't measure up to the standard and that is why we need a sacrifice for our sinful nature. Jesus came to be that for us, out of His love for us.  

And as for hearing God,  have you tried?  It requires coming to Him in sincerity and taking time to pray and asking Him to reveal Himself to you.  That is a prayer He always answers when it is prayed with a humble and contrite heart.

Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?

If you want to test a theory you have to make a prediction first.
Then you try to find out how accurate this prediction is and adjust your theory.

Rape and murder come from people being fucked up, not demons. I also don't understand why god made people that way then complains when they do stuff he designed them to do.

You keep saying "the Bible says", but never answer me what the bible has to do with god. You're just completely brainwashed by it being "The Truth", but have no reason, logic or explanation why it is so.

And I prayed a lot as a kid. Never heard anything back or felt anything other than silence. I'm kinda glad though, as If I did I probably would've been petrified, or batshit crazy.

Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor?  We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories.  This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation.  As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.'

Edit:  A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong.  I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc.  Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable.

Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa).  How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment), which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution.

Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it.

RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states?

So god made up a rule that Eve couldn't eat a stupid apple, which she did. (if he created women, he should know how they are :P)
So than he made up a punishment for us, we would rot in hell for eternity because of that one stupid apple. After a while he made a child, and than killed it and said, you know what, because I killed my own son which was fun enough. You can go all free, but you know, those 10 laws I made up a while ago, you still need to follow those because else I will still punish you till eternity. And you got to worship me and be really thankful to my son, because if I didn't get him killed. I would make your lives even worse.

Yeah, I understand you fear that god, he has some real issues.

And why does your god gives forgiveness for everything unless you don't believe in him, I was baptized and did those 2 ceremonial things when I was a child (no clue how they're called in English). Mostly because it's tradition, my wife and I broke the tradition by not marrying for the church. We are both atheist, and that would condemn us to an eternity in hell, we can't get forgiveness for that. Even though we would never hurt anyone, we don't kill, steal or abuse anyone. Still we go to hell and the priest that abused little children can go chill on a cloud in heaven. Doesn't really makes sense, does it?

And the freaky part is, you live in fear of something that doesn't exist, their is no proof of a god and nothing that points in a direction that there is a god.

Because the time you spend reading the bible over and over, sit in church and praying. You could actually do and learn useful things and live your 1 life like you want it to be. The chance that you're right is actually non-existent.

To me best response to a question, Ok then explain to me how did God came to be? A: He is the one and only, he has always been there from the beginning .. ( or something like that )...

But yes, i don't mind if people are religious, not at all, it just makes the world one funny little "flat" place to live. Even more so that adults are willing to believe in a talking snake, talking burning bush, woman created from a rib, that they love God who is willing to kill because of a revenge, God who commits mass genocide.... but yet they ask their children " aren't you a bit old to believe in monsters ".

Wow.  So much here to comment on.

I too have questioned why God even gave man a choice to choose to disobey in the garden of Eden.  I think our gift of "free will" is a powerful thing though.  I like to think that God wanted to know if we would choose to have a relationship with him by our own choice, not because we are being forced to love him.  If we could force our spouse or children to love us how would we really know if they loved us or not?  

As for God allowing Jesus to die for our sins, the point is that our sins are a serious thing.  It is something that is taken so lightly in our world now though.  But most people are not grateful for what Jesus has done for them.  

As for the priest going to heaven for abusing children, the only way that a priest that abused children could go to heaven is if he truly repented and asked forgiveness for that.  If he was covering up his sins, and even acting like he was "holy" he would be sent to Hell just like anyone else that did not repent.  And many Christian churches have no issue with anyone being married outside of the church.  Those are man's rules, not God's.  Men keep adding their own rules to the Bible and that causes problems.  In fact, the Catholic church requiring priests not to marry is not in the Bible and it might be why there is so many problems with abuse in the Catholic church too.  I have other issues with the Catholic church but those are a couple. This is why it is important to read the Bible for ourselves.

I think that many people today, like you it appears, are what appears to be "good people."  Based on comparing yourself to others you are probably living a pretty moral life.  Because of that you are reaping the rewards of what making good choices brings such as healthy loving relationships and trying to make the world a better place.  This is great but the problem is that it does not change the fact that no matter how good we are there is a standard that is higher.  God's standard is one we can never live up to, and He knows this.  That is why out of mercy He has provided a way for us to have a relationship with Him and eternal life.   In fact, the Bible says that "those who are forgiven of much love much."  In a weird sort of way those that really have a deep appreciation and love of Jesus are those that screwed up more than others and have come to realize that Jesus loves them just like they are.  It is not about earning our way to God.  It is about understanding His deep love for us and then allowing Him to change us because of that.

You can question my relationship with God but I know what my relationship is.  It is one in which He has brought tremendous healing.  I have much gratitude of what He has done for me.  He has helped me make choices that have kept me from many problems in my life and I know that regardless of what difficulties I will have to go through in this hard life I am not alone.  

I don't think there's any point in trying to use logic here because that and facts don't apply. It simply comes down to whatever faith you've been brainwashed with and they won't change their mind for anything.


Christening, Confirmation and First Holy Communion are usually the things you do.

Or, in the words of the Mormons, "As man now is, God once was, as god now is, man may become." (They also say "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.", I am not sure how to reconcile those two sentiments together.) Eternity goes on forever, there was no beginning and there will be no end. God created us in his image, as he was created in the image of his god, and after this mortal existence we will create worlds in our image, if we choose to be such (by choosing to be like Jesus).

I thought he knew everything. He would've known what we'd do anyway. And God is forcing us according to you. It's believe in me or I'll burn you for eternity. There is no choice there. It's either give in to bullying or die. Abusive relationship.


How did Jesus getting murdered save anyone? I don't get it. There's no logic to it. Am I going to hell since Jesus died for my sins or not?


Great. Fucking kids is fine as long as you're really sorry. Brilliant. People who are good their entire lives but question god? Nope, you'll burn in hell.



Again, the Bible says. If the bible said to stone adulterers & homosexuals and to not work on Sundays would you believe it? Oh, wait...


Muslims say that about Allah. Some people say even positive thoughts can cure cancer, but those people usually don't believe their own bullshit when it comes down to it.


Those were all choices you made. Nobody else or any mystical beings, just you. I think you underestimate the power of the human mind or spirit (I don't use that word literally). I once heard an argument from a junkie that he got clean by the power of god. Nah, it wasn't god, it was your own determination and self-will. You can do a lot of things if you put your mind to it. You can also get people to believe in anything by brainwashing them.

It seems like you are pretty ticked at God, or have decided based on your knowledge of who you think He is, you don't believe in Him.

I will briefly comment on a few things.  As for God "choosing to send us to hell" that is a matter of your perception.  In reality we choose to go there by not accepting Him.  The choice is completely ours so I don't understand you saying that He is the one to blame here.  Would it be fair of God to let people murder, rape, sexually abuse kids etc. without any judgement for those sins?  Of course not!  There needs to be punishment for those sins.  However, you seem to think that there is a hierarchy of sin and you are "above" the line and God should not punish you.  I realize that without God's grace I could be a killer (I have hated someone so much I wanted to kill them) so I know what it is like to have that desire.  I then am humbled by that and realize that without God's grace I could do horrible things.  So in a sense I am no different than any other sinner, regardless of what kind of sin.  All sin keeps us from God.  It doesn't really matter what that sin is.  We as humans like to categorize them and say that this one is worse than that one, and I do believe that some sins have a greater harm for sure.  The Bible even says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."  So some sins against children may be punished more.  But this is where God's grace comes into play.  Jesus brings restoration and healing to those that seek Him sincerely.  If someone that was an abusive jerk really was repentant they should feel compelled to do everything they can to apologize and seek forgiveness from the people they harmed.  If that person never is repentant then as a Christian I can sleep at night know that God will judge them accordingly, even though it saddens me that the person does not want to change. 

I'm not ticked off at god. How can I be ticked off at something that doesn't exist to me? I base my knowledge of the guy in the bible. He's not a pleasant character. In fact I'd go as far as to say he's pure evil and I don't even believe in evil either. If the god of the bible exists I'd have a million questions for him including why he's such a murderous monster and spent so much time creating diseases etc, but I know why he is this way; because people wrote the bible and we created him in our image, not the other way round. And If god did exist I think he'd need our forgiveness as much as we need his.

The choice to believe in him isn't really ours. You can say it is, but it's not as it's made under threat. According to god, it's essentially believe in me or else. Most religious people just give in to the threat after they've been brainwashed by it. Somebody can't love and hate you at the same time. People only believe in him out of pure fear. You can't make people believe in something when it doesn't exist to them. I can't suddenly tell myself that there's a god unless I find any evidence for him. I'd be lying to myself if I said I believe in him or any other gods, and god would know this any way. If god wants to reveal himself to me in any way at all he can do, and then I will believe in him. So far he has not.

Have you asked Him to reveal Himself? That is a prayer that He will answer if you ask Him sincerely to do so.  As for your idea of God being a spiteful and mean controlling God this is where you and I differ.  God is not controlling at all.  In fact, that is why we have free will.  We can choose to seek Him, or choose to ignore Him but the ball is in our court.  It does not mean that the world was not created with certain "rules" in place.  I guess your issue is that God had any laws that we are accountable to?  He is waiting with arms open wide for anyone that will come to Him.  Have you ever heard the story of the Prodigal Son?  This is a perfect picture of the character of God.

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

Thanks for the link, it's a very interesting read.  I wasn't aware that studies of this kind were being done.  Nice :)

Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely.  Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory.

The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving.  The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other?

A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory.  As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence.  But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility.  What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence?  How do you determine that one is fallible against the other?

Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern.  After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one.  But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally?

For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married.  A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to.  After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories.   This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one?

The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory.  Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer.  However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype.  This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent.

I loled, you're incredibly gullible. I can do the exact opposite, Dinosaurs and all fossils were formed to increase our knowledge about the world around us as to make the human population better fitted for survival, aka that's why they're over 1billion atheists, aka that's why many people who contribute to helping improve humanity on a whole are atheists.

Not gullible, sarcastic...  :)

If two theories are both supported by the evidence, then you have to find somewhere that their predictions disagree and probe that area.

In your example of two people getting married, those three explanations are just three ways of saying the same thing, they do not disagree with each other.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are trying to decide between (change in genotype yields adaptations) vs (desire for adaptation yields change in genotype)? Are you suggesting bacteria and plants are conscious agents? I know there is much anthropomorphization going on in schools when evolution is taught, EG the giraffes wanted to reach the higher leafs of trees so they grew longer necks, but that is just analogical hand-waving to help people grasp a complicated subject.

I was joking  ;), but I know it's hard to distinguish between nonsense and genuine belief in these kind of threads lol.

Funny thing is people actually use that dinosaur faith excuse.

Lol.  I'm actually almost positive I remember that giraffe example from class over a decade ago.

You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any  "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt.  I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there.  My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself.  For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.

Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents.  If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded.  There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking.  The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing.  The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution. 

To me it sounds like you are wrapping a whole bunch of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo around solid scientific theories to make them not only untestable but a whole lot more complicated than they need to be. You are trying to turn a scientific theory based on evidence into a faith based dogma because it makes you feel better. Please stop trying to turn science into religion.

Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.

I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.

Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?

The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse.  The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.

I am not saying you are religious, just that the way you are describing this sounds religious rather than scientific.

I'll try to answer: If I have a set of empirical data which I interpret a certain way, and a logical or mathematical proof indicates that my interpretation is flawed, I would not dismiss the proof I would examine the analysis and try to find a new analysis which fits both the empirical evidence and the mathematical proof. Thus is the scientific method: generate empirical evidence, check to see if it agrees with the theory, if they do not agree then you adjust the theory.

I'd agree.

My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is born purely out of the scientific method which conveniently chooses to ignore, and in fact *must* ignore, any philosophical, mathematical, or other kinds of non-empirical facts or truths in the process of theory-making.  And it does this despite absolutely depending upon certain philosophical and mathematical truths to have any kind of consistent methodology at all.  In other words, the same philosophical and mathematical foundation upon which science is built is not permitted in the actually process of scientific theory-making.  Hence, science is an incomplete methodology.

Edit: It seems that, based upon what you said, if you did formulate a new theory to fit both the evidence and the proofs, then you would essentially be doing the exact same you accused me of doing. Certain proofs negate certain assumptions held by a scientific worldview upon which the theory of evolution was built, so the theory needs adjusting.

Please stop taking all medication and using all technology because that was all fruit of the scientific method.  Actually just ask your doctor to switch you to a different medication, your current one isn't working.

Please stop having thoughts.  Thoughts are non-empirical and therefore useless.

^^ See?  I can say stupid things that don't make any sense, too.

Problem is - what he said made alot of sense. You just didn't understand/accept the hint ;)
When it comes to statements not making any sense , the first quote clearly beats everything. Science ignoring mathematics... now that's a new one *g*
If that was to be the case, you'd be living in some very unstable and asymetric housing construction and none of today's hightech would even exist. No vehicles, no large buildings, no digital communication, no computers whatsoever, no electricity, at best some leaking/unreliable water supply coming from a dirty river where poeple wash their clothing in and take a bath while dumping their feces into it (think Ganges river in India).

The more I read the irrational and sometimes completely nonsensical statements of people defending religion, the more they (unintentionally) make it clear that they have literally little or no education whatsoever. As religion/superstition often has a correlation (but no causation) with lack of education or show clear signs of intense brainwashing, this comes with little surprise.
Still, it's always amazing to watch how clueless these people sometimes act and "reason" (in big parentheses) in arguments.
This is the reason they often come along as if they were drug abusers or downright mentally retarded. They're likely not, but the effects of reducing/destroying a human's intellect are strikingly similar.

It would've made sense if I said that the scientific method was useless.  But, I didn't.  So, no, it makes no sense.

If you're going to jump in to defend someone, you shouldn't assume they understand what they're responding to.

Maybe I should have highlighted the hilarious part I was referring to then.

Basically your statement has the facts a full 100.0% wrong. If you were to replace "scientific method" with "religious method" in that sentence, things would be looking much more realistic.
I really liked that you put "philosophy" into that, as it does not belong there in the 1st place.
Never mix up philosophy with science, as it operates under completely different premises/rules and never "results" in "truth" even if you or I may fully agree with it on certain terms. Philosophy and science are two entirely different entities.

Look, if you want to debate a point, that's fine.  But can you at least debate against something relevant to my position?

*ugh*

I find it irritating to say the least if me pointing out that the entire foundation for your line of argument is 100.0% false... is regarded as not relevant (?!).
Frankly, that's about as relevant as it can possibly get. That's a point that isn't even debatable anymore to any degree as it's just a complete error in plain sight negating your entire argumentation.

Put in other words : if an entire bulding collapses into itself because its foundation was built on sand and made of grossly inadequate materials - you really don't discuss whether the window dressing in that building was appropriate or not.

I'm not going to debate anything when it's clear you have no idea what I meant in the first place.  You don't get to tell me what my position is, that's my job!

Hmkay, so it looks like I scored a direct hit dead-center, sorry to hear that the truth hurts you.

PS.
If that statement of yours that I quoted was not intended to read what it clearly read, then you had more than enough time to correct or specify.
Since you didn't, I assume it's exactly what you meant and naturally represents your position. If that for some really wicked reason is not the case, please stop discussing in internet forums for a while and work on your communication skills ASAP (reason : you'd basically be incapable to express your position in writing !? ) :P

So is Satoshi the Creator or did bitcoin evolve?

After all, once upon a time there were lowly little one digit numbers swimming around.  Then they combined.  But nobody has ever shown a number simply arise out of the swamp.  Every number came from another number.

Better to just point out that the earth is powered by the sun.

I watched an interesting video about how the fact we even have "information" or the ability to think proves that the information was put there to begin with.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

I used to teach Kindergarten and in teaching math to young children there is some time spent on symmetry and pattern recognition.  Patterns as well as symmetry are everywhere in our world. Even the simplest things like a leaf on a tree has symmetry.  It obviously takes order and a plan for things to be made like they are.  Where did the plan and order come from?  For evolution to be a good theory we should see evidence of chaos becoming more orderly or symmetry and patterns coming from nothing, but this just isn't the case. 

There's patterns and symmetry because of math which is a universal language. God didn't make it; it's just there. If god has a symmetrical face, does that mean he needs a creator too?

And what do you mean 'symmetry and patterns coming from nothing'? That happens all the time. There's no amount of facts or evidence that any one could ever provide that will satisfy you. God could come down from the sky and tell you evolution was true and the bible is bullshit and you'd probably still question it.

Plants are complicated organisms.

Symmetry is a fundamental property of many physical processes.  In some systems, a symmetric state is lower in energy than an asymmetric state.

Religion - for those too stupid to understand science and math.   ;)

Math requires information.  Watch the video.  It discusses math quite a bit as well as "language" and really is compelling.   I can't do it justice.  My brain does not have enough "information" in it. ;)  I am humbly aware of my limitations but I feel fairly confident that most of you on this board will be able to follow it fine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

Bronze Age Goat Herders.   :D

Linking me to a website called answersingenesis.org is about as much use as me linking you to one called religionisbullshit.org or evolutionisfact.co.uk.

I can try to summarize but I cannot do the scientist credit.  He is a German geneticist an do goes into great detail with examples.

But I will do my best here:

Information is complex.  The amount of information in even a small part of our DNA, for example, is more than thousands of pages of a book.  This information comes from somewhere.  All information comes from someone putting that information there.  This is a scientific "law."  He has proof of that law.  Therefore, there had to be intelligent design because of how information works. 

The big argument of without god, how did life just poof out of no where.

Here is my counter offer, if god has always been and always will be, why cant life always have been and always will be?

People look at evolution like pokemon, one day we became what we are today, just evolved, no process.
That's not how it works, every time a baby is born, they're different, do this for millions of years, things change.

One day you realize bringing your food back to store is better, 1 million years later, you find out living in a cave is safer, 3 million years later food is scarce and you have to follow it, now you're nomadic, now you need to learn to move around a lot, and walk, and run.

lol - wrapping creationism in layers of pseudoscience does not lend it any credence or make it smell any better than the bullshit it is.  

Why are you suddenly bothering with the laws of science? You disregard them for everything else unless it appears to suit you, but that info did come from somewhere. Millions of years of evolution. Why do you never apply your same logic to god himself. God must have "information" in him too, far more complex information than anything that is on this planet, yet he exists just fine to you.

But who is really disregarding the laws of science?  Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory.  For just one example, they use a few fossils that show micro-evolution (changes within a kind) and then make assumptions based on these fossils and then speculate that because they see some changes in a species that then we all just evolved from nothing, but there is no proof of any changes from species to another species or one kind to another kind and then you say that I am not bothering with the laws of science?  I am offended by that.  

There is great science that has support for intelligent design.  I am sorry if I have to use "biased" creation websites to show videos of this but unfortunately all of the so called "scientific" sites have become a club of evolution propaganda preachers that have the main goal of discrediting anything that would make them even consider that there was a God, or someone that they have to be accountable to other than themselves.


And as for God having information?  Of course He does.  We have a finite mind and have no understanding of anything outside of time or creation.  Everything in our world has a beginning and an end.  We cannot understand an infinite being because we are living in finite bodies. 

Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory? Creationists have zero of theirs.  Evolution doesn't boil down to just "a few fossils". There's far more evidence on top of the fossil record that backs that up, but you disregard that. You say there's no proof, but the only thing that would satifsy you is if you saw an monkey evolve into a human or a bird into a fish in front of your eyes, but that's not gonna happen.

And you just said a few posts up that there's information in the world and we need a designer for that to be put there. How did the information get in god? You contradict yourself continually. You ask for evidence yet require none for god. If nobody can understand god because he's outside of time (I thought he was everywhere?) then you cant possibly understand him. But I suppose it does make sense that god would write the bible in such childlike terms so us puny limited-capacity humans can understand it. Don't actually elaborate or explain any of the genius of the science behind all creation, just say "I did it and it was good" like that's an acceptable explanation and us idiotic humans will believe it without any evidence. Oh, wait... idiots do believe it.  Like I said before, if there was a god, the bible would be an absolute slap round the face to his intelligence and genius  ::).

Again. you are spouting pure bullshit.

Evolution has all the peer reviewed proof which is why its the current accepted theory.

Creationism has none of that because there is no proof, only belief - which in scientific terms is bullshit.

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"  :o  :o

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Did someone forget the irony tag ? ;)

lol - most of us are clever enough not to need the tag, but we are dealing with creationists.   ::)

I must say intelligent design was a creative way to avoid admitting they were wrong.  :D

Who says sharks and crocodiles are not evolving? They are successful in their niche, and so there is evolutionary pressure to stay as they are. There are many varieties of both crocodiles and sharks, if you look closely you will see they have been evolving.

Don't anthropomorphize evolution too much, creatures do not decide to evolve or not, they are all always evolving.

Think of it this way: Species A evolves into A and B, A is better fit so B dies off. Then A evolves into A and C, A is better fit so C dies off. Now, millions of years later, we have species A, can we say that A has not been evolving this whole time?

Your failure to understand evolution in no way makes it less valid.   ;)