Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.
Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves. Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution. You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C. Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them. What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and... Evolution is a hoax.  P.S. This is fun  I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution. ''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.'' I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples |
|
|
|
You are trying to prove god here yet you know ''god'' has knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength almost to infinity. How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.
You claim the complexity of the universe is almost to infinity, how did you calculate this? How are you measuring the universe complexity?
Come on badecker, you are done, just admit it.
You are a bit right about me being done... in certain ways. Since you are agreeing with the idea of the "knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength" of God "almost to infinity," we can finally move on from here into the details that we have not covered so far. Now that I am done with having to re-explain about the existence of the scientific proof for the existence of God, we can move on into how that scientific proof works. Where did I agree with that idea? I asked you '' How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.'' Since you just claimed something out of your ass. You never explained how you know the complexity of the universe is almost infinite. Don't try to escape, your argument is garbage, debunked several times. Since you can't come up with any science against what I say, you are agreeing with me, possibly in spite of yourself. We know certain aspects of what MUST lie outside the universe, in a way similar to knowing that empty space (nothing) exists. We do it by scientifically measuring relationships between things that exist. I suppose that, potentially, space (nothing) doesn't exist at all. It is possible that we and everything else exist on a plane, and the reason why we seem to have distance is because of energy transference and energy relationships between all planar objects (us and all material), in ways that we don't understand. But to think like this would be getting into flat earth science, somewhat. The point is that, regarding C&E, entropy, and complexity as we scientifically know them, Something exists out there (as you have stated in some of your posts) that matches the scientific aspects of the definitions of the word "God." In other words, this forum and thread are not places to go to get into the precise hows and whys of the operations of everything. But scientists essentially agree with the things that I say, even if they won't admit it, readily. Since you can't explain your supposed debunking of anything that I said, you have debunked your debunking, yourself, by not understanding what you say. It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs. Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother. Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_abovehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuningAnd again, debunked. |
|
|
|
What a fucking time to be alive. |
|
|
|
You are trying to prove god here yet you know ''god'' has knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength almost to infinity. How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.
You claim the complexity of the universe is almost to infinity, how did you calculate this? How are you measuring the universe complexity?
Come on badecker, you are done, just admit it.
You are a bit right about me being done... in certain ways. Since you are agreeing with the idea of the "knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength" of God "almost to infinity," we can finally move on from here into the details that we have not covered so far. Now that I am done with having to re-explain about the existence of the scientific proof for the existence of God, we can move on into how that scientific proof works. Where did I agree with that idea? I asked you '' How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.'' Since you just claimed something out of your ass. You never explained how you know the complexity of the universe is almost infinite. Don't try to escape, your argument is garbage, debunked several times. |
|
|
|
But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful? At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things? Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion. Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown. |
|
|
|
Yes. Start using your head. 1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities. 2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water. 3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable. 4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution. 5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them. 6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found. In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is... Evolution is a hoax. 1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities? - Assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities exist in the attempted rebuttals against the impossibility of evolution. Evolution itself doesn't have even these legs to stand on.2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right. - You checked all the links? In this short time? What you will find if you check the links, is a variety of time frames. And that is the point... not talk of 200,000 years. The variable time frames show that science doesn't know what it is talking about regarding evolution.3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion. - Actually, what is proven by the absence of 100% of the required missing links, is that they don't exist... just like evolution doesn't exist.4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution! - Tying your shoes is change. It is change that doesn't fit evolution theory evolution. So, change is not evolution, just like tying your shoes is change, but not evolution.5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists  - You talk about them believing in evolution or not. You talk the same way that people of the religions of the world talk about their religions. People believe their religions, and they don't believe other religions. So, you are helping to show us just what evolution is... a religion.6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples. - Blah, blah, blah. Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples of like-begets-like, without any examples of evolution. Where is the evolution? In the imaginations of a bunch of people who want to believe it. Or do you have scientific proof of even one instance of evolution?!In other words, evolution as reality is possible! - Actually, the odds against evolution as stated in evolution theory is so great, that according to probability science, evolution is impossible.Evolution is reality ) https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-missing-link-in-evolution-does-science-no-favors-46661https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/discovery-destroys-myth-of-missing-link-on-the-evolutionary-ladder-5360940.htmlhttps://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-missing-link-mythhttps://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolutionI wish badecker was able to use google so he wouldn't use the worst possible arguments against evolution. |
|
|
|
As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One, or the universe wouldn't work. The entities would not be the God of the universe. They might be gods or lords in the sense of having some strength or control, but they would not and could not be the God of the universe, simply because of the complexity we see in all things. God is One. The universe is complex indeed but nothing in your argument proves that it is so complex that if different beings created they would have to be one and not many. You are just making that up right now. They just need to work together, they don't need to be one, a whole alien race could have made our universe and nothing in your argument can prevent me from saying that. Can you prove an alien race didn't create our universe? It fits because the universe is really complex so it had to be made by a few beings, only 1 wouldn't be enough to create this complexity. Alien race created the universe simply because the complexity is too much and one single being wouldn't be able to do it. The proof is in the car corporations. An alien race? Now you are grasping at figments.  Yes, entropy shows the universe had a beginning, cause and effect is in everything and complexity shows the universe is too complex, an advanced alien race outside the universe must have created it, the universe is too complex only for 1 being to create it. It's obvious. You underestimate, almost to infinity, the knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength of God. You underestimate the complexity of the universe almost to infinity, as well. You are trying to prove god here yet you give him characteristics. How do you know ''You underestimate, almost to infinity, the knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength of God'' ? ''You underestimate the complexity of the universe almost to infinity'' How did you figure that out and even if it's close to infinity, how does that prove that it wasn't created by multiple gods or entities? You quoted the answers to your questions, above. You are trying to prove god here yet you know ''god'' has knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength almost to infinity. How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe. You claim the complexity of the universe is almost to infinity, how did you calculate this? How are you measuring the universe complexity? Come on badecker, you are done, just admit it. |
|
|
|
when will this bounty end?
I see in spreadsheet week 4 is last week, is there a 5th week?
This distribution structure is detailed below; Start Date: 9th June 2018 End Date: 20nd July 2018, or earlier. Check the OP for information like that please. There is a 5th and 6th week. |
|
|
|
As an Atheist you wouldn't have any external incentive to be good. You have ''incentives'' to not be bad, which is the law and the fact that you can get punished for it. When it comes to doing good, though, you aren't good just because god tells you or because you want to go to heaven, you are good because you are, which is far better.
An atheist is never good. First, because he is not really an atheist, and therefore a liar. But most importantly, because he does not honor God, which is the first step in the direction of good. I don't see why it's so important to ''honor'' God. A real god wouldn't care about us worshiping him whatsoever. A wise person wouldn't continue to attempt to set himself up as God by claiming to know how God thinks and what He would or wouldn't do... especially when it contradicts what God says about Himself. Then how can you ever know that he is a god if you never can understand him? How can you worship something that you don't understand? Why trust him to be good if you don't know? |
|
|
|
You forget the major thing about the Bible. And that is, the Bible isn't a scientific text in the terms of modern science. Rather, it is a religious text that uses the terms of an ancient race of people who had different ways of thinking than even their modern counterpart. For simple example. The way that the Ancient Israel people calculated days and months and weeks was different than the way that we calculate them. It is possible that some Middle East folks still calculate them as did Ancient Israel, even though their governments have adopted the form used in Europe and America. See https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/what-is-the-biblical-day-week-month-year-and-does-it-really-matter/ to see what the "calendar" of Bible times was really like. The point is, the Bible isn't wrong. Rather, modern science is trying to use it as a measurement in the wrong way. EDIT: The real point, again, is that the Bible is an accurate record, and can be used accurately by those who have studied how to use it. Even if evolution wasn't backward in the way it is being applied - the truth is that the longer the time, the greater the chance for deterioration and destruction of beneficial mutations (assuming that there are some) - the Bible is a witness to the things that really happened. Evolution is a hoax. ''the Bible is an accurate record'' It is not accurate if it's wrong on almost everything, the history taught in the bible is nowhere to be found. Flood? Noah's Ark? Talking snakes? None of those things existed, accurate because you say so? ROFL https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/Slap yourself and wake up. Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record. The scientific methodology that shows what the Bible is, and how it couldn't exist in the form in which it exists, shows the miraculousness of the Bible, and that God made it. So, God and the bible are true, and science is guessing at multitudes of things that are outside of its scope to understand. The flaws and lies in your link are enormous deceptions. There are as many holes in the points in the link, as there are missing missing-links in the fossil record = possibly millions, but more like billions or trillions. Evolution is a pure and unadulterated hoax. '' Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record'' Literally all history shows that it isn't. No noah's ark anywhere, no indications of a massive flood, no talking snakes or other creatures like demons, no possessions. You keep saying it's accurate, it's accurate on what exactly? |
|
|
|
As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One, or the universe wouldn't work. The entities would not be the God of the universe. They might be gods or lords in the sense of having some strength or control, but they would not and could not be the God of the universe, simply because of the complexity we see in all things. God is One. The universe is complex indeed but nothing in your argument proves that it is so complex that if different beings created they would have to be one and not many. You are just making that up right now. They just need to work together, they don't need to be one, a whole alien race could have made our universe and nothing in your argument can prevent me from saying that. Can you prove an alien race didn't create our universe? It fits because the universe is really complex so it had to be made by a few beings, only 1 wouldn't be enough to create this complexity. Alien race created the universe simply because the complexity is too much and one single being wouldn't be able to do it. The proof is in the car corporations. An alien race? Now you are grasping at figments. Yes, entropy shows the universe had a beginning, cause and effect is in everything and complexity shows the universe is too complex, an advanced alien race outside the universe must have created it, the universe is too complex only for 1 being to create it. It's obvious. You underestimate, almost to infinity, the knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength of God. You underestimate the complexity of the universe almost to infinity, as well. You are trying to prove god here yet you give him characteristics. How do you know ''You underestimate, almost to infinity, the knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength of God'' ? ''You underestimate the complexity of the universe almost to infinity'' How did you figure that out and even if it's close to infinity, how does that prove that it wasn't created by multiple gods or entities? |
|
|
|
We are not looking for translations right now, please read the thread before posting. |
|
|
|
They are against God. How can you trust people with no God.
How can you trust people with a god? They act not out of morals, but out of fear of eternal torture. Do what I say, OR BURN! I trust the atheist - he is good because he is good. So, you have a religion of ripping people off by trying to get them to think that atheists are good. As an Atheist you wouldn't have any external incentive to be good. You have ''incentives'' to not be bad, which is the law and the fact that you can get punished for it. When it comes to doing good, though, you aren't good just because god tells you or because you want to go to heaven, you are good because you are, which is far better. An atheist is never good. First, because he is not really an atheist, and therefore a liar. But most importantly, because he does not honor God, which is the first step in the direction of good. I don't see why it's so important to ''honor'' God. A real god wouldn't care about us worshiping him whatsoever. |
|
|
|
The Earth isn't flat or a sphere because it doesnt exist. Mind Blown? It's because we are likely living in a computer simulation that is run by aliens.
That is an interesting argument. Personally, I doubt it, because the amount of processing it would take to emulate every single atom and the billions of pieces within it, to such perfection that we never notice any deviation, is inconceivable to me. have a deviation, it's called "notbatman", so the simulation is obviously not totally perfect. I bet the aliens are also enjoying Crysis @ 4k on their obnoxiously advanced hardware If we were in a simulation we wouldn't be able to feel ''deviations'' anyways, in fact we wouldn't be able to ever know we are in a simulation unless we were programmed that way. I think I've identified a pattern here. You mad? |
|
|
|
But, since nobody has that proof... Oh that's right. Proof against the Bible isn't proof. It's just blabber. Evolution is a hoax. I just gave it to you. Proof against the bible is indeed proof that god is not real. An all knowing god wouldn't make mistakes, wouldn't let an outdated book to be the only ''proof'' of his existence either. Everything in the bible is pretty much wrong which indicates it was written by people to deceive other people. You have 0 proof that god is real, already debunked everything in the other thread, most people accept evolution, religious, the pope, 99.99% of scientists. Only delusional people like flat earthers wouldn't accept it. You forget the major thing about the Bible. And that is, the Bible isn't a scientific text in the terms of modern science. Rather, it is a religious text that uses the terms of an ancient race of people who had different ways of thinking than even their modern counterpart. For simple example. The way that the Ancient Israel people calculated days and months and weeks was different than the way that we calculate them. It is possible that some Middle East folks still calculate them as did Ancient Israel, even though their governments have adopted the form used in Europe and America. See https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/what-is-the-biblical-day-week-month-year-and-does-it-really-matter/ to see what the "calendar" of Bible times was really like. The point is, the Bible isn't wrong. Rather, modern science is trying to use it as a measurement in the wrong way. EDIT: The real point, again, is that the Bible is an accurate record, and can be used accurately by those who have studied how to use it. Even if evolution wasn't backward in the way it is being applied - the truth is that the longer the time, the greater the chance for deterioration and destruction of beneficial mutations (assuming that there are some) - the Bible is a witness to the things that really happened. Evolution is a hoax. ''the Bible is an accurate record'' It is not accurate if it's wrong on almost everything, the history taught in the bible is nowhere to be found. Flood? Noah's Ark? Talking snakes? None of those things existed, accurate because you say so? ROFL https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/Slap yourself and wake up. |
|
|
|
|
We will update how to get your profile link on Driveholic.com soon.
|
|
|
|
The Earth isn't flat or a sphere because it doesnt exist. Mind Blown? It's because we are likely living in a computer simulation that is run by aliens.
That is an interesting argument. Personally, I doubt it, because the amount of processing it would take to emulate every single atom and the billions of pieces within it, to such perfection that we never notice any deviation, is inconceivable to me. We have a deviation, it's called "notbatman", so the simulation is obviously not totally perfect. I bet the aliens are also enjoying Crysis @ 4k on their obnoxiously advanced hardware If we were in a simulation we wouldn't be able to feel ''deviations'' anyways, in fact we wouldn't be able to ever know we are in a simulation unless we were programmed that way. |
|
|
|
You are not on the spreadsheet. You are not on the spreadsheet. |
|
|
|
You are not on the spreadsheet. |
|
|
|
But, since nobody has that proof... Oh that's right. Proof against the Bible isn't proof. It's just blabber. Evolution is a hoax. I just gave it to you. Proof against the bible is indeed proof that god is not real. An all knowing god wouldn't make mistakes, wouldn't let an outdated book to be the only ''proof'' of his existence either. Everything in the bible is pretty much wrong which indicates it was written by people to deceive other people. You have 0 proof that god is real, already debunked everything in the other thread, most people accept evolution, religious, the pope, 99.99% of scientists. Only delusional people like flat earthers wouldn't accept it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
