The first and major reason to believe that God exists is that you are human , alive , your can breathe in out. You can't just agree to that fact that God doesn't exist, looks around you..see how beautiful the flowers are, see how the trees sway back and forth, isn't that admirable? All these happen because of a powerful force that all propels them; and that powerful force is God.
How do you know is god? |
|
|
|
there is nothing after death, you simply disappear
It would be wrong to assert that, the truth is that we simply don't know. Science is still very primitive, believe it or not, we barely even understand the human body and we are not even close to understanding the brain and consciousness fully. |
|
|
|
I need to give a remark about the first answer.
It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)
Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.
In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.
Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution. Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution. Here you go. It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not. Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds. Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that? |
|
|
|
I need to give a remark about the first answer.
It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)
Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.
In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.
Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution. |
|
|
|
1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement. 2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed. 3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible. 4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." 1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point. 2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago. 3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker 4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something? |
|
|
|
|
''In other words, we don't know, scientifically.'' Well, yeah, it's a really hard problem, however as explained above, how life arose is meaningless when talking about evolution theory.
4. Just like answers in genesis is a totally biased website? I provided other link and you can also just google it.
''As I said, the rebuttals rebut themselves in their attempt to rebut proof that evolution is impossible.''
Your brain is a little bit fucked up but that's ok, I will help you, you didn't even check any rebuttals, you always just try to find ''proof'' against evolution in your 2-3 religious websites and never bother to look anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Immortality is a boring life... you will grow old and lonely and you will be missing all your loved ones who always die ahead of you.
Not if they were also immortal, if we ever discover the way to make ourselves immortal, everyone would be immortal so you wouldn't really be alone. |
|
|
|
You dropped something...  You too, seems pretty new... never used it huh?  Wait, is that a brain or a holographic projection of a brain from the mirrored dome? |
|
|
|
That guy up there is just trying to get his post count up  Soo, you're referring to the discovery that all embryos share common features, passing through similar stages that reflect our evolution. Like the fact that human and chicken embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks, which lends support to the idea that chicken and human share a common ancestor with fish. This naturally applies to every other creature on earth, as well. ( https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02) Since you don't trust scientific evidence, how about something more practical? Our gonads start out near the liver, like a fish's. But in our case, they descend to become ovaries or testes, which makes men also more prone to hernias. Bad design. What explanation do you offer for this? http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255Another more practical proof for evolution would be a giraffe's laryngeal nerve. In a fish, that nerve goes from the brain to the gills. But as giraffe's neck evolved to become longer, that nerve grew along, taking an extremely unnecessary detour through it's body. So what other possible explanation do you offer, besides natural selection incrementally elongating that nerve? All this might be evidence for evolution, but it is no proof of evolution, and evidence of a loving god more than it is evidence for evolution. Why? Because all these things fit creation by God at least as easily as they might fit evolution. Note that all life is carbon cycle DNA. God created it this way so that there could be "friendly" co-habitation and interaction on the same planet. He made it so that all things could work together. He also made it for two other reasons: 1. So that people would marvel at the wondrous ways He made things; 2. So that other people would confound themselves ever more deeply by not looking at the other facts. What are those other facts? That evolution is impossible. Topping these facts is cause and effect. Next is complexity. Here are 25 more from one website: 1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.
5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)
6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.
7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.
9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.
10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.
11. Created kind are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.
12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.
15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".
16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
17. Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.
18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).
20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.
22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.
23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.
24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.
25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old". If that's not enough, Google "evolution is impossible." Then look at all the supposed debunking of the reasons why evolution is impossible. You will find that the debunking language used by the "impossible-evolution" debunkers, actually debunks their own debunking. You and a bunch of other evolutionists are missing it. Evolution is a hoax.  1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.) 2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htmJust like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder? |
|
|
|
So, the sun is a disc having a 32-mile-wide diameter, thus itself not a globe, correct? No, you dummy, the sun is a projection, duh. |
|
|
|
The Sun is a holographic projection off of the mirrored dome (engineered technology). If you measure it with a sextant it's about 32 miles wide and 3,000 miles high. Being a projection the Sun doesn't exist at a specific point in the sky; its position depends on the viewer.
Schizophrenia is a hell of a disease eh? So the sun doesn't actually exist, it's being projected from a (mirrored dome?) Must be really hot where the poor projectionist works then. He is probably on a tower made from unobtanium so he doesn't really feel the heat. |
|
|
|
unlike evolutionists that deny to read anything critical against evolution.
Anything critical against evolution is usually a circular argument. Example: We know the world was created in six days because it says so in the bible. As I said, they would not believe evolution even if they saw it with their own eyes but when it comes to a stupid story written thousands of years ago, they dive in head first. It's quite hysterical honestly. If I would saw a convincing proof I would become an evolutionist. You judge me wrongly and Baddecker as well... But you do not agree with the commandments of God, so not misjudging and not giving a false witnessing against another human being is not your moral standard. Have I not read any single one of your materials? No. I have read them all and answer them all. Were my answer no - because no? I had a valid arguments that you had not comment. You know what that means in the debate? If you do not have a counter argument - I won. And yet you say I do not agree for the sake of not agreeing.... That is dishonest. All you could done is strawmaning the slavery, while there are probably more slaves than ever in the history of the world, they are not considered a commodity because we have slaves that are so cheap that they can die and be replaced by a fresh meat. Noone cares. If I would saw a convincing proof of God I would become a believer. |
|
|
|
If the sun really circled the Earth that way, the equator would have FAR more daylight time than anyone at southern Chile or Canada. And, of course, no midnight Sun on Antarctica. Where is the evidence that the sun is that close to earth? Why is the sun moving that way in the flat earth model? Is the sun alive? The Sun is a holographic projection off of the mirrored dome (engineered technology). If you measure it with a sextant it's about 32 miles wide and 3,000 miles high. Being a projection the Sun doesn't exist at a specific point in the sky; its position depends on the viewer. Schizophrenia is a hell of a disease eh? So the sun doesn't actually exist, it's being projected from a (mirrored dome?) |
|
|
|
unlike evolutionists that deny to read anything critical against evolution.
Anything critical against evolution is usually a circular argument. Example: We know the world was created in six days because it says so in the bible. As I said, they would not believe evolution even if they saw it with their own eyes but when it comes to a stupid story written thousands of years ago, they dive in head first. It's quite hysterical honestly. |
|
|
|
If the sun really circled the Earth that way, the equator would have FAR more daylight time than anyone at southern Chile or Canada. And, of course, no midnight Sun on Antarctica. Where is the evidence that the sun is that close to earth? Why is the sun moving that way in the flat earth model? Is the sun alive? |
|
|
|
We are the proof of God's existence.
We are the proof of Zeus's existence. |
|
|
|
Oh looks it's a camera crew wearing black robes and eyes wide shut party masks on the ISS.  We are still waiting for that video of a camera zooming and bringing a ship back into view, is there such a video? |
|
|
|
Not every creationist is stupid ok?
Show me someone who believes a sky fairy created everything and I will show you a stupid fool. :/ I have shown you do not know what a season is... and yet you call me a fool.... sighh..... You atheists are beyond reasoning. I like you either way. ''Both were to be punished with death in the Bible if one is cought on doing so.'' Lies. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) If you kill the slave you are indeed punished however you free to have slaves and to beat them almost to death. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/You were tutored many times......... And you still do not get it you just come again and again to the same arguments that had been refuted. Argumentum ad ignorantum - apealing to the ignorance of your audience is all you can do. It's not an argument, it's a quote from the bible, there isn't much to refute, the bible is full of things like that yet you still believe it and even defend it and because of that you have to deny evolution. There are some things in our law - that you could find even more shocking. Sometimes in some states you can kill a trespasser in your land. Does that mean that you can kill? No. It is a law that makes people scared to go into others property. That law was to scare people away from becoming a slave ok? Because there are a lot of people back then as it is now that they would want others to think for them. Many people would not mind the life of a slave... wait they do not... because they are virtually identical as the slave. They do everything they are told to. Really? It was a law to scare people away from becoming a slave? Many people would not mind being a slave? Beaten any time the owner wants? Are you mentally insane? God simply could have made a law to prevent anyone to enslave someone else. We already talked about it... you keep on comming with the same things.
You need to know some intelectual rigour in order to understand a complicated concept. You need to know the other passages, and you need to know the context, you need to know that the law is the law of the angels, that the law is not the eternal - using words of the Paul. You must know that the law was the emergency. You need to know a lot more things before you assume that God is behind the slavery.
He temporarly allowed it because there was no other way around it not causing many unnecesary deaths. He killed basically everyone with the flood and many others, were those necessary deaths? Equity is the goal of every law. You need to know that the just does not need the law.
There had to be the change with the level of buerocracy we have to make slavery obsolete. You need to understand many historical and political concepts before you say - hey.... 3500 years ago it was possible not to have slavery. It was not possible ok?
God was doing everything in the Bible to stop slavery because it is ujust, but in that time, it was to early to have an option of a volountary contract and how to keep it in law. Serfs in the middle ages were defacto slaves, as many debters are defacto slaves. There is a lot of legal fiction for a people to misrepresent the reality.
I know many people are enchanting reality with words calling things what its not and can't be. If I would call a woman, to be a man, because she wants so, it will not make her one.
If you think many people that are living with the people they do not want to and working for the people they do not want to - because they have nowhere to go - are not slaves, then you are deluded.
The tenth commandment implies a free person should have his house and his method of transport and of work, and a wife to be sustainable with his physiological needs and desires like a desire for a shelter, sexual desires and food. And not to envy another - because having that is normal and everyone should have such. Everyone should have an option to be free. But sometimes because of many sins people were and are not free ok? And that is why there were passages about people that are not free because poverty can lead to some kind of slavery or even worse things.
Many people nowadays are deluded that there are no slaves. There are plenty. They are just not called that. And you say that you despise people from as far as 3500 years ago... When that was clearly a temporal law for their period.....
About the rape - There is no mention in the King James Version. And you have no idea how important for the society was lack of argue about women. There were a lot of wars over a women in the history ok? Harsh law is needed for unjust and unruly people.
And the affairs need to be dealt swiftly as well as rape - because it might have led to a war. You make complicated matters of political and social life of 3500 years ago simple. It was far from simple ok? God can create the universe and yet he can't prevent humans from enslaving other humans, your logic is absolutely amazing. |
|
|
|
Not every creationist is stupid ok?
Show me someone who believes a sky fairy created everything and I will show you a stupid fool. :/ I have shown you do not know what a season is... and yet you call me a fool.... sighh..... You atheists are beyond reasoning. I like you either way. ''Both were to be punished with death in the Bible if one is cought on doing so.'' Lies. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) If you kill the slave you are indeed punished however you free to have slaves and to beat them almost to death. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/You were tutored many times......... And you still do not get it you just come again and again to the same arguments that had been refuted. Argumentum ad ignorantum - apealing to the ignorance of your audience is all you can do. It's not an argument, it's a quote from the bible, there isn't much to refute, the bible is full of things like that yet you still believe it and even defend it and because of that you have to deny evolution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
