I was never any good at sports. Wny not? Because I always felt sorry for the opposite team when they were losing. And, of course, since I didn't want my team to lose, I decided not to be in sports. You guys go fight with Astargath. I feel too sorry for him because he is losing all the time, and much of the time doesn't even realize it.  '' Because Christianity is a religion of faith, many Bible scholars say we should avoid proving any of it. By entering the movements of the stars and planets into a computer, NASA has found that the lost day of Joshua in Joshua 10:13, and the shorter period of time in 2 Kings 20:9–11 that were supposed to be discrepancies in the movements of the stars and planets. One site is https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/nasa-found-joshuas-missing-day/. Science is starting to prove that the Bible is accurate.'' Yea badecker, we can all see how you are winning by posting a link that says ''arguments to avoid'' which is exactly the argument you are using, I don't even need to prove you wrong, you prove yourself wrong hahaha. |
|
|
|
The only thing about evolution that is true is that there indeed is a theory of evolution. Evolution as reality is a complete hoax.  If badecker, the guy who didn't even know what entropy is, didn't know what a scientific theory meant and posts links that contradicts what he says, says so, it must be true, right?  But since BADecker knows what entropy is and what scientific theory means, the things he says can be trusted as absolute truth. No you don't because you thought Evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics and you were wrong. You also have said more than once (It's just a theory) Like that would be a bad thing, clearly because you didn't understand what a scientific theory meant. I can find these posts if you want to. You know very well that the idea that a scientific theory is fact hasn't even reached the status of theory, yet. It probably isn't even a hypothesis. What? Do you even try to make sense when you post here? As I said, you were wrong numerous times, with entropy, not knowing what a scientific theory meant, you were wrong about irreducible complex systems and many many more, stop embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
You always talk about research and you never do it. Google is there for you, you just need to type: Deepak chopra fraud or Ian Stevenson fraud.
Yes I think we know how you find your "answers" to religious questions Astargath. You might run into problems, however, if your source of wisdom ever fails to deliver. What will you do when you can't find a ready prepackaged response? Oh wait we already know. obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong?
*clap clap* A system that provides a ready answer to every conceivable question. The Astargath method. Or ignoring arguments like you did with mine about your retarded book. You are not different than badecker, just another blind follower of your cult. Go worship your stupid book. |
|
|
|
For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.
Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze. Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is. When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does. None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself. Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God. if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin. Nice. Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth. In all your so-called explaining, you have essentially said nothing. You have not explained why and how those things do not prove God. You have only said over and over that I am wrong. Yet, I have explained over and over how and why they do prove God. Standard examples are listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Come on. You can do better than that. If you can't, all your nay-saying is political science, and worthy of no review at all. I had already several times: You are the one who keeps saying my arguments are wrong but never explaining or counter arguing them in detail because you can't https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-Godhttps://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8475/g%C3%B6dels-ontological-proof-and-the-incompleteness-theoremhttps://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7013/g%C3%B6dels-theorem-and-god?rq=1https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24030533#msg24030533https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684 |
|
|
|
The only thing about evolution that is true is that there indeed is a theory of evolution. Evolution as reality is a complete hoax. If badecker, the guy who didn't even know what entropy is, didn't know what a scientific theory meant and posts links that contradicts what he says, says so, it must be true, right? But since BADecker knows what entropy is and what scientific theory means, the things he says can be trusted as absolute truth. No you don't because you thought Evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics and you were wrong. You also have said more than once (It's just a theory) Like that would be a bad thing, clearly because you didn't understand what a scientific theory meant. I can find these posts if you want to. |
|
|
|
For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe.
Hasty generalization fallacy: this author has failed to consider the full body of evidence, and falsely suggests that the experience of being near-death has no consistency across cultures and is therefore merely a "story". Also, Dr. Ian Stevenson studied reincarnation cases of children across many cultures and concluded that "culture and belief" alone is inadequate, i.e. low explanatory power. Is this author prepared to address the full body of evidence with an open mind? Or is he committed to his "story" explanation regardless of the evidence? Children’s Experiences. The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning. Worldwide Consistency. NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries. Carl Becker examined four ways in which NDEs may be considered objective: 1. Paranormal knowledge that is later verified 2. The similarity of deathbed events in different cultures 3. Differences between religious expectations and visionary experiences 4. Third-party observations of visionary figures, indicating that they were not merely subjective hallucinations. https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a07Chopra presents answers to such questions as: who you meet in the afterlife and how your experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die. Chopra opens up immense new areas of insights where ultimately there is no division between life and death - there is only one continuous creative project. Oh yea Dr Ian Stevenson LUL. Do you have any source that is not a complete fraud? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Stevensonhttp://skepdic.com/stevenson.htmlhttps://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/pjdg3/ian_stevensons_reincarnation_research/Give me a break. With Chopra do you mean Deepak Chopra?? https://www.quora.com/I-have-heard-that-physicists-call-Deepak-Chopra%E2%80%99s-claims-%E2%80%9Cwoo-woo%E2%80%9D-What-do-physicists-think-of-Deepak-Chopra-Does-Deepak-really-understand-quantum-physicsHe is a total nut job, there is an interview of him debating richard dawkins, you should watch that and have a good laugh. Stop embarrassing yourself. You show no ability to evaluate new ideas when presented, you pick and choose your facts so that you can make hasty generalizations without providing any evidence of your own, just like the author you quoted. The fact is that NDE and reincarnation cases have similar features across cultures, your author has chosen to mischaracterize the evidence to suit his agenda. The consistency of these experiences is different from what the author hopes for in his desired proof of the afterlife but the reality of that consistency is ignored. In any case the NDE is a part of being human and was recognized even in ancient times, it is misleading to claim that all.NDE is a mere story when it is factually an experience. Also, Chopra wrote papers with Hameroff, a briiant QM researcher, so if all.you have is cherry picking and old videos then your argument is totally incomplete. ''The fact is that NDE and reincarnation cases have similar features across cultures'' Thats a fact? ROFL. ''my author'' I posted several sources, I don't know what you mean by my author. Ian Stevenson is a known fraud. Somehow you believe what he says after I presented evidence that he is a fraud, gets to show who is the guy who has an agenda here. You never research against your own, small, small sources. I can find hundreds of different sources pointing out that Ian Stevenson is a fraud and didn't perform the experiments how he should have, yet you will still believe him because that's what you do, you believe these nut jobs for some reason. You always talk about research and you never do it. Google is there for you, you just need to type: Deepak chopra fraud or Ian Stevenson fraud. |
|
|
|
The only thing about evolution that is true is that there indeed is a theory of evolution. Evolution as reality is a complete hoax. If badecker, the guy who didn't even know what entropy is, didn't know what a scientific theory meant and posts links that contradicts what he says, says so, it must be true, right? |
|
|
|
For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.
Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze. Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is. When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does. None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself. Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God. if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin. Nice. Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth. |
|
|
|
Each person has his own God in his soul, and if there are atheists, then it is useless to prove and argue about the existence of God.
Technically even if everyone believed in different gods there still would be atheists (sort of) Christians are atheists on all the other religions, for example. It's the same with all religions. |
|
|
|
For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe.
Hasty generalization fallacy: this author has failed to consider the full body of evidence, and falsely suggests that the experience of being near-death has no consistency across cultures and is therefore merely a "story". Also, Dr. Ian Stevenson studied reincarnation cases of children across many cultures and concluded that "culture and belief" alone is inadequate, i.e. low explanatory power. Is this author prepared to address the full body of evidence with an open mind? Or is he committed to his "story" explanation regardless of the evidence? Children’s Experiences. The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning. Worldwide Consistency. NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries. Carl Becker examined four ways in which NDEs may be considered objective: 1. Paranormal knowledge that is later verified 2. The similarity of deathbed events in different cultures 3. Differences between religious expectations and visionary experiences 4. Third-party observations of visionary figures, indicating that they were not merely subjective hallucinations. https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a07Chopra presents answers to such questions as: who you meet in the afterlife and how your experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die. Chopra opens up immense new areas of insights where ultimately there is no division between life and death - there is only one continuous creative project. Oh yea Dr Ian Stevenson LUL. Do you have any source that is not a complete fraud? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Stevensonhttp://skepdic.com/stevenson.htmlhttps://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/pjdg3/ian_stevensons_reincarnation_research/Give me a break. With Chopra do you mean Deepak Chopra?? https://www.quora.com/I-have-heard-that-physicists-call-Deepak-Chopra%E2%80%99s-claims-%E2%80%9Cwoo-woo%E2%80%9D-What-do-physicists-think-of-Deepak-Chopra-Does-Deepak-really-understand-quantum-physicsHe is a total nut job, there is an interview of him debating richard dawkins, you should watch that and have a good laugh. Stop embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief  ''should think critically before accepting other peoples belief '' Funny that someone like you would say something like that because you clearly haven't critically thought about anything in your life. You clearly don't even understand evolution so there is really no point in talking to you. You think species evolve from other species because they suddenly 1 type of species give birth to another? You think that's what evolution is? You think darwin said that a pair of monkeys suddenly gave birth to a fully functional human? I mean, you can just google it, it's not even hard but you prefer to be ignorant. You talk so silly. Every last thing in evolution theory can be applied to things other than evolution. In addition, there are several major things that show that evolution is impossible. Even if a person is not a scientist, and he goes about researching the Internet and the books about evolution... and even if he becomes all mixed up by talk between the people who believe in evolution, and those who don't... the thing that he has proven to himself is that evolution is a complete controversy that is far from being known as a reality. This makes people who think that evolution is real into religious nuts. Anybody who believes in evolution without studying it is a believer in a kind of unofficial religion. He is simply accepting some propaganda that others have pushed into books and into our way of life, without having anything to back it... especially in the light of all the things against it. The "bible" of scientific stuff for evolution has changed so dramatically over the last couple centuries, that anybody who believes it knows that he is believing in something that has no strength to it at all. Even though this is a science thread, and not a religious thread, the creation Bible has not changed at all over the last 1700 years, except that it has been translated. Evolution is a complete piece of stupidity hoax. Don't try to argue on science please. You already made a fool of yourself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24869208#msg24869208It's clear that you don't even have the most basic reading comprehension. ''Even if a person is not a scientist,'' Stop there, you already showed what happens when a person is not a scientist and tries to act as one. ^^^^^ Doing your research on google and religious websites about evolution is not going to do you any good, specially when you can't even understand the articles you read. Of course I showed what scientists are. They are people, and you are not one of them. What do people do? They hide the truth in favor of their pet belief, just like other people. That's why evolution is even on the books as a theory. Science that shows how impossible evolution is has been talked about all over the Internet, and in books. The rebuttals to the clear science that shows the stupidity of evolution, are so convoluted that they fall outside of evolution science into political science. In other words, the writers of those rebuttals use convoluted political science to hide their lies and ambiguity. Evolution is so utterly impossible that religion is the only word that can cover it. And you, Astargath, by acknowledging those convoluted rebuttals, show that all you have is religion for evolution. The ones that you posted here and I debunked one by one or others? Who cares about your opinion anyways, you are a religious nut who makes a fool of himself by posting links that contradict what you say, don't be ridiculous and stop commenting on science topics, it's not your thing, stick to religion. Except by accident now and again, everything you say comes from one or both of two major standpoints: 1. It comes from your religion, or; 2. It comes from political science speaking... which means that who cares what the truth is? All that counts is who can say it the most, thereby cluttering up the conversation until others fall away out of boredom. That explains you almost entirely. I debunked your arguments one by one, though. You have stated several times that evolution is impossible because it violates some scientific laws, however evolution theory violates no scientific law. You also tried to argue that ''It's only a theory'' which is one of the stupidest arguments, you clearly didn't know and probably still don't know what scientific theory actually is. You also tried to argue about how the first cell or living thing originated, however that's not what evolution is about, there are other scientific theories for that. You also tried to argue that a cell couldn't form because 200 random mutations in a row, bla bla, which was absolutely not true, not only are they not random but they also don't need to be 200 in a row. You made other points which I debunked, you can find them all here. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck.
That depends on the paper in question. With the PK studies reviewed by Radin/Bosch, the experts concluded that the methods are sound, experts from both sides of the debate manged to agree on that, yet you still claim that experts conclude the methods are not sound--you are confusing yourself, your own source (Bosch) said they are sound, read your own source! And what about Cunningham? You do not even know which methods he used so how can you question the soundness of those methods? You use argument from ignorance and hasty generalization again. Just because you refuse to evaluate the specific methods using reason does not mean that you or I are precluded from using reason to judge the methods and arrive at a conclusion. That is an argument from authority and from ignorance: "Only experts can judge the methods of a study", but when I point to Bosch, your own source, you are silent. "You or I cannot know if the methods are correct", but we can use reason to evaluate the facts presented and draw a sound conclusion, and if we are curious we can in fact conduct a replication study. ''The experts'' concluded that magic is not real long ago, why you still claim it's real? My own source SAID that even tho the experiments were done correctly THEY DIDN'T SHOW THAT MAGIC EXISTS, you should read it, not me. In an investigation of 380 studies a group of scientists (Bösch et al, 2006) have written a meta-analysis on the subject.[3] In their paper they wrote "statistical significance of the overall database provides no directive as to whether the phenomenon is genuine or not" and came to the conclusion that "publication bias appears to be the easiest and most encompassing explanation for the primary findings of the meta-analysis."[3] So contrary to what you might read in a parapsychology book, psychokinesis has not been scientifically proven. Now fuck off. |
|
|
|
Nukes are fake too.
So is the internet. There's a documentary made in the 1990's about nukes Trinity and Beyond I believe it was called, try watching it with a critical eye this time.  Dinosaurs are also fake, just FYI for you and for the idiot who doesn't science (Astargath) in a vacuum there remains aether, this gas-like material exerts a force on any objects within an evacuated chamber. Oh yea, ''aether'' Of course this schizo doesn't believe in gravity but he does believe in aether which has been proven wrong a long time ago but can you expect from someone with a mental illness. |
|
|
|
No, I don't want a complete explanation for gravity. I just want to know why gravity acts in the same way all over the Earth, i.e. why does everything fall straight down anywhere on the planet.
Objects denser than air will displace the atmosphere and it reacts by pushing them down causing them to fall, while objects lighter than air get pushed up causing them to rise. Thanks, are you a scientist by any chance or what's going on here? How about in a vacuum genius? https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/medicines-to-treat-schizophrenia#1 |
|
|
|
You are an atheist on all the other religions. https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htmNext time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius. Your arguments are growing increasingly erratic. I am not an atheist of other religions. I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslim all worship the same God and most educated practitioners of those faiths would agree with that assertion. There are differences of opinion on the proper way to worship God and and there are some who falsely invoke God's name to do evil. Error is to be expected in any human attempt to understand the infinite. This is why it is important to build our religious beliefs up from first principles rather then relying solely on organized authority to tell us what to believe. I don't believe in paganism, the worship of nature, or snake gods but that would make me a heretic from the perspective of those religions not an atheist. Regarding refusing medical care. I have never advocated anything of the sort. God helps those who help themselves. If you are ill the best strategy is to usually to pray for guidance and healing then start educating yourself on your illness its treatment and your options regarding doctors and seek out the highest quality care possible.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
I had never heard of Göbekli Tepe so I read the Wikipedia article on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_TepeFascinating history there. Yes you are, you don't believe in zeus or thor for example, you are an atheist of those religions. Don't be a hypocrite. I will just quote again something: Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future? Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works. That's a strong point there, it seems to me that your god is trying to hide from us and trying to make it as hard as possible to prove his existence, for what? So he can send us to hell? Christians have always been forced to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Give me one case where it has been the reverse. And back to all the scientific fuck ups the bible has: creationism vs. evolution...all of the following have been shown as wrong. Evolution : Genesis 1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun 2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land 3) Atmosphere before sea : Sea before atmosphere 4) Sun before light on earth : Light on earth before sun 5) Stars before earth : Earth before stars 6) Earth at same time as planets : Earth before other planets 7) Sea creatures before land plants : Land plants before sea creatures Earthworms before starfish : Starfish before earthworms 9) Land animals before trees : Trees before land animals 10) Death before man : Man before death 11) Thorns and thistles before man : Man before thorns and thistles 12) TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) : Man before TB pathogens and cancer 13) Reptiles before birds : Birds before reptiles 14) Land mammals before whales : Whales before land animals 15) Simple plants before fruit trees : Fruit trees before other plants* 16) Insects before mammals : Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”* 17) Land mammals before bats : Bats before land animals 18) Dinosaurs before birds : Birds before dinosaurs 19) Insects before flowering plants : Flowering plants before insects 20) Sun before plants : Plants before sun 21) Dinosaurs before dolphins : Dolphins before dinosaurs 22) Land reptiles before pterosaurs : Pterosaurs before land reptiles 23) Land insects before flying insects : Flying insects before land insects |
|
|
|
''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions. https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htmNext time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius. With one major difference. There's tons of proof all over the place that God exists. But there isn't any proof for unicorns. EDIT Regarding your link above, there is nothing outside of beliefs. Beliefs always exist. To suggest that they don't is simply another belief. The only thing that exists, is what your religion is... what your beliefs are. Where is all that proof?? In the other thread where I destroyed it and you can't even argue against my points? LOL. There is a ton or proof that unicorns exist, there are a lot of books and even videos of them, how can you deny their existence? |
|
|
|
So far, no scientist has been able to explain how natural selection could lead to such complex systems. Taking into account the results of research on the ways of interaction of elements of biochemical systems, it follows that these systems were purposefully conceived and created by a reasonable Creator.
http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=natural+selection+complex+structuresLots of talk. Entropy shows that complexity is degrading all over the place. The idea that entropy isn't affecting complexity, so that complexity of the kind that could produce evolution could exist, is only theoretical. It's like saying, "I don't know if the car is out of gas or not, but that's why it doesn't run." Or "I don't know if entropy affects complexity or not, but that is why evolution exists." Complete stupidity. Evolution is hoax beyond hoax. Evolution is just a fairy tale and there is nothing concrete to back it up at all. With all that they are constantly making claims to the contrary without anything to back it up. How did you come up with that conclusion? |
|
|
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief ''should think critically before accepting other peoples belief '' Funny that someone like you would say something like that because you clearly haven't critically thought about anything in your life. You clearly don't even understand evolution so there is really no point in talking to you. You think species evolve from other species because they suddenly 1 type of species give birth to another? You think that's what evolution is? You think darwin said that a pair of monkeys suddenly gave birth to a fully functional human? I mean, you can just google it, it's not even hard but you prefer to be ignorant. You talk so silly. Every last thing in evolution theory can be applied to things other than evolution. In addition, there are several major things that show that evolution is impossible. Even if a person is not a scientist, and he goes about researching the Internet and the books about evolution... and even if he becomes all mixed up by talk between the people who believe in evolution, and those who don't... the thing that he has proven to himself is that evolution is a complete controversy that is far from being known as a reality. This makes people who think that evolution is real into religious nuts. Anybody who believes in evolution without studying it is a believer in a kind of unofficial religion. He is simply accepting some propaganda that others have pushed into books and into our way of life, without having anything to back it... especially in the light of all the things against it. The "bible" of scientific stuff for evolution has changed so dramatically over the last couple centuries, that anybody who believes it knows that he is believing in something that has no strength to it at all. Even though this is a science thread, and not a religious thread, the creation Bible has not changed at all over the last 1700 years, except that it has been translated. Evolution is a complete piece of stupidity hoax. Don't try to argue on science please. You already made a fool of yourself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24869208#msg24869208It's clear that you don't even have the most basic reading comprehension. ''Even if a person is not a scientist,'' Stop there, you already showed what happens when a person is not a scientist and tries to act as one. ^^^^^ Doing your research on google and religious websites about evolution is not going to do you any good, specially when you can't even understand the articles you read. Of course I showed what scientists are. They are people, and you are not one of them. What do people do? They hide the truth in favor of their pet belief, just like other people. That's why evolution is even on the books as a theory. Science that shows how impossible evolution is has been talked about all over the Internet, and in books. The rebuttals to the clear science that shows the stupidity of evolution, are so convoluted that they fall outside of evolution science into political science. In other words, the writers of those rebuttals use convoluted political science to hide their lies and ambiguity. Evolution is so utterly impossible that religion is the only word that can cover it. And you, Astargath, by acknowledging those convoluted rebuttals, show that all you have is religion for evolution. The ones that you posted here and I debunked one by one or others? Who cares about your opinion anyways, you are a religious nut who makes a fool of himself by posting links that contradict what you say, don't be ridiculous and stop commenting on science topics, it's not your thing, stick to religion. |
|
|
|
Which sex is God?
Does He have a penis or a vagina?
If He has either...and there is only one God...why would he need reproductive organs?
God is a man, without a doubt. Because only a rational mindset could create the universe, and this is implicit only in men If god existed I don't think he would like you being sexist, be careful you might go to hell. If your silly god existed he would obviously have no gender, you guys are stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
